Former employee of Controlled Demolition, Inc. talks about the WTC collapses

Originally posted by pteridine

"Research" in this case consists of cut-and-paste from somegroup-for-911-truth websites.
I have asked before and have never had a reasoned answer to the following:
People have seen many videos of controlled demolition of buildings but have not seen videos of accidental collapse to compare them with. If WTC was brought down with CD, how would accidental collapse, as described by the NIST report, have differed?

Exactly. It appears I backed Bonez into the exact same corner, as I got him to admit that these imagined controlled demolitions did NOT need to be planted on every floor. Since he's admitting the collapsing section of the building had the necessary force to overcome the structural integrity of some of the lower floors, it necessarily means it had the force to destroy ALL the lower floors since all the floors were identical. There didnt have the be controlled demolitions in the WTC for the towers to fall in the way it did, meaning Bonez is admitting the NIST and FEMA reports are correct after all!

It's clear why Bonez is reluctant to provide an answer to this- he's exhausted the information those damned fool conspiracy web sites had been spoon feeding him and he's now being forced to think critically on his own.

Hi to everyone.

After reading this thread with interest, I found it out that most of people here have deviated from the original topic and instead of concentrating on how the WTC was actually demolished (or whether it was demolished) the discussion shifted towards the 'planes'. Many photos of planes were posted above. But it seems no one has paid any attention to pre-9/11 meaning of the 'ground zero' term. While this pre-9/11 definition alone (note PRE-9/11 one, since nobody cares about the post 9/11 one) could shed light on the actual demolition method used in the WTC case. Here are some other pictures - from old pre-9/11 dictionaries for your reference.


The above one is from The Random House College Dictionary (Edition 1966, printed in 1973, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 68-19699).


The above one is from Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (Edition 1989, printed in 1994, ISBN 0-517-11888-2).



The above one if from Collins English Dictionary, Major New Edition (Third Edition 1991, ISBN 0 00 433286-5 Standard).

And two more below to compare pre-9/11 definition and post-9/11 definition of 'ground zero' term in the 2 editions of the very same Longman American Dictionary


The above one is from Longman Advanced American Dictionary (new, first published 2000, ISBN 0 582 31732 0).

And the below one is from Longman Advanced American Dictionary (second edition 2007, ISBN 978 1 40582 9540) - just compare the two above and below:



I am sure that many will ignore this post completely and proceed to discuss the rest of this conspiracy as if nothing were posted here about the dictionaries, but still, I hope some reasonable people might get some idea from this post. If this is not a smoking gun, then what is the smoking gun in your opinion?

reply to post by pteridine


telling me you didn't know that wreckage was found inside the Pentagon either?

When exactly did I state that? lol nice try

First off; the wreckage has not been shown to belong to flight 77? There has been material found at the site of the crash that are unidentifiable as belonging to a RB-211 Engine (picture evidence provided in prior posts) secondly saying that someone is a conspiracy theorist does not make it so; third no one trying to debunk this information has shown any proof as to the picture evidence provided by the Government to prove the existence of a RB-211; forth the hypothesis I put forth was to address a possible mode of transportation of the materials in question; why would the Pentagon dispatch a C-130 to identify the aircraft in question? Why would they not have dispatched fighter jets to identify the aircraft so they had the ability to shoot the aircraft in question down if need be?

Just a few more unanswered questions.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

P.S. I follow no ones opinions or ideas but my own that I can logically ask questions in pursuit of the facts.

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
P.S. I follow no ones opinions or ideas but my own that I can logically ask questions in pursuit of the facts.

That's not going to make sense to the people who are arguing with you.

All they know how to do is generalize people and put them into boxes. If you say you think for yourself, I don't think they can even comprehend what that means.

reply to post by MolecularPhD


I told you I had a lot to say about the Pentagon, and American Airlines flight 77.

BUT, this thread is supposed to be about the WTC.

However, from the gist of your post, it is obvious that you have been fed some erroneous information regarding the RB-211 pieces...there are numerous ATS threads that address a whole host of facts surrounding AA 77.

Also, not to deflect or derail this thread, but since you're interested THIS link is a good start, too.

Also, the ANG C-130 was not "dispatched" to see AA 77 --- it had coincidentally just departed Andrews AFB, en route to Minnesota, and was right there, right time to have the 'traffic' (AA 77) pointed out, and the crew provided visual confirmation.


