Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Albert Doyle]

Albert, you used to be much more inquisitive about Jeffrey's positions, as I quoted, then you turned into his fan boy. What happened? If Tony would have been here then, the Albert I knew would have been asking him questions. You don't seem like the same guy.

You are trying to provoke me Lauren because you know that this flagrant attempt to switch the topic to ad hominem attack will be backed by some of the others. But anyone can see you're doing it because you can't answer my points.


Is there a reason you did this instead of answering my points? You destroy your credibility by doing this. Is a certain member PM'ing you?


Also, I'd be interested in your response to my corner column CD claims forensic arguments. You're a big asker of questions. May I ask why you and Tony flagrantly dodged that?


.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I am leaving this so called debate because I feel nothing is gained going over and over the same territory. I'm not here to do anything more than expose the politically minded to some of the technical realities. I don't think the case for CD is supported by evidence and contradicted by other evidence. Others can decide for themselves. I am not here to convince Tony as he clearly is convinced that his position is supported by facts and not undermined by others.

So be it.

Summaries have been made, didactic diagrams offered,clarifications presented and links to resources provided.

Readers can do with this what they wish. This is not as simple as it first appears and the political is truly a separate matter... holism not withstanding.

[Albert Doyle]

My understanding of how the buildings came down has actually been influenced by Jeffrey's ROOSD explanation. Relatively quiet thermite charges and well placed explosives high up the building triggered the progressive collapse. But remember there were witnesses (many) who claimed to hear these explosives.

Why weren't these charges picked up on they many mics. From what I understand from both Tony and Jeffrey, WTC 1 & 2 were easier to bring down. All you needed was a mass of material reaching sufficient velocity to hit the lower floors and you Bobs your Uncle. WTC 7 really did require the blowing of massive beams; a ROOSD collapse would not have been possible.

I know Jeffrey thinks he can pin it down to the one beam that started it all that would trigger the nice, neat symmetrical collapse. Come on. That dog won't hunt.

Not acceptable, sorry. You're not answering the point. That point was that the series of pronounced dust jets seen cascading down the side of the building was so out there and obvious that it would have made an audio signature on the audio tracks of the media around the building. You are not following the arguments here. That argument said if the alleged demolition charges in Building 7 were inside the building and not seen nearly as prominently, yet they managed to register on Ashley Banfield's audio track, as Chandler suggests, then why didn't these cascading dust jet blasts seen on the North Tower register a similar audio fingerprint since they were much more visible?

You just flagrantly dodged the point above. Reality dictates that, since you can't answer it, therefore you don't have the right to take the attitude you do. You can't explain why the prominent dust jets Tony and Chandler claim were methodically-timed demolition charges didn't register any distinct sonic explosives fingerprint on the numerous media microphones that were nearer to the collapse than Banfield's microphone was.

What doesn't hunt here is yours and Tony's obvious inability to answer basic forensic points.

[Lauren Johnson]

My understanding of how the buildings came down has actually been influenced by Jeffrey's ROOSD explanation. Relatively quiet thermite charges and well placed explosives high up the building triggered the progressive collapse. But remember there were witnesses (many) who claimed to hear these explosives.

Why weren't these charges picked up on they many mics. From what I understand from both Tony and Jeffrey, WTC 1 & 2 were easier to bring down. All you needed was a mass of material reaching sufficient velocity to hit the lower floors and you Bobs your Uncle. WTC 7 really did require the blowing of massive beams; a ROOSD collapse would not have been possible.

I know Jeffrey thinks he can pin it down to the one beam that started it all that would trigger the nice, neat symmetrical collapse. Come on. That dog won't hunt.

Not acceptable, sorry. You're not answering the point. That point was that the series of pronounced dust jets seen cascading down the side of the building was so out there and obvious that it would have made an audio signature on the audio tracks of the media around the building. You are not following the arguments here. That argument said if the alleged demolition charges in Building 7 were inside the building and not seen nearly as prominently, yet they managed to register on Ashley Banfield's audio track, as Chandler suggests, then why didn't these cascading dust jet blasts seen on the North Tower register a similar audio fingerprint since they were much more visible?

You just flagrantly dodged the point above. Reality dictates that, since you can't answer it, therefore you don't have the right to take the attitude you do. You can't explain why the prominent dust jets Tony and Chandler claim were methodically-timed demolition charges didn't register any distinct sonic explosives fingerprint on the numerous media microphones that were nearer to the collapse than Banfield's microphone was.

What doesn't hunt here is yours and Tony's obvious inability to answer basic forensic points.

I guess your argument must be that because you say there were no booms picked up during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, therefore the Banfield audio can be dismissed?

This is the only answer I have. The Banfield audio comes at a time when there is not a lot of background noise. If a fire truck was going by with its siren going, no loud booms will be detectable.

Why weren't they picked up on mics while the buildings were collapsing was for the same reason I gave for the Banfield audio except the opposite: there was a lot of noise -- the roar of a collapsing high rise building. Parsing out discrete sounds on directional mics meant for interview people as was Banfield's, could not have picked up the charges you are imagining. They just blend in the roar. During the initiation of the collapse, the charges used made less noise than the Banfield audio and could be hidden in the noise of the early collapse.

