1. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Sorry Oxy- you are just digging a deeper hole and exposing your..er...lack of knowledge...regarding typical building implosions.

    Building implosions are designed so that the material is collapsed in on itself- creating as small a debris field as possible.

    They do not have large parts of the facade of the building, the steel infrastructure ejected out in a massive EXplosion scattering debris for blocks.

    Of course, you completely ignored the questions:

    Can you show ANY controlled demolition that looks even remotely like this?

    Can you show Any demolition that has material exploding up and outward?

    If its normal you will be able to show similar examples.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    There's actually no material "exploding up" in the WTC. It all goes down and some of it also goes outwards.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And of course there ARE demolitions that look like the WTC collapse (albeit a lot smaller), but for some reason OXY says they do not:

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  4. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    I guess I can see that- its seems like some of the dust/smoke is going up and I assume some material was in that...and a few small pieces in the pics look to in an upward trajectory- but I see what you mean.

    The point remains is that the behavior of the material in the collapse is counter to what is strived for in "normal" demolitions using explosives (aside from not toppling over)
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Yes, it's not an implosion, which is what a normal demolition would be. It's also not bottom up, which is what normal demolition would be. It also lacked noise of explosives, and any evidence in the rubble of explosives. Collapse also started on the floors that were on fire, meaning there were no explosives on those floors.
  6. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Watch the actual collapse initiation. What does it look like is happening?


    It's initially a partial collapse. The area above the impact point, and to the right collapses, at the floors that that damaged and/or are on fire. That collapse happens about half a second before the entire top of the building comes down. By the time the block is hitting undamaged floors, it's already dropped around 8 floors.
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  7. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Have the forces been calculated, ie, the weight of the section above the impact, how much force it would bring down to the area just below it, and the blow-out (initial explosion of material) associated with it?

    Edit. is that a fall of two floors before the bottom line of fire?
  8. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    I think the main problem is that we perceive buildings like the WTC as rigid structures, much like a jenga tower as Oxy referred to eariler. Skyscrapers are rigid, only as long as their structural elements remain in place. Once a few key pieces are gone, it's more like a house of cards falling down. Another thing to keep in mind is that gravity pulls straight down. There were no others forces pushing things sideways.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    It is strange that people expect their common sense/logic experience of things at ground-level scales should apply to something that is on such a massive scale and far and beyond anything they have ever experienced in their daily life.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    I don't get where you say an 'implosion' is a 'normal demolition'. Implosions are specialist demolitions not 'normal'. Also 'implosions' require massive advance deconstruction and weakening and vacating an area of material to allow other material to 'go into' the space.

    Agreed but it is entirely possible to sequence downward explosions and how many and how big would they need to be?

    Your view, AFAICS, is that they collapsed due to fire fatigue of the beams. 7 is put down to a single beam failing.

    My view is, for them to fall so symetrically and totally, they would need to be aided by taking out some key support. I do not see that would require a large amount of explosives to help it on it's way.

    Yes it was 'messy' compared to a demolition which goes well but they were all very 'surgical' for 3 random collapses especially considering the way the top was nearly falling off on 2 at one point and the beam in 7 was way off to the side. In fact, considering their size, they were cleaner than some failed demolitions.

    I would only call it a 'partial collapse' if it stopped for a reasonable time, at least a few minutes. What I see is a continuation of the collapse.

    Which is why some theorise about 'exotic substances'. Also there is no way to prove completely that the 'compression puffs' were not some form of explosion. You recognise yourself that accounts of explosions could be falling debris but appear not to consider it the other way round. Why one way only?
  11. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    Yes gravity only pulls down but 'the house of cards', when it falls never 'falls into a pack of cards', there are many forces at work and things will naturally spread out rather than funnel in.

