I'm in the process of revising our CD page, if anyone has any suggestions, please let me know. Thanks.
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
TruthMove Controlled Demolition page (28 posts)
-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
It would help to mention the firefighters used transits to watch the twin towers and wtc 7 leaning before they fell down, which is not demolition.
You've also got David Griffin listed as a source even though he has proved himself unreliable as a writer (as I think you know).
It's also untrue that the towers fell only into their footprint. Every building around the towers was pummeled by debris, several were destroyed, including WTC 5 and 6.
WTC 7 was the first time a skyscraper was hit by a taller skyscraper falling onto it. It had a 20 story hole in the side facing the towers. It's why the debunkers focus on demolition but not the suppression of warnings, the war games, etc.
It's fortunate the towers stayed standing as long as they did since that allowed most of the people below the impacts to escape.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Thanks, Mark. Yes, I'm well aware of the problems with DRG. I just haven't bothered to scrub him (or put in disclaimers) for all the instances where we've mentioned him. I'll try to get around that and putting in some of your suggestions.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I have a couple of quibbles and one radical observation.
The statement that "No large steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to fire" is incorrect. There are factories in Asia, there is the McCormick Center in Chicago. No modern steel-framed high-rise building (other than the WTC) has ever collapsed from fire. We have examples from Venezuela, Russia, China, and the USA to demonstrate this.
The "footprint" argument certainly doesn't work for the towers, as Mark points out. It's a stretch for WTC7 too. Better to say, as Chris Sarns advises, that WTC7 fell into a "tidy pile".
The "pancake theory" was eclipsed by NIST's column failure theory in 2005. What's interesting about this event is that the pancake theory was conventional wisdom from 2002 to 2005, but when NIST abandoned it, nobody could be found to defend it.
The radical observation is that you frame the issue in terms of Official Story v. Controlled Demolition. I disagree with that framing. It's a false dichotomy. I don't think NIST has proven their case, and though I think the controlled demolitionists do a better of job of supporting theirs, until I hear an official attempt to address the issues the CD camp raises, I refuse to make up my mind. The failings of the official reports are easily demonstrable.
I think Mark might find intriguing the notion that NIST deliberately issued an incompetent report in order to stimulate a raft of crazy-sounding conspiracy theories that would make NIST look reasonable by contrast.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I will keep refining the page. This is the first time in years I've made any significant revisions to the content of our site, so sorry if some of the info is out of date. We just lost interest and figured no one was reading the site, although I don't think that's true.
The radical observation is that you frame the issue in terms of Official Story v. Controlled Demolition. I disagree with that framing. It's a false dichotomy. I don't think NIST has proven their case, and though I think the controlled demolitionists do a better of job of supporting theirs, until I hear an official attempt to address the issues the CD camp raises, I refuse to make up my mind. The failings of the official reports are easily demonstrable.
I think Mark might find intriguing the notion that NIST deliberately issued an incompetent report in order to stimulate a raft of crazy-sounding conspiracy theories that would make NIST look reasonable by contrast.
One of my own pet theories has long been that CD is legitimate, in some form, but that one of its intended results was to make the "conspiracy theorists" sound crazy to the "normal people." It would have been pretty clear to anyone planning something like this what kind of camps people were going to line up into after it occurred. On one side you have people who are expounding about how obvious it is that the towers couldn't have come down so perfectly without explosives, with the implication being that "the government" planted them. On the other, you have people who think that sounds like the raving of a paranoid schizophrenic. It could be a useful dynamic if you don't want the skeptics to be taken seriously.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The refusal of the DoD to release the Pentagon securicam footage serves two purposes: it asserts the principle that Pentagon business is not citizens' business, and it engenders a lot of conspiracy theorizing about missiles and flyovers and bombs that could maybe be refuted, if necessary, by simply releasing the tapes (or even fabricated tapes).
In the same way an incompetent WTC report engenders conspiracy theories that may or may not be correct but which, as you say, tend to sound paranoid. Yes, CD is a perfectly legitimate hypothesis that definitely deserves further investigation, but unfortunately most of its proponents overstate the case by claiming proof, and they also have pretty much married the theory to the nanothermite evidence which, apparently, is less than impressive to the academic community.
At this point maybe the CD momentum is peaking, and the movement should re-emphasize the air defense failures, intelligence failures, and the geostrategic environment at the time.
