I was much more interested in a discussion about world toilet day… what a waste of time this whole thread was!

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

The security on the building 7 was never as good as on the towers.

The problem here is that the building did something you and I both know is damned unlikely to happen simply on account of debris hitting it.

The degree of difficulty you are claiming is clearly and really present, but the collapse as it happened HAS to be explained… and NIST didn’t. It is possible for it to have been according to NIST. The problem I have is exactly that degree of difficulty of achieving such a symmetrical collapse by accident.

Yet assuming someone wanted to take it down, the only people who could have done it would be the ones who knew the planes were coming. Building 7 had the most time of all of them for set up, most of 8 hours. I reckon that insulation comes off easily enough with a liberal use of a sandblaster or simply firing something like a small claymore mine at it. Nobody is on the target floor but bad guys… they can do whatever the hell they want. For 8 hours.

What doesn’t fit THIS scenario is that they’d bother to do such a neat job when sloppy would make a bigger mess… Which can be argued as a symbolic gesture regarding the towers but building 7 is almost unnoticed beside them. So maybe NIST is right and it is all just a coincidence of things happening just exactly so as to make that collapse possible in just that way.

It would be interesting to look at who leased what office space there. It was a fairly open building in terms of security when I interviewed for work there but I remember little more than a bunch of people who seemed to think that the world revolved around MS and worried about parking. Not interested in real-time engineers So it could be that a lot of stuff was pre-positioned. Lease an office on the appropriate floor and you could move all manner of hardware in there over a month or two of “renovation”. Stuff still in packing crates. Desks full of Thermite. Tons of stuff.

Look at the coordination of the preparation for the aircraft. Could someone smart enough to plan that have missed the opportunities for a ground team that their impacts would create?

It isn’t nonsense to believe that it MIGHT have been done. The NIST report isn’t nonsense either as nobody designed any of that structure to resist that sort of attack or uncontrolled fire. According to the reports, there was no firefighting being done inside building 7. At all.

The way it came down however, is astonishingly similar to controlled demolition and, I think I have made the case at least, that such demolition was possible. I don’t think the NIST story is any MORE credible than the scenario I just gave you.

Most discrepancies in the tale have simple explanations… missing gold and other claims.. but the way 7 went down (look at what they had to do with 6) is just plain weird.

Now I think we’ve spent way more than enough time worrying about it. I remain quite disinterested except in terms of technical curiousity, about how it came down. I don’t need a massive conspiracy to explain it either way. People who want to know the truth have a point about the way things were investigated… but it is pretty irrelevant now.

Lets look at the world our kids will inherit instead of trying to find demons in the past.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ,

All is feasable including explosive where “planted” (or the holes drilled at least) at construction time.

Feasable but probable?

Seen the implosion of the third building and while it looks like a perfect implosion, to achieve that would require a great deal of shaped charge placements on the steel structure. Not easily done on a steel framed building where multiple charges in the exact right place were needed to be placed and wired in a very short time frame. On steel that is (if in New Zealand) with fire retardent insulation. Copper covered shaped charges would only effectively work if placed directly on the steelwork. The insulation would reduce the effectiveness of the copper “knife” from the charges. Would also require the weakening (cutting) of steel members to make sure it “fell” exactly as it did.

Feasable, yes, plausable, nah.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Nor was the US keen to admit that there were a lot of terrorists involved. Whether THAT affected the NIST report, I can’t say for sure.

I am pretty clear about the ways the towers could have collapsed without any additional help… I have suspicions but no particular Engineering intuition about what I am seeing being “wrong”.

The 3rd building however, sets off most of my bullshit detectors and the NIST testimony video about that building set off the rest. That was one uncomfortable Engineer.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Hmmmm… I think you mistake the conditions in those towers and the security arrangements for something effective

A. The Uniforms would have been sufficient ID once the situation started. The folks at the security desk would have waved them in and knowing ahead of time what was to happen and roughly when, they would have been the first to go in. So they’d be ahead of the real firemen and probably the best physically trained of the terrorists. Best able to get to the target floors first.

B. Arriving on a target floor they could yell at everyone to evacuate. They are firemen, there’s a known emergency, the office floor would be emptied, immediately and no floor manager wouldn’t have stayed behind. Anyone who refused to leave could have been shot but I would bet that those floors would simply be emptied.

C. Once the doors to the floor were closed and marked as cleared the doors to that floor could have been jammed shut and marked cleared on the doors. Not THAT hard to do. Once the floor is theirs they can do whatever they like without interference. Anyone breaking in the door anyway could have easily have been shot.

Who is there to question them? As far as other firemen are concerned they have disappeared from the face of the earth. They are behind doors in the building that are blocked. If that floor is marked clear on the fire doors in some way, they’re going to ignore it. I did the WTC tour myself a year or two before the event and I know how New Yorkers and the security staff would have been reacting.