    Also the falling debris is hitting the solid building under it and will take the path of least resistance... around it. Imagine using a jetter pointing straight down on a solid object, it would take the path of least resistance but may also damage or erode the object it is hitting.
  12. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    There's no airspace in a Jenga pile.
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I don't think it's really that strange. People are used to "scale models" being used of various things, and the vast majority of people simply don't have the experience of comparing physics at various scales, especially largely different scales. When people hear that an ant can carry 100x it's own weight, they just think "wow, ants are really strong", when really it should be "wow, ants are really small". If you scaled an ant up to human size, it would not be able to lift it's own limbs, and would just collapse and die. It's just not something people are familiar with, so it's not really strange that people don't get it.
  14. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And if you were to scale that up, the Jenga pile would be about 10,000x as strong as the towers. It's a meaningless comparison.
  15. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    The weight and energy of the floors above the compression cloud could be estimated to at least rule out physical impossibility of it being caused by compression.
    Although a 'compression cloud' does seem a fairly nebulous thing to calculate correctly.
  16. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    But, it isn't a 'solid' building. By that point, there are hundreds of tons of material impacting areas which weren't meant to support that much weight.
  17. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    You are missing the point. That picture is to represent the 'result' of the tower collapsed in it's own footprint.

    It would need building up first, with spaces in between to a greater height. Then to be imploded... leaving the nice neat pile in its own footprint.

    I am simply demonstrating how impossible it would be... beyond physics but is it beyond Metabunk Metaphysics?

    Steel falling and melting due to kinetic energy

    Aluminium tubes cutting through solid steel.

    Knives that cannot cut butter. Butter that cuts knives. Where does it end?

    A single support column failing only on one side of a massive high rise office results in a perfectly symmetrical collapse of entire building. Albeit we are led to believe an asymetric internal collapse which no one has seen and no data is provided for, has previously taken place inside.

    Concrete that is so soft it offers no resistance

    It's all in a days work here at Metabunk
  18. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    Your analogy with jenga still makes not sense.

    Now you're throwing back all the previously debunked material, presenting it in the same simplistic, erroneous manner. I.e.: Aluminum tubes that cut through solid steel. You might as well be a creationist trumpeting "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys, ha ha?" over and over again at various points in a discussion. "Falling in its own footprint" is defined by you as a house of cards ending up back in the pack. "One single column falling and resulting in a perfectly symmetrical collapse."

    As you say, all in a days work: the bunk flying over and over and around and around, and you have shown absolutely no proof to support any of your "theories". And it will never end, because you will never stop JAQing off, there will always be something that looks fishy, does not look feasible, looks like something else.

    Help me to understand what it is to you that is so troubling about the events of that day, and what exactly you think happened, in a nutshell.
  19. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    You're quite right, there's absolutely no proof to support the above 'theory'. Only issue being its not Oxy's theory, it's what NIST pumped out in their computer 'recreation' of the events... which seems to rather directly suggest a single column collapse led to a long chain-reaction of internal failures that brought down the whole building. You ever see it? It's pretty convincing. It just has no readily apparent basis in reality, especially given they wont release the data with which they compiled it.

    What wasn't troubling about them...?
  20. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    No building is 'solid', otherwise it would not be a building, it would be an obelisk!

    However, as evidenced by statements after the 93 bombing, those buildings were designed to withstand a direct hit from a fully fueled 707 traveling at 600 mph and the resultant fire. At no time was it envisaged that they would totally collapse.

    Naturally, given that they did collapse, the architect is hardly likely to disagree with the NIST findings which exonerate... he therefore recanted and said 707, traveling slowly, (lost in fog :)), low on fuel. Really, strange parameters to set don't you think, as they were looking to factor in the worst case scenario :confused:

    I wonder if he would be working on the massive high rises he currently is working on, if he had disagreed with NIST.

    NB Rhetorical question.
  21. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    New uses for Jenga... 'Don't panic...this building is built from Jenga blocks and we all know Jenga doesn't collapse' :confused: More Metaphysics?
  22. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    They were not DESIGNED to withstand that. They did some calculation to see what would happen in an impact, and they found that it looked like the building would not collapse from the impact. This seems to have been mostly an extension of the wind load calculations.

    And indeed the towers did not collapse. They held up very well, even though it was a bigger plane that hit them.

