User:Woozle/Facebook/2011-05-04 9-11
response to Brian Connors
Brian said:
...the "controlled demolition" meme about 9/11. It's unproven because there's absolutely no conceivable way it could happen, no evidence that it did, and it wouldn't have brought the towers down the way they came down anyway. In that case, the twin towers came down just about how you'd expect buildings damaged where they were to come down (with the tower carrying more weight over the impact point going first), and WTC7 simply gave way after several hours of fire weakened its structure past the point of it being able to hold up. Controlled demolition is a complex process and would have been nearly impossible to hide, and considering fire-related damage is the most obvious explanation without that evidence, hypothesis disproven.
(Also, in the case of WTC7, the twenty-story gash in the corner of the building that was caused by the tower collapses was a major contributing factor that many of the truthers seem to go out of their way to not be aware of.)
Let me paraphrase this and break it down, just so we're definitely talking about the same thing. You assert:
- The controlled demolition hypothesis is unproven.
- There is absolutely no conceivable way it (controlled demolition) could happen.
- Controlled demolition would not have "brought the towers down the way they came down".
- The twin towers came down just about the way you would expect based on the damage from the planes.
- The tower carrying more weight over the impact came down first, which is one example of what you would expect to happen.
- WTC7's collapse was due to several hours of fire weakening its structure.
- Controlled demolition (CD) is a complex process which would have been nearly impossible to hide.
- Fire-related damage is the most obvious explanation, in the absence of any evidence of CD.
- WTC7's collapse was aided by a twenty-story gash in one corner of the building, caused by material that fell from the twin towers.
Let's take these one at a time.
1. The controlled demolition hypothesis is unproven.
Quite. But the official story is even less proven.
2. There is absolutely no conceivable way it (controlled demolition) could happen.
People could have gone inside the buildings, planted thermate charges, and detonated them remotely on 9/11. It may be difficult to imagine why they would have done this, but it is not at all difficult to conceive of it being done.
3. Controlled demolition would not have "brought the towers down the way they came down".
Standard CD certainly would not; I agree about that. However, there are no other examples of building failures of this sort to compare with. When you look at all the various ways in which buildings have been damaged or destroyed, CD has the most in common with the evidence we see.
It seems likely that a non-standard form of CD was used, probably with the idea of mimicking collapse due to mechanical damage from the collisions.
There is no way that purely mechanical failure of any kind -- from any combination of damage plus fire -- could have resulted in the physical evidence left afterwards.
4. The twin towers came down just about the way you would expect based on the damage from the planes.
Based on what prior examples of airplanes colliding with steel-frame buildings and causing them to collapse? Or even examples of steel-frame buildings collapsing from other causes?
5. The tower carrying more weight over the impact came down first, which is one example of what you would expect to happen.
This is an unsupported assertion, but possibly true.
How do you explain the behavior of WTC2, however? The block above the impact point starts to tilt. Once that happens, it is no longer exerting its maximum force downward into the undamaged lower portion of the building, so it should have continued tilting and "fallen off" the lower part of the building.
Instead, the lower part of the building suddenly begins disintegrating underneath it. It stops tumbling, and proceeds to collapse more or less straight downwards.
This seems very odd. How does it fit with your model?
6. WTC7's collapse was due to several hours of fire weakening its structure.
No steel-frame building has ever collapsed solely due to fire, including several which burned for over 18 hours. You have to postulate massive damage, which you do in point #9.
7. Controlled demolition (CD) is a complex process which would have been nearly impossible to hide.
Indeed. There are multiple lines of evidence indicating CD:
- molten steel (not aluminum) pouring from one corner of WTC2 shortly before collapse, vast amounts of molten steel found in the rubble -- not possible that these could have been caused by jet fuel and burning office materials
- strong indicators of thermate in dust taken from multiple locations around the twin towers after the collapse
- diagonal cuts in girders seen during cleanup (cleanup crews would make shortest possible cuts, i.e. perpendicular; diagonal cuts are commonly used in CD)
- other physical symptoms of thermate use: metal girders turned to "swiss cheese" in places (open-air jet fuel fires nowhere near hot enough to do this)
That's just off the top of my head.
8. Fire-related damage is the most obvious explanation, in the absence of any evidence of CD.
Correct. If there were no evidence of CD.
9. WTC7's collapse was aided by a twenty-story gash in one corner of the building, caused by material that fell from the twin towers.
If you have found any photos or eyewitness accounts of this gash, I would like to see them. My understanding is that the 9/11 Commission alleged such a gash, but somehow neglected to produce any evidence of it in their many volumes of evidence and discussion.
Also, collapse due to asymmetrical damage as you describe would not have resulted in the straight-down, highly symmetrical collapse shown in all videos of WTC7's destruction.