History will connect the dots, and see the obvious failings of the NIST reports. NIST pleaded that in 2005 their computers were not up to the task of modeling the collapse. By 2020 every engineering school in the world will have computers capable of modeling the collapse. New investigations are inevitable. We just need to keep bumping the issue in as provocative and credible a manner as possible.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think the demolition claim was excellent for demolishing the "truth" movement. Sorry to trust the firefighters who measured the towers and wtc 7 leaning before they fell.
Those who allowed 9/11 to happen probably knew (how could they not?) the towers would fall down, but that's different than the science fiction stories about thermite and even sillier claims.
I'm glad the towers didn't tip over upon impact, that would have been even worse.
In 1992, a 747 crashed into an apartment building in Amsterdam after two engines fell off, the part of the building that was hit fell down immediately.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Hi Mark,
I'm always open to new information, but my understanding (without rechecking my sources) of the claim of transit measurement is that it was made by Chief Hayden, and his narrative does not indicate that he was actually there at the SW corner of WTC7. There's also the issue that he claimed there was a bulge in the corner at the 13th floor, but that the aerial photo from NYPD of the southwest corner seems to indicate that there was no SW corner at floor 13. So how could there be a bulge?
I've seen the video of the alleged firefighter "Miller" claiming WTC7 was leaning. Mr. "Miller" was wearing a pristine uniform, so there's no reason to believe he'd even been close to WTC7. Also he seems to be quite furtive--whenever anyone walks behind him he stops talking and looks around. Until Mr. "Miller" is positively identified and his account corroborated, I'm inclined to be skeptical.
NOVA said that most engineers were surprised when the towers came down. The structural engineer Michael Donley has a quite touching interview where he says that in his small firm as they watched the TV none of his colleagues opined that the towers might fall, and that in the months afterward they were all reluctant to discuss the issue because they were embarrassed that they had not forecast the collapse.
In the Amsterdam collapse, yes the part of the building that was hit fell down. The part of the building that was not hit did not.
I refuse to subscribe to the controlled demolition theory myself because I lack the demolition and engineering expertise, and because I will not vote "guilty" until I've heard a competent defense. I am as offended as you are by the overstated claims of the CD camp and the nanothermite camp. But my examination of the government reports shows that we only got half a report about the towers. Though their stated objective was to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed, NIST has admitted they can not explain how. The ten essential mysteries in the towers' collapses NIST dodged completely when they cut off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation.
In 2005 they pled that their computers were not powerful enough to model the collapse, and their models "failed to converge". In other words, no matter how they tried, they could not get the computer to model the symmetrical, total, and near-freefall collapse we observed.
I'd suggest that by 2015, the computer power to model the collapses might be available in engineering schools around the world, and a second look is justified.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Without a broader historical, political, circumstantial, and psychological context to evaluate the possibility of government complicity, controlled demolition functions as a seductive "smoking gun" concept to many people who have briefly looked into such claims. The case doesn't rest on CD, and minimizing it's importance is probably a more effective way of promoting real critical thinking and truth seeking. Even if it was "proven," somehow, that the WTC buildings collapsed due to the damage and fire, as claimed by the official story, it would make no dent in the case for complicity.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Implying the firefighters were lying sunk the credibility of the truth movement.
I doubt that the NIST report was deliberately incompetent to bait the truthers in a reverse psychology trap. Rather, I think most of the truthers are incompetent, a few deliberate, the rest are merely unwilling to admit making a mistake and most are disinterested in fact checking. You cannot even get a majority of them to admit the plane really did hit the Pentacle and there never was the slightest evidence that it did not do that. (Asking why there was a plane into building exercise near Dulles at the same time is a real issue, one ignored by most of the so-called truth movement.) The Pentagon had a lot of fun watching the truthers sink their credibility with the no plane hoax. There's no need for new evidence to prove that Flight 77 really hit the building, since that's already known. Instead, the truth movement (sic) would need to admit they got fooled, but that is a psychological obstacle.
The controlled demolition claim is now more energetic than "no planes" … see if you can persuade anyone beyond a tiny minority by implying the firefighters who watched the buildings lean did not actually exist. The media is delighted to focus on the 9/11 truth claims as long as they are those that easily discredit, such as no plane and demolition.
Thermite has never been used for controlled demolition because it lacks precise timing. Burning aluminum cladding and steel makes compounds similar to thermite.