[edit on 11 May 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by 911thology


The reason for bringing up the planes is simple really; you see you can speculate if explosive charges were present or if they were not present all day and twice on Sunday; this form of finding the truth is futile to say the least and can never conclusively be proven (unless a person came out and blew the whistle on being directly involved in placing those charges and had evidence to back up their claims) not likely. On the other hand there is a mountain of scientific evidence (sheer physics) much easier to prove as the building did not collapse; evidence collected at the scene of the attack; video, and photographic evidence; that could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the physical evidence found in and around the Pentagon does not support the crash site of a 757; secondly it affords a real method of reopening the investigation into what really took place and what really hit the Pentagon; in my opinion if the people truly want to know the truth they will stop trying to prove something that is unprovable and focus on something that is because, if the evidence from the Pentagon was allowed to be evaluated by a real panel of scientist IE. material engineers IE.. Metallurgists, structural engineers of the aircraft in question, Rolls Royce Engineers of the RB-211, Scientist in the field of Physics; Hazardous Material Specialist IE.. the EPA Fuels Division (to test the soil around the crash site); and the list could go on and on; this was the greatest tragedy ever to be committed on US soil; if the people in charge were doing their job to set the minds of the public at ease they would put together a panel of researchers and scientist the best in their respective fields of study (not hacks) and allow an unbiased evaluation of the physical evidence at the scene of the crime to find the truth; just like they do at any other crime scene in the nation; then we could get to the facts of this case and you could once and for all say "SEE I TOLD YOU SO!" whichever side happened to be right; I am not saying one side is right and I am not saying one side is wrong; what I am saying is there is a mountain of unanswered questions that need to be answered to put this tragedy to rest; so all Americans can begin to heal and the families can begin to heal. Faith that something did or did not happen is not proof of fact; just thought I would point that out.

I would also like to add that; as scientists we are asked to be skeptics; and the most important thing a scientist can do is ask questions; and answering those questions that are posed through logical thought processes and evidence of proof eventually leads to the truth in most cases.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
It absolutely does not necessarily mean that no floors required explosives besides the impact floors. Most steel-structured building demolitions have explosives from top to bottom. And that doesn't mean on every single floor either. There's a reason why they put explosives from top to bottom in those buildings. Because blowing one floor will not weaken the structure below it and the building would not completely collapse.

...but you STILL haven't answered the question. The building collapsed starting at the point of impact of the planes and the chain reaction of structural failure worked its way sequentially down from that point to the bottom through each floor, like vertical dominos. It didn't collapse in groups of floors at a time, as controlled demolitions are set up to do. It collapsed one floor at a time, in sequence. This is what every video of the collapse shows so if you are attempting to claim it fell in any other way then you are lying. Likewise, you are now acknowledging that not every floor had these imagined controlled demolitions on it, so if you're trying to deny THAT now, you will be lying.

THEREFORE, since a) the collapse started up at the ninety-somethingth floor and worked it's way down sequentially through each floor one at a time, and b) you're acknowledging that not every floor had explosives, you are necessarily saying c) the cascading structural failure had the force necessary to instigate the structural failure of one or more subsequent floors on its own accord, without assistance of controlled demolitions. If you're attempting to disavow THAT, then you will be contradicting your own statements A and/or B.

The point is, 1) since the chain reaction of structural failure has sufficient force to cause the additional structural failure of at least one floor without the assistance of controlled dmeolitions, and 2) since the floors fell sequentually one at a time in turn, then it necessarily means 3) the chain reaction of collapse had sufficient force to cause the structural failure of EVERY floor, since every floor had a similar design, so these hypothetical conspirators of yours didn't even need to use controlled demolitions to achieve the result we all saw. You are attempting to add unnecessary and unwarranted layers of conspiracy into the mix with these controlled demolitions stories of yours.

That massive steel structures that were the twin towers and WTC 7 would not have fallen from minimal damage, nor from fires either.

Bait and switch. The discussion of what caused the chain reaction of structural failure is a separate area from what originally instigated the chain reaction of structural failure. That said, every video likewise showed that the initial structural faulure occured at or near the area of impact of the planes, and if you're going to deny THAT you will be lying. Therefore, you are required to take that fact into account in your conspiracy stories.

Who's concocting things now? By NIST's own numbers the damage was not substantial to either tower from the plane impacts. Remember: 15% damage to the structure in the impact zones leaving 85% of the structure intact. 15% damage is not substantial by any means. Especially the massive structures that were the twin towers.

It was not exclusively from the impact damage that caused the towers to fall. It wasn't exclusively from the jet fuel-instigated fires that caused the towers to collapse. It wasn't even the peculiaar design of the building that no other building in the world (except each othe) used. It was a combination of all these factors that caused the towers to fall.