There’s no realistic limit to the numbers beyond the financial resources for AlQuaeda to rent safe-houses and get trucks to make up as emergency vehicles for transport. The lower floor elevators would probably still have been operable for them and security would have HELPED them override the locks… even to lock the empty floors out of elevator access.

Just think about it. If the plane hijacking failed nobody goes anywhere and a backup plan is used or the whole thing called off but as soon as even a single plane hits a building they can go through security based on a costume and once inside they can send everyone else OUT without any argument… and they have hours to make it all work.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ,

Read back and yes you did not say what I implied. I withdraw and aplogise (slaps hand and looks mournful).

I hear what you are saying about foreigners but heck there were at least 3 floors blown up according to the report.

And nobody knew? Not the managers who leased the floors? Not the real fireman who would certainly notice a bogus fireman not working in conjunction with them to evacuate the building and not answerable to the fire department control and command centre.

Still to big to be hidden.

Anti-matter bomb? As likely as a Dan Brown novel, last used in a plot to blow up the Vatican.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gerrit

First: I said nothing about a US led conspiracy. You have the wrong guy.

What *I* said was that the people involved could have carried ANYTHING up into the building in the hour and a half between the first impact and the collapse. That includes penetrators to blow away the concrete if they as well as submachine guns to stop anyone from interfering. They could have created a FAO bomb in the enclosed space. So MANY ways to ensure destruction once the occupants were fleeing in confusion and panic had started and emergency services were given free access to the buildings. The MINIMUM time was an hour and a half.

Those people would have been Al Quaeda trained terrorists in Firefighter’s uniforms. Not Americans. They would own the whole floor on which they were operating and could string det cord wherever they wanted and wouldn’t be concerned about dying in the process, any more than the highjackers.

I also said I didn’t see the NIST report as necessarily wrong with respect to the two towers… but with respect to the third one it is bizarre.

I don’t think you read what I said very carefully… did you.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gerrit,
But they used anti-matter bombs! Did not need to steal them from CERN either, America has tens of massive secret accelerators working constantly to refuel the stockpile…

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

BJ and Kahikatea,

it is amazing that you both find it plausable that explosives where placed in the twin towers,

Richard Gage’s claim was that the explosive charges were placed in the lift shafts, where a lot of the structure holding up the building was. This would have required infiltrating the lift company that was upgrading the lifts over the few months prior to the attacks, but nopt crawling over the other areas of the building. He also said they would have been raido-controlled, so you could use batteries rather than wires.

yes feasable except for the space in a lift shaft is 95% taken of with the elevators. Not much space beween the lifts and the wall.

Now add the fact you need to drill holes in the concrete to make the charges effective (placing charges on the wall wont do a thing, the explosive force finds the weakest point – the free air in the lift well.

Now you cant drill these 40mm holes with a DeWalt battery drill. You need serious (usually air or hydraulic powered) to hammer drill these to any depth (remember you are not just drilling concrete but also rebar steel)

All this activity (and noise) without alerting building maintenace and security and manangement staff plus all those tenants.

Adding lift company personel to the list of militairy people who would be in the know is an even longer bow. Lift maintenance people dont usually sign secrecy agreements.

Now to radio controlled fuses. Can you imagine the number of frequencies in use in that building and the risk of a premature explosion?

BJ, You would be more familiar then me to what radio frequencies are in use but can you honestly lay hand on heart and say that not a single stray frequency could set off these charges prematurely?

I think the USA government insider job conspiracy is a false one.

It is simply to big a job, requiring to much explosives (about a tonne) with too many people in the know to make this viable.

Even in the militairy, yes trained covert staff are no doubt careful to maintain secrecy on foreign nationals they may have targetted, but to blow up your own people and maintain complete silence by maybe up to 400 to 500 people?

Nah, totally busted.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“Perhaps you could explain how the building were rigged with explosives to enable a controlled demolition.”

Richard Gage’s claim was that the explosive charges were placed in the lift shafts, where a lot of the structure holding up the building was. This would have required infiltrating the lift company that was upgrading the lifts over the few months prior to the attacks, but nopt crawling over the other areas of the building. He also said they would have been raido-controlled, so you could use batteries rather than wires.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Owen, you get around don’t you!?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Gosman you d!ckhead, I answered this here and I answered it on Kiwiblog now and you still do not get it.

We don’t care and have no official position on 9.11. However at this point I DO care that you have virtually taken over our blog with your obsession.

It is quite possible for NIST to be wrong without any US based conspiracy. Jeanette didn’t speak to that issue. Several of us have pointed it out. You have ignored this part of our response.

There was plenty of time for additional terrorists to carry bombs and other material into the buildings. An hour and a half for the First tower, and far longer for the other two. You have ignored this part of our response.

Good Engineers and Architects don’t believe that there was a proper explanation for the third building collapse. There is stuff-all science involved in this, it is an engineering problem. You have ignored this part of our response.

You have no answers for these observations, you just have a crazed obsession with putting words in Jeanette’s mouth. Something Farrar did as well, and I called him on it there.

You are a boor and a sorry excuse for a human and it is dubious that your feeble brain can comprehend anything beyond your ridiculous obsession but WE DO NOT CARE.

Nor do we care for you in any form. This is a generally civilized place which you have disrupted with your insane disregard for logic and blog etiquette. When people make a point HERE they expect it to be considered in the replies.

I think everyone here has noticed how you’ve avoided answering me at this point.

Why don’t you go here and try to get a first one.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Hey if you don’t think having a senior member of the Green Party supporting wacky anti-science conspiracy theories is a Green issue then I guess that is your choice to stick your head in the sand.

I just think it highlights a certain doble standard when it comes to the Greens and the use of the Scientific consensus on something like AGW (pleease note that I have not stated that AGW is not supported by Scientific evidence BTW).

This is similar to Rodney Hide railing against Parliamentary perks while taking advantage of them. It is a matter of Political Hypocracy.

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

This is pretty ridiculous actually. Gosman has totally obliterated our general thread with his obsessive disorder with respect to 911. Which is still an emergency telephone number or a particularly nice Porsche to me. Not nearly as important as he seems to think.

I have explained how an Engineer with an open mind can look at it and get a third answer. Which fits nicely thanks… but remains irrelevant because 9/11 is pretty irrelevant to the future of our planet, which is what the Green party looks at. I note that Gosman does not respond to me at all.

I think that Gosman has not quite grokked that he is arguing with individuals, not the party and that there is no party position on this. We don’t have one because it is not important.

It remains “not important” despite the time he has devoted to trying to make it important.

If Gosman wishes to continue to comment on this blog, I’d be happy to entertain him on topics that are relevant to Greens. THIS topic needs no more discussion and because of him we need another general thread rather sooner than later… and I am (and I have never advocated such a thing before) suggesting that discussion of 9/11 be dropped from the blog forthwith. Gosman being permitted to discuss anything else he wishes here of course.

I would like to ensure that our regular guests and loyal opposition concur in such an action before it is taken but I am appalled by the amount of time, effort and blogspace that has been devoted to this non-issue, and I suspect that most of them would agree with this.

respectfully
BJ

Like or Dislike: 3  1 (+2)

Bec”ua”se (sic) Greenfly has already worked out I am a two finger typist and occasionally one finger is faster than the other, when it should not be.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Oh wait, SPC has written approcah instead of approach. Where is the upholder of all that is good and great in spelling and syntax, greenfly, to set him, straight?

Like or Dislike: 0  3 (-3)

Oh my goodness greenfly.! You picked up on some mistake I made writing a reply late on a Sunday night. That must mean your counter argument is irrefutable. (Did I spell that right BTW? I might have had an extra r in there I don’t know).

Perhaps you might like to deal with the actual point of the discussion next time rather than being a pedantic pri%k?

Then again it is your choice.

Like or Dislike: 0  5 (-5)

How ridiculous the attempt to guilt by association trick gets when it redacts down to claiming that supporting an investigation on something is “perverting science”.

The call for further investigation, research, examination of the evidence etc, is not perverting science, it’s calling on more of it to determine the facts of the matter.

Someone feeling threatend by this approcah, because they “believe” in the rpevailing orthodoxy, is the anti-thesis of science, which is based on peer review and continued challenge to the status quo. Belief is challenged by scientific method.

Now why does Gosman misunderstand this, or does he simply choose to as a political device for witch-hunting lefties/Greenies who dare to mistrust those who have proven to be untrustworthy.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

GossipMan (I’ve developed your handle a little further, you’ll notice),
I do like to deny it, oh yes, because it’s true! Science Perverter! What a despicable charge, you cad! How dull your line of argument – even for the sake of amusement, I’m bowing out now, so ordinary has the discussion with you become.
You did make one excellent and accurate observation though, GossipMan!
You quite rightly point out that I lack knowledge of logice
Logice is something I’ve struggled with ever since primary school and just can’t pin down at all! Could you, kind sir, illuminate the darkness of my ignorance, and tell me what logice is?
Many thanks.
Greenfly

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Perverting Science is what Ms Fitsimmons and you are doing here. You may like to deny it greenfly but it is hard to ignore reality sometimes.

BTW Reid is getting his ass kicked on Kiwiblog by more than my good self. Mainly because we are using Science and logice. Something you seem to have a lack of knowledge here for some reason.

Like or Dislike: 0  6 (-6)