That's my best answer.

[Albert Doyle]

Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

[Charles Drago]

Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert,

I am thoroughly impressed by and envious of your command of these technical issues and the erudite manners in which you bring it to bear on the topics being discussed on this thread.

Would you be so kind as to provide a brief reading list so that I and others might further develop our appreciations of this otherwise arcane and challenging material?

Forgive me if I'm being forward, but the sooner I can get my hands on your source material, the sooner I can attempt to achieve mastery of the topic commensurate with your own.

With thanks in advance,

Charles

[Lauren Johnson]

Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert, I have noticed you have made demands of people to respond often accompanied with accusations. I just got done responding. I would expect something like, 'Thanks, Lauren. Hmmm. I'll think about it.'

Nope. Nothing. Just the next task. This has happened before. I'll pass.

[Albert Doyle]

I guess your argument must be that because you say there were no booms picked up during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, therefore the Banfield audio can be dismissed?

This is the only answer I have. The Banfield audio comes at a time when there is not a lot of background noise. If a fire truck was going by with its siren going, no loud booms will be detectable.

Why weren't they picked up on mics while the buildings were collapsing was for the same reason I gave for the Banfield audio except the opposite: there was a lot of noise -- the roar of a collapsing high rise building. Parsing out discrete sounds on directional mics meant for interview people as was Banfield's, could not have picked up the charges you are imagining. They just blend in the roar. During the initiation of the collapse, the charges used made less noise than the Banfield audio and could be hidden in the noise of the early collapse.

That's my best answer.

If you got experts to look at the collapse video they would tell you the "jets" Chandler refers to are pneumatic air blasts. You can see from their nature that they occur not at the inner core, as Chandler infers, but right there at the outer frame wall where the collapsing floors pushed compressed air blasts through the openings. A sharp observer would see the dust jets happen in horizontal uniformity with the corner jets happening at the same time as the middle jets. If these jets were the product of charges placed on the inner core columns they would happen in a radial pattern in obedience to the location of the core relative to the jets. Middle first then corners a split second later. Also, I already pointed-out that if you look at the You-Tube of controlled demolitions a normal CD charge produces nowhere near the gigantic overkill blast of those jets. So if the spooks were going to take down the tower covertly, and could do so with more discrete charges, why would they use these comical overkill blasts to do it when they could have done it less visibly?

Like Tony, Chandler also mushes his claims. He says the cascading charges do not happen on a floor by floor basis. However he doesn't explain what basis they did occur on? If they were going to place very precisely timed unzipping wave charges in the core then why would they not be on a floor by floor basis? It's obvious to anyone of any intelligence that Chandler is exploiting the uneveness of the natural collapse jets because of ductworks and uneven resistance. The truth is the jets do happen on a floor by floor basis and do evidence ROOSD. Once again Chandler fails to realize their slight uneveness is more a sign of natural collapse and differs from the precision timed progressive cascading charges would have had.

Your answer above isn't good enough and doesn't explain how, if the demolition booms were drowned-out by sirens, did the numerous witnesses you presented in your You-Tube video hear them then? Those witnesses were very clear in their statements that they heard clear and loud progressive "Boom, boom, boom, boom, booms". You can't have it both ways and serve us mush as forensic steak.

You and Tony haven't answered why they did the South Tower first if they were trying to imitate a natural collapse?

Nor did you answer why Chandler says the initiating charges at the top were explosives charges yet Tony says they were burning thermite cutter packs?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8

[Albert Doyle]

Lauren,



Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert, I have noticed you have made demands of people to respond often accompanied with accusations. I just got done responding. I would expect something like, 'Thanks, Lauren. Hmmm. I'll think about it.'

Nope. Nothing. Just the next task. This has happened before. I'll pass.

You can't back your theories. Meanwhile a person who has made personal insinuations as responses to forensic arguments has the gall to correct my manners while flagrantly dodging proof she can't answer.


You're not seriously trying make people believe that you're doing this for reasons other than simply not being able to answer the simple facts? Honestly.


I made perfectly reasonable points. If you can't answer those points that means they stand. Reality dictates that if my points stand and Chandler's don't therefore his position isn't backed by credible argument or facts. Where is Tony to come in and back you up on this Lauren?

I'm sorry but I don't think you realize passing on this isn't a credible option if one is pretending credible debate on the cause of the Tower collapses. I made some perfectly reasonable forensic arguments about Mr Chandler's corner column CD claims. In short, the puffs coming off those columns are too slow to be explosives and don't show any of the white hot sparkling burning characteristics of thermite. If you can't answer you're only proving my point.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Lauren,

Could you answer my point about Chandler's corner column CD theory? Specifically in the context of how the easy refutability of his corner CD claims reflects on his overall credibility and that of his theories.

Albert,

I am thoroughly impressed by and envious of your command of these technical issues and the erudite manners in which you bring it to bear on the topics being discussed on this thread.

Both / and

Charles Drago

and

Controlled Demolition

:e=mc2: