Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Albert Doyle]

The very first witnesses in the video (the two firefighters) show your attempted argument to be inconsequential. There were explosions heard by those inside the building and the interior of the building started falling apart causing them to flee for their lives.

That's false. You can't be seriously saying that overly-general reference to 3 explosions makes everything else "inconsequential"? That's ridiculous and you destroy your credibility by saying it. Furthermore those men probably ran and were outside fleeing for their lives when the alleged progressive demolition charges occurred, so they were probably outside anyway. In any case it doesn't preclude the need to answer for the audio forensics, as anyone can clearly see. So, yes, you are mixing things up and evading.

So we clearly have evidence of explosions causing damage to the building.

This doesn't answer the blast signature argument nor does it have anything to do with it. Also, as Orling points out, you have no proof of the source of those blasts. They could have been pneumatic air pressure blasts funneled down the chutes in the building. Some protest "oversimplified nonsense," yet I don't see them here for this easily-refuted stuff.

Then when the collapse up top starts, and the measurements and calculations show the columns could not have been involved, you want to say it was natural because we can't hear enough booms. Get real.

That's not at all what I said. I said you can't reconcile your claims that the progressive explosions Chandler claims were muffled by the roar while also showing videos of people who said they heard them clearly. And so far you haven't. Thank you.

Still waiting for you to explain that.

[Phil Dragoo]

The question was asked of the demander of answers, do you post at the JREF forum

From said forum

Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way.

Will the demander of answers explain the collapse

Because I do not hope

for anything but Yesbut & Butwait

we presume not

only a Niagara of answer!

(pounding on the table)

Channeling the Nathaniel Hathorne Ronco Witch Diviner

Call now and two Witch Diviners for the price of one

Simply add an additional fifty pages of Yesbut & Butwait

C.W. repaired Bonnie & Clyde's stalled getaway car

Amazed, Clyde asks C.W. how he did it

"Dirt, dirt in the fuel line; jes' blowed it out."

The towers jes' come down, sez Yesbut & Butwait.

Sometimes dese paranormals, dey walk among us.

[Albert Doyle]

I just realized Tony has managed to dodge two important points by switching the subject. The first is the delay in the South Tower's dust bursts. I explained that the video I linked clearly shows the top section of the South Tower plunge into the bottom section. If you view the clips I cited (and Tony didn't respond to) you can see this clearly and without any doubt. After the top section hits the bottom section there's over a second of delay until the first floor's dust burst emerges. You have to remember Tony and Chandler claimed that the dust blasts seen on the North Tower were the result of core-destroying explosives. If the dust bursts seen on the South Tower originated from similar explosives then according to their theory they would have to have happened prior to the collapse of the top section. Tony said the inner core had to be loosed by cd devices in order to avoid the predictable static resistance they would have provided. But if you look at video the dust bursts don't happen according to that timing. They happen as much as 2 seconds or more after the necessary juncture Tony and Chandler require for them to be explosives. That's proof that they aren't explosives because they are impossibly late to be from explosive charges. It's proof Chandler is giving incorrect information.

The next point Tony never bothered to give any answer to was the blasts being caught on Banfield's microphone. Although the blasts Chandler shows on Banfield's video were caught 5-10 blocks away, and originated from inside Building 7 with no dust jets penetrating the wall, they show up on the audio registration Chandler shows us. Yet with repetitive booms emphatically witnessed by many people, and a microphone that was literally right under the source, and blasts that allegedly penetrated the walls significantly, we don't have any such registration. Having found it on Banfield's video you know Chandler must have looked for it with the South Tower. He must not have found it. So my question is how did Banfield's microphone manage to capture demolition blasts but Burkett's didn't? Especially the prominent blasts shown in Chandler's video bursting down the side of the building?


No switching subjects or saying inconsequential. Just two straight honest answers to these questions please.

[Tony Szamboti]

No matter what anyone wants to think, we do know from firefighters and others inside the buildings that there were explosions that damaged the inside of the buildings well after the aircraft impacts, as the firefighters were saying they were in the buildings getting ready to fight the fires when they heard and felt them and had to run from the interior building damage.

We also know from measurements and calculations that the columns could not have been involved in resisting the collapse during initiation and at least through the first several stories.

Given these two pieces of data, an investigation should surely have been done to determine who could have planted devices in the buildings. That investigation has never been undertaken to this day.

In fact, the video with the firefighters and other workers talking about explosions inside the building has never been seen on mainstream TV as far as I know. One of the only reasons we have seen some of this is attorney James Gourley's successful lawsuit against NIST around 2010, which forced them to release a lot of video that was being suppressed. The information was then put on the Internet.

Kind of sounds like the suppression of the Zapruder film and witnesses who mentioned hearing shots which they believe came from the underpass side of Dealey Plaza to the front of the limousine carrying JFK. One of the most heinous early attempts to keep the Kennedy assassination as being done by one shooter in the TSBD came from Life magazine, who had the Zapruder film. It was due to Parkland doctors calling the frontal throat wound an entrance wound. Life tried to say the Zapruder film showed JFK turning around to see where the first shot came from and that this would have been when he was shot in the front of the throat. Of course, the Z-film was suppressed and the public would not see it for years. It turned out that the Z-film showed nothing like this.

Apparently the cover-up artists need to feel their way for a short time to see where the wind blows and what turns up. In the case of 911 it was apparently settled fairly quickly that they would say there was no evidence for explosives, even though there is certainly evidence and testimony of it. Rudy Giuliani was one of the first to start the no explosives story for 911 that night during one of his press conferences. In spite of the evidence for it, he turned to the now known fraudster but then his trusted police commissioner Bernie Kerik and led him by saying "we believe it was the after effects of the planes hitting the buildings and don't know of additional explosions". See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Epqoa6TJZWI Of course, Bernie nodded in agreement that there wasn't in front of the news media. The video NIST was suppressing through 2010 tells a whole different story and so do the Oral Histories which were also initially suppressed and had to be forced to be released by lawsuits in 2005. I wonder who Bernie was talking to and how he could be so sure so soon.

[Kyle Burnett]

Additionally, the vertical acceleration through the first story in the North Tower was 5.1 m/s^2. That is far too fast for fire weakened columns.

Not necessarily too fast for incendiary weakened columns, particularly not in the case of steel melted like the pieces documented in FEMA 403 Appendix C or heated to the point that they can be cleanly bent into a horseshoe like so:



And even more so not if some of the core columns had previously been compromised by blasting them out at the base, which also explains the various reports of explosions around ground level shortly before the buildings were brought down. That's long been the gist of how I've long figured he happened, explosives near the foundations to weaken the towers, incendiaries near the impact points to initiate the collapses, and then more explosives throughout the buildings to insure their destruction progressed all the way to the ground.

I said you can't reconcile your claims that the progressive explosions Chandler claims were muffled by the roar while also showing videos of people who said they heard them clearly.

What can be heard clearly at some locations can be muffled at other locations, acoustics are tricky like that. Furthermore, what will wind up muffled on recordings made even from the same location can vary greatly depending on the capabilities and settings of the equipment used. Even using one microphone to record at two different sampling rates and/or compressed with two different methods can result in particular noises being describable in one recording but not the other, so what few recordings are available of those roars of the buildings coming down hardly do anything to impeach the witness reports of sounds consistent with explosives during those events. In more general terms: absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

[Charles Drago]

Kind of sounds like the suppression of the Zapruder film and witnesses who mentioned hearing shots which they believe came from the underpass side of Dealey Plaza to the front of the limousine carrying JFK. One of the most heinous early attempts to keep the Kennedy assassination as being done by one shooter in the TSBD came from Life magazine, who had the Zapruder film. It was due to Parkland doctors calling the frontal throat wound an entrance wound. Life tried to say the Zapruder film showed JFK turning around to see where the first shot came from and that this would have been when he was shot in the front of the throat. Of course, the Z-film was suppressed and the public would not see it for years. It turned out that the Z-film showed nothing like this.

Apparently the cover-up artists need to feel their way for a short time to see where the wind blows and what turns up.

Valuable deep political analysis, Tony.

Deep study of the JFK assassination allows us to perceive, isolate, and focus resources on its internal structures, strategies, and tactics which in turn can be appreciated in the aggregate as templates for study earlier and subsequent meta-conspiracies.

I would suggest that you consider what for me is the strong possibility that literally from day one the Z-film was utilized to exacerbate the confusion and contradictions that may be appreciated as the conspiracy's antibodies to the infections of honorable observations and investigations.