    They DID NOT design the buildings to withstand the stripping of the fire insulation, and the fire. Not only was the stripping of the insulation not considered (that we have any evidence of), there was no real way at the time (in the 1960s) to simulate the effects of an hour long fire on multiple floors.
  23. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    No. Real physics. Things simply do not scale as you would expect.

    One of the problems of the WTC collapse videos is that they are generally from some distance away. So it kind of looks like a little model. You don't get a sense of what is actually happening in the collapse.

    Try to imagine it from inside instead:

    See the vast area of unsupported ceiling? Think about the 20 floors above it? The huge weight, thousands of tons of steel. What happens when you remove all those colums on the outside, and start to weaken the columns in the center? What happens when the upper block starts to fall. Picture it, standing in the office above. What happens as those thousands of tons come down from floor to ceiling?
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  24. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    They must have just been bigging themselves up after the bombing then

    Mick please, listen to yourself... that is perfect Orwellian 'Newspeak'

    So they were designed to withstand a 707, low on fuel and traveling slowly as the pilot squints through the fog, and then collapse after an hour or so due to the resultant fires.

    That's called planning ?
  25. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    What's newspeak about that? They did not collapse from the impact, so that aspect of the calculations was correct.

    They obvious did not plan for them to collapse after a fire. They just did not design them to withstand this precise type of fire.

    Perhaps you could point me to the evidence that indicates they DID consider this exact type of fire?
  26. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    It is Newspeak because, and I should not need to be saying this, no one designs a building to withstand an aircraft hit and does not take into account the result.


    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
  27. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    The failure had to BEGIN somewhere, don't you agree?

    Perhaps I wasn't clear: what was troubling about them that would point to something OTHER than some terrorists hijacked planes and caused death and destruction.
  28. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    The buildings weren't hit by a 707 were they?
  29. Oxymoron

    Oxymoron Banned Banned

    They were hit by 767's which are slightly heavier but not much in it.
  30. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    And they did not collapse from the impact. It's rather a moot point. You need to establish exactly what analysis there was of damage from fire, and if they anticipated this type of fire. Your long excerpt above seems to indicate they did not.
  31. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    Surely. But before I put any faith in it, I'd like to know that the CG 'recreation' portraying how the failure took place, something which took NIST 7 years to produce, hasn't been pulled out of a computer technician's ass based on the exterior appearance of the collapse as video-taped in order to fit the official story. As I mentioned in previous threads, that they released this CG 'recreation' with an unquestionably fictional account of 'what would have happened' if the building hadn't taken damage from the collapse of the towers, in which the collapse for some inexplicable reason is initiated in the exact same place and yet progresses in a far more chaotic, far less 'demolition'-like fashion, increases my doubt of the 'recreation', as if the second video is an absolute fiction (which it unquestionably is) what proof is there that the first isn't? Especially considering NIST won't share the data with which it compiled this 'recreation'.

    That they managed to successfully circumvent the most powerful security force on the planet multiple times at multiple stages, that they somehow managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in some fucked up 'seven-ten split' many consider beyond belief, and that in the direct wake of the attack investigations began on the wrong foot, and went stumbling suspiciously toward gross inadequacy from there.... not to mention the fact there's been absolutely no blame/accountability assigned to those who allowed the attack to take place, (one would at least expect minor charges of criminal negligence to the security personnel or airport security policy makers who allowed multiple hijackers to board single planes carrying weapons) and the Administration and organizations that failed that day had, rather than suffer scrutiny, punishment, or restructuring, been granted all the more power, reach, and political 'confidence'. There's also a whole host of terribly suspicious coincidences surrounding the people involved that have never been investigated, and efforts to 'follow the money' have been deliberately halted with no real explanation as to why, beyond the ludicrous and offensive notion that 'it doesn't matter.', as stated in the 9/11 commission.
  32. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    You keep saying things like that, and it sounds awesome, but what does it actually entail? Just two ordinary things.