If you disagree with this as being improbable, that's your right, but that does NOT give you licence to try and introduce these paranoid "secretly planted controlled demolitions in an occupied building" stories that are even more improbable to the point of absurdity.

reply to post by weedwhacker


The reason for my focus on these particular parts is James Lawrence is a personal friend of mine; when I showed Jim a few photos taken at the crash site at the pentagon; Jim laughed and said that did not come from my engine; it is as simple as that; which is why I have posed the questions I have. If you have evidence to prove Jim wrong I would love to show that evidence to him; as he has offered to be one of the panelist I spoke of in my prior post.

Maybe one day we will get to the truth; but it wont be today.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
First off; the wreckage has not been shown to belong to flight 77? There has been material found at the site of the crash that are unidentifiable as belonging to a RB-211 Engine (picture evidence provided in prior posts) secondly saying that someone is a conspiracy theorist does not make it so; third no one trying to debunk this information has shown any proof as to the picture evidence provided by the Government to prove the existence of a RB-211;

Once again, you are asking questions that have already been answered years ago. The black box to flight 77 has also been recovered which is physical evidence that it was in fact flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon, but sicne you obviuously reject that, then it is apparently only photographic evidence that you acknowledge. Thus, I present the following analysis of the photographic evidence by aerospace professionals-

Analysis of flight 77 wreckage at the Pentagon

I will debate you no longer on this. I don't need to remind you that you are diverting the discussion further and further away from the topic of the OP, which is about the WTC, not the Pentagon. Please start another thread if you feel so strongly about this.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Aerospace Engineers? it looks like my seventeen year old child created that for his high school show and tell.

Also the image in the middle of that document is the image that I referenced to Jim; and the diameter of that compressor hub in the photo could not have come from a RB-211 its that simple.

When you can reference a real scientific report performed by real scientists using an established scientific method that can be peer reviewed; you will prove your right. As for the so called "Blackbox" being from that flight you can only take the word of those that have listened to it; which I do not; someone making claims without physical evidence IE.. the full transcript of that recording being released to the public for review maybe; or the review by professionals that have no ties to the power's that be.

LOL your evidence is no evidence at all; you really lost credibility with me when you cited that website obviously created by a novice at best.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
I follow no ones opinions or ideas but my own that I can logically ask questions in pursuit of the facts.

Mandelbrot man,
While you are logically asking questions of your own opinions and ideas, you might want to logically ask which posts you are answering. It is considered good form to write replies that have something to do with the posts.
While I am here, the theory of a much smaller missile striking the Pentagon has serious technical difficulties.

reply to post by pteridine


Those technical difficulties would be what exactly?

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

P.S. it is not a Mandelbrot; it is a Julia Set by the way?

reply to post by MolecularPhD


The size and type of impact explosion and the extent and type of damage preclude a smaller missile. The fireball was due to large amounts of vaporized hydrocarbon fuel igniting and not a smaller high explosive warhead. No cruise missile is capable of carrying that amount of fuel. A fuel laden commercial airplane is the best non-nuclear cruise missile available for the destruction of soft targets. It turns out that, in many cases, the incendiary qualities of missiles cause more damage than the warheads, e.g., the attack on HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War. The fatal damage was done by fires from burning Exocet propellant scattered on impact.
Some proponents of various conspiracies like to claim that thousands of gallons of Jet-A were planted inside and outside the Pentagon, ready for carefully timed deflagration. This is really the long way around conspiracywise, and really makes no sense as it is much easier just to crash a plane into the target.
I recommend that you try your hand at the radio-controlled plane conspiracy where the passengers are explained away by other, more imaginative theories.

Originally posted by NightGypsy

Jthomas . . . give it up. BoneZ has proven his credibility with posts that have research behind them.

I disagree and have shown why.

reply to post by MolecularPhD



In fairness to the person who started the thread about the former employee of Controlled Demolition Inc...

...it might be an idea to start a thread on what your saying and detail it. Sounds interesting, perhaps others who know something could join in with regards to the issues you are rasing.


That way we could have more then one interesting thread going at the same time






[edit on 11-5-2010 by talisman]

reply to post by pteridine



As I am a scientist and not a "Conspiracy Theorist" I think you are doing a fine enough job for the both of us; lol as for you hypothesis if in fact as you claim that large amounts of jet fuel was present then it should be easy for the Government to supply soil samples taken at the crime scene? if such samples exist then there should be a report and a named laboratory that performed the testing and their findings; scientists who have put their name and reputation on the line with their data?

