truthaction.org

[Diane]

On my blog I just now posted a page titled Demolition of WTC: Let’s not overstate the case, please. Below is an excerpt from the beginning of the post:

[casseia]

It's important to make a distinction between "controlled demolition" and explosive destruction, or whatever other non-technical term you might want to employ. The question for most people is whether the destruction of 1 and 2 could be the result of damage at the top leading the buildings to "fall down" or whether that hypothesis is contradicted by the video record. *How* an alternative kind of destruction might have been accomplished is a separate issue. That it is contradicted should not be.

[Diane]

[medicis]

Frankly, I believe the argument for explosive demolition is not difficult to defend methodically and among the various scientific analyses available at the journal for 911 studies that are seminal on this are the following two. Further, I think Kuttler's computer model for 'collapse' times is more appropriate in an analysis of fall time. And Grabbe' argument salient with respect to evidence for explosions.


Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage ?Dr. Crockett Grabbe

Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1 (May 9, 2007)?Dr. Kenneth Kuttler, Professor of Mathematics

In addition, I think Richard Gage does a very good job providing a convincing argument that is understandable by the lay person.

For the time being (and probably for all of eternity - should there be such a thing) I support controlled explosions. I give much credence to what these people present - not because of their professional backgrounds (though that doesn't hurt) but because their arguments are substantially more convincing to me.

[casseia]

Diane, the buildings blew up -- they did not fall down. How this was accomplished I do not know, although explosives would be my first guess. I don't know any other way that the resistance offered by the undamaged lower levels of the buildings could be so completely overcome.

This is important for two connected reasons. Number one, the idea that the buildings "collapsed mostly due to structural damage because the fires were just too intense" (as per Harley Guy) is the centerpiece of the traumatizing mindfuck perpetrated on every human being with a television. Once traumatized, the audience was receptive to the rest of the bullshit. Secondly, the hijacker side show only fulfills its dramatic potential IF the plane collisions caused the complete destruction of the buildings.

Please don't ask people not to believe their own lyin' eyes.

[Scott N]

[medicis]

With respect to your reasoning regarding: WTC 1: Core column failure and demolition' which have been well-addressed both by Kevin Ryan and by other scientists on the Journal for 911 studies.

One thing that appears to be problem with all analyses of these events is that multiple arguments exist. Some good some bad. Some from disinfo and many simply the result of an evolving understanding of the phenomena over the last 6 years.

-----

"Another bad argument I’ve seen is the claim that the North Tower must have been demolished with explosives because the fall of the roof antenna, just before the rest of the building began to collapse, implies that the core columns failed first, consistent with what we would expect in a controlled demolition.

It is true that, in a controlled demolition, the core columns are broken first. However, if a building’s core columns fail first, this does not, in and of itself, necessarily imply controlled demolition."

[actually, it does. The evidence and reasoning presented at the journal actually do imply precisely that. Further, even NIST did not attribute the collapse to core column failure, per se, as I recall. ]

"In the case of the North Tower, it would have been logical to expect the core to fail first anyhow, if indeed the building were to have collapsed due just to the fires and structural damage (which is questionable on other grounds, as noted elsewhere on this page). Why should we expect the core columns to fail first? For the following reasons:

The core columns supported more than 50% of the total weight."

[Actually this statement by itself proves nothing. What is germane is whether the columns were designed to support that weight even when compromised. And evidence supports that they were. Indeed, they are reported to have been designed to support much more than the actual weight of the building above them.]

"There were a lot fewer core columns than perimeter columns; hence the core columns (especially the core’s outermost columns, which were attached directly to the floors) supported a lot more weight per column than the perimeter columns did.

[My comments above apply. In addition, the argument that 'there were a lot fewer core columns' is misleading. You fail to consider the relationship between the 'pieces'; i.e., the outside grid, the floors and inner columns (of which there were sufficient number). I suggest to review Hoffman's thorough analysis as well as the journal. Analysis of NIST's argument has found multiple flaws with trusses saging (in NIST's computer model) many multiples of time greater than was achieved in empircal testing (with more extreme conditions than were present in the towers themselves), ecologically flawed validity of the tests regarding fireproofing. ]

"At least some of the core columns were damaged by the plane crash, resulting in even more weight per remaining column.
The core columns were tapered. Up at the 95th floor, the core columns were not nearly as thick as they were down on the lower floors."

[Again, I refer you to NIST itself and to the journal articles. In addtion, the columns were tapered as the weight supported by them diminished and to provide the capacity for horizontal accommodation of lateral forces; e.g., stong winds, etc. The building had to be able to sway within the calculated elastic strength of the columns yet also support the weight. Further, they were reported by the designers to not only survive the impacts of 707's at high speed, they were designed to withstand the consequent fires. ]

"On the other hand, the perimeter columns were not tapered; they were as thick as ever at the 95th floor."

[You state an observation without an explication of precisely how and why that is germane. The core columns were multiply redundant in terms of the weight load they could bear above them. The external columns also supported weight but, like the floors and central columns en toto, the structure as a whole was what provided the strength.

[medicis]

[Diane]

[casseia]

[YT]

If you want to switch out Danse's name for mine you can - I'm 100%

I will not argue this topic, I leave that to qualified professionals.

I'm just a regular person who recognizes shit being blown up when I see it.

And, Nick Levis will be joining me as a regularly returning guest on my radio show - specifically to refresh and review the 1001 pieces of our case that have been pushed to the background due to the prominence of the demolitions issue.

Tune in Wednesday night!

I appreciate your idea to weed out weaker arguments for the case although I haven't had a chance to review the blog yet.

[Diane]

[Diane]

[casseia]

I think I would prefer that you leave my name out of it until you clarify what kind of distinction you are making between "demolition" and the plain-as-day "shit being blown up", to paraphrase YT, that is documented in the visual record. I think you may misunderstand my hundred percent certainty that shit was blown up for any kind of certainty about how this was accomplished, which would be incorrect.

[Diane]