Suppression served to build expectations to the breaking point and thus all but make certain that, upon the Z-film's controlled public release, emotion would dominate reason within the research community and ultimately divide it into today's counter-productive, cover-up-prolonging pro- and anti-alteration cantons.

[Jeffrey Orling]

What does JFK have to do with how the towers fell? We all know that the media and the government spew nonsense... when don't they?

Just because there were visual evidence in both cases does that mean anything? Isn't this rather common for video or stills or whatever to be presented as evidence? What if there were NO visual evidence?

Did the gov and media lie about Deep Water Horizon? Fukushima? Where they false flags by the deep state?

Or is this a matter of when you are a hammer every problem looks like a nail?

[Tony Szamboti]

What does JFK have to do with how the towers fell? We all know that the media and the government spew nonsense... when don't they?

Just because there were visual evidence in both cases does that mean anything? Isn't this rather common for video or stills or whatever to be presented as evidence? What if there were NO visual evidence?

Did the gov and media lie about Deep Water Horizon? Fukushima? Where they false flags by the deep state?

Or is this a matter of when you are a hammer every problem looks like a nail?

I think the evidence is quite clear that the Deep Water Horizon and Fukushima nuclear plant incidents were accidents and very few people doubt it. Arguably they were preventable with the proper decision making, but they were accidents (meaning unintended) nonetheless.

However, the evidence is that the JFK assassination and the collapses of the twin towers and WTC 7 were intended, in other words, not accidents.

It is more a case of whether someone can walk and chew gum. Everything is not likely to be a conspiracy, but there is a reason we have that word in our language. Let the evidence lead where it may is what most rational people would say. So no, everyone here is not a hammer and everything isn't a nail. The problem is with people who want to keep portraying things as accidents that can be clearly seen not to have been once the smoke settles.

[Phil Dragoo]

Tony

At 464 above you note

In fact, the video with the firefighters and other workers talking about explosions inside the building has never been seen on mainstream TV as far as I know. One of the only reasons we have seen some of this is attorney James Gourley's successful lawsuit against NIST around 2010, which forced them to release a lot of video that was being suppressed. The information was then put on the Internet.

Kind of sounds like the suppression of the Zapruder film and witnesses who mentioned hearing shots which they believe came from the underpass side of Dealey Plaza to the front of the limousine carrying JFK. One of the most heinous early attempts to keep the Kennedy assassination as being done by one shooter in the TSBD came from Life magazine, who had the Zapruder film. It was due to Parkland doctors calling the frontal throat wound an entrance wound. Life tried to say the Zapruder film showed JFK turning around to see where the first shot came from and that this would have been when he was shot in the front of the throat. Of course, the Z-film was suppressed and the public would not see it for years. It turned out that the Z-film showed nothing like this.

Two events of deep political importance. In the former, the president was killed in a crossfire so that a war could proceed, and for other purposes. In the latter, a craven attack against civilians was staged. . .so that two wars could proceed, and. . .for other reasons.

Frames of Zapruder were reversed to imply the president's head moved forward from a shot from the rear. Photographs of the rear of the head were made to appear pristine. The "patsy" was framed with a forged cover photo on a national magazine. Stray bullets were policed up, an autopsy was adulterated, the record, in short, reflects a contrived cover up to support an a priori explanation consistent with the uses of power.

The towers present as examples of controlled demolition, not heat-weakened steel from aircraft impact. Additional charges are denied. Witness testimony is suppressed and relevant investigation is avoided, e.g., "no evidence of explosives; why look for them"--

In each case we the people are supposed to accept Mommy and Daddy's Because-I-Said-So.

Adequate demonstration has been shown to posit charges were placed. Ryan has begun to explore possible mechanics.

In mass murder the statute of limitations is open-ended.

[Charles Drago]

What does JFK have to do with how the towers fell?

Readers of DPF should be aware that well over a year ago, Orling asked -- on this website -- the very same question in the very same words.

I answered it quickly and at length, in the process pointing out that his grasp of deep politics was at best rudimentary.

Okay, I may have used stronger language.

Now here Orling comes again, seemingly no more interested in or wiser about the subject of deep politics than he was when he first posed his risible JFK query.

And so one is left to wonder: Why would Orling or any other person who hasn't the slightest concern or aptitude for the subject matter that drives DPF demonstrate his or her ignorance so regularly and even eagerly on these cyber-pages?

How do we explain the very existence, let alone the agenda, of someone so eager to teach yet so reluctant to learn?