Where is a copy of the Metallurgy Report of material samples found at the scene of the crime that would show the exact thermodynamics that were involved? Where is a copy of the chain of evidence collected at the scene? Where is a list of all personnel directly tasked with examining these materials and their data for review?

You know I could keep asking these types of questions for the next hour or so; why you ask? well because they are "SOP"; for one of the greatest crimes committed in this country there sure seems to be a lot of incompetent people working the case.

I just love how you guys keep name calling. lol

Pretty Childish for people who are claiming to have their facts straight.

reply to post by talisman


You maybe right; as I was not trying to have the thread go along these lines; I was simply stating what I saw to be obvious flaws; concerns; and questions that may lead to some truth.

I was hoping to steer the people who really are looking for the truth from following the explosives angle which will lead nowhere.

Wake up people the truth lies in the "Standard Operating Procedures" not being followed; not even close to be being followed at the Pentagon.

Just a thought or two; and my apologies to the OP!

Respectfully

MolecularPHD

Originally posted by MolecularPhD
reply to post by pteridine

 

As I am a scientist and not a "Conspiracy Theorist" I think you are doing a fine enough job for the both of us; lol as for you hypothesis if in fact as you claim that large amounts of jet fuel was present then it should be easy for the Government to supply soil samples taken at the crime scene? if such samples exist then there should be a report and a named laboratory that performed the testing and their findings; scientists who have put their name and reputation on the line with their data?

Where is a copy of the Metallurgy Report of material samples found at the scene of the crime that would show the exact thermodynamics that were involved? Where is a copy of the chain of evidence collected at the scene? Where is a list of all personnel directly tasked with examining these materials and their data for review?

You know I could keep asking these types of questions for the next hour or so; why you ask? well because they are "SOP"; for one of the greatest crimes committed in this country there sure seems to be a lot of incompetent people working the case.

I just love how you guys keep name calling. lol

Pretty Childish for people who are claiming to have their facts straight.

The only reason for the Government to test soil samples from the scene would be for environmental mitigation of the soil from unburned fuel near the impact point. As a forensic tool, it would be meaningless because the helipad would have contaminated the ground since the day it was first used. Componding the issue is residual diesel from the gen set tank. Maybe such reports of analyses exist somewhere.
There is really no doubt that the fireball was a deflagration of a large quantity of hydrocarbons and nothing else because of its size and flame characteristcs, alone. Further, witnesses claimed that the smell of Jet-A permeated the building. I suspect air samples were taken and analyzed mainly for safety reasons and combustible vapor detectors were deployed for the same reasons.
Metallurgy reports are not good sources for "exact thermodynamics." The thermodynamics are those of burning Jet-A and the combustible contents of the offices and aircraft, including the structural metal. My bet is that this fire had many different combustion zones with bunches of different, time and diffusion dependent thermodynamics. Knowing all of the time-temperature curves and ambient oxygen concentrations in the affected volume is not attainable and would not provide any real information other than fires burned.
Why do you think that "for one of the greatest crimes committed in this country there sure seems to be a lot of incompetent people working the case?" You have no idea who is working on what and also assume that this is one of the "greatest crimes." It isn't a crime until it has been proved a crime and lack of knowledge to the contrary on your part is not evidence of a crime. Further, if it was a crime and occurred any way similar to the contrived, elaborate stories that have been postulated, those involved are anything but incompetent.
I did not maliciously name call. I was thinking of tweaking you about the humor of your excessive "lol's" but thought better of it.

Funny how you state this:

Originally posted by MolecularPhD

I just love how you guys keep name calling. lol

and immediately follow it with this:

Pretty Childish for people who are claiming to have their facts straight.

You complain about name calling, then name call in the very next sentence

reply to post by pteridine


All of what you posted is pure conjecture nothing more nothing less; you are assuming a whole lot with no facts; and your assumption as to the uses of the information shows your lack of knowledge on forensics; further more I have not seen real scientific evidence posted that proves anything; and to make the claim that this is not a crime is purely ludicrous.

As for the guy saying I named called; saying someone is childish is a comparison to a character trait not a name call; just thought I would point that out.

Whole lot of HOT AIR so far. For there being so much evidence showing the official story to be true; I have not seen one piece of scientific data done by a real lab; with real scientists, which by the way have put their carriers on the line to back up their findings.

Respectfully

MolecularPHD