    1) Getting into the US
    2) Getting on a plane

    How exactly were those things in any way difficult?
    • Like Like x 1
  33. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I've had a fair level of difficulty with each in the past, and I'm a white yuppie with a Canadian passport and no box-cutters/pepper-spray to speak of, typically only flying a few-hundred miles or so, and without my name (so far as I know) in any FBI/CIA databases.

    *with box cutters, pepper spray, and a plot to wreak havoc on a nation specifically alerted of such a threat and with all the power and influence to respond to it with overwhelming force. Immigrating from Saudi-Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon into the USA is extremely difficult now, but it was by no stretch of the imagination a cake-walk in 2000. There are conditions which apparently some of the hijackers didn't meet, and tests which some of the hijackers apparently didn't succeed at, and yet somehow the vast majority of them managed to get state-side anyway. This would absolutely not have been an easy feat, requiring little coordination. There has been and remains a strong belief amongst many pertinent professionals that it wouldn't have been possible without the help of Saudi-Arabian authorities.

    I met a guy who'd just immigrated from Lebanon once. I was waiting for a bus, and he got off one in a rage at the driver, who refused to give him a transfer, as you're supposed to ask for one as you get on, not as you get off, which this guy had absolutely no way of knowing. He started screaming and shouting about how this was supposed to be a land of tolerance and opportunity, and seems to him instead to be the very land of racism. He then started shouting about how afraid we are of his people blowing things up, and how no wonder they're blowing things up with the way the west works... at which point I saw folks start looking rather nervous/getting on their cellphones urgently. When I saw the cops on approach down the busy Main-street, I approached the guy, introduced myself, asked him where he was from. "I am from LEBANON!" he shouted out, not at me but at the sky, and before the cops could track him down I invited him for a beer. He agreed, rapidly calmed, and we had a pretty decent, albeit brief discussion about his situation. The story, albeit brief, he gave me of the process of his immigration made my own difficulties with international travel sound like the whines of a spoiled child.
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I'd agree it would be better if they released the data, but I don't share your incredulity with the simulations.

    Remember the collapse is really in two stages. The interior structure collapses and then the extrior skin. The difference is in the way the skin collapses.

    The building with damage forms a kink where the damage is. Which makes the skin collapse from the bottom down. The building without damage retains the stiffness at the bottom, so the skin folds in from the top.

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
  35. SR1419

    SR1419 Senior Member

    Despite your anecdotes, it is fairly common for people from other countries to visit for work or pleasure or to immigrate to the United States.

    These are the numbers of people who immigrated to the US from the respective countries in 1999.

    Lebanon: 3,040

    Egypt: 4,429

    Saudi Arabia: 763


    The fact that some of the potential hijackers didn't get in runs contrary to the idea that they had help.
  36. Grieves

    Grieves Senior Member

    I think the figure is 15/19, isn't it?
    Have a similar list of those who were turned down in their efforts to immigrate from those countries? Haven't been able to google anything up just yet, and Friday night approaches so I'm not going to try to hard... but I'd bet my evenings beers that those figures are significantly larger.

    I don't see how considering the large majority of them, so far as we know, did get in in spite of discrepancies in their applications. In any event, I can't begin to imagine how such an effort would have been made without help. Its not as if Osama and 19 guys were sitting around smoking the hookah when OBL came up with a crazy plot, the 19 guys said 'yeah man, lets do it...!!' and they all started immigrating with ease the next day.
  37. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

  38. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    B Visa refusal rate by nation 2006:
    Egypt 32.9%
    Lebanon 26.9%
    Saudi Arabia 11.3%

    But really it seems like the visa approval process was pretty sloppy back then, particularly with introduction of "visa express"


  39. Paradigm_shift

    Paradigm_shift New Member

    NIST does not support the pancake theory. That has been debunked.
  40. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The early"Pancake Theory" is different from the vernacular usage of the term. Clearly when one floor failed it would fall on the lower floor, which people (including engineers) often refer to as pancaking. The older "debunked" theory was about the initiation of the collapse, not the progression. See

    • Informative Informative x 1