The question is not why the towers fell down, but how they managed to stay up for about an hour, allowing most people inside to escape. The comparison with the Amsterdam crash is important, since the area of that building hit by the 747 collapsed immediately upon impact. The WTC was stronger and stayed up for a little while before giving way. Anyone who has ever seen blacksmithing knows that steel loses strength when it gets hot, especially when a fire has a strong wind on it (the way blacksmithing is done is to have a fan constantly on the fire to increase the temperature). The broken WTC towers acted like chimneys and the wind increased the temperature of the fuel, furniture, plastic and other stuff that was burning.
Meanwhile, the rest of the country has moved on.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Maybe not lying, but some of them were definitely making claims inconsistent with reality. Griffin points out the inconsistency of their claims in his essay. Some claimed that WTC7 was fully involved. NIST says fires persisted on only 6 floors.
Firefighter "Miller", the one who claims WTC7 was leaning, should be taken with a grain of salt. His uniform is very clean. Every time somebody walks behind him he stops talking and looks behind. He seems very furtive.
Thermite in engineered charges might have precise timing. Jonathan Cole has cut a substantial I-Beam with two pounds of packaged thermite. Thermite is not used in commercial demolitions because explosive noises are no problem. Covert demolition is another animal.
Posted 11 years ago # -
That sort of suspicion is a great example why the 9/11 "truth" movement is long gone.
Mr. Griffin is the one who is "inconsistent" to be polite.
Accusing the firefighters of being fakes and of lying is probably the stupidest thing one could do if one is sincere. Sorry if this sounds rude.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's not rude to point out that DRG along with many other "prominent" members of the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement have repeated made false claims, many of which offend people who otherwise may be sympathetic to the argument, and have acted like spoiled children when confronted, or more likely, politely reminded of any errors in their "work." This problem of big fat egos is why I stopped working with anybody.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The "movement" was subverted amazingly well. There were many paranoid and unstable people who were ripe for being manipulated. Everyone wanted something to believe in--leaders, smoking gun evidence, a new sensationalistic theory. We were so desperate for credibility and clarity that many of us gobbled irresponsible information and didn't question various "leaders" who were peddling it.
Controlled demolition was and is a dead end. Whether it's true or not, any "proof" or "evidence" that's ever produced will be dismissed by experts and engineers on the other side. There are many pieces of documentary evidence that are not so spectacular but that cannot be refuted or dismissed in the same way.
I remember going to DRG's big controlled demolition lecture in NYC in 2005 or 2006. He was so sure of himself and everyone had such faith in him that almost no one questioned CD after that. It also became the main focus for many people. And then we got Steven Jones.
Many people would rather talk about how the towers were blown up than read Paul Thompson's work:
http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=es...
Posted 11 years ago # -
As far as I'm concerned, the 2005 promotional push and subsequent prominence of CD research has all been stage managed by infiltrators. 2004 was a big enough year for 9/11 truth that the energy to subvert it ramped up. In one year what had been a fringe issue mostly found on conspiracy sites, and the very thing most readily used against the movement by the MSM, became the movement's primary focus.
Nothing could be more suspicious to me than the fact that Ae911truth has taken in hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations. I think of those donors as having been swindled.
Posted 11 years ago # -
AE911Truth seems to be the only prominent 9/11 group still functioning and putting on events. Of course, to question them or Richard Gage would be heresy. Reducing something as complex as 9/11 to CD is the opposite of truth-seeking.
The disinformation and misinformation campaign was sophisticated and multi-tiered. They did a very good job. There is no real movement left, just a few stragglers like us, talking to ourselves and trying to understand what hit us.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Mark, it is well to be skeptical, and I try to ascribe the same degree of skepticism to information on all sides. When fireman "Miller" has the courage to come forward and identify himself and explain the basis for his opinion that WTC7 was leaning, I will pay attention.
I didn't accuse any fireman of being a fake. I pointed out that "Miller's" uniform is clean, he seems very furtive, he has not been positively identified, and his claim is not corroborated.
FDNY was put in a difficult position with respect to WTC7. When the south tower came down, Chief Downey (one of the premier collapse experts in the country) opined that there were bombs involved, because the collapse was "too even". Chief Albert Turi was reported by mainstream media to have opined that there were secondary devices in the buildings. Before noon, Barry Jennings and Michael Hess had reported explosions in WTC7. A FDNY reconnaissance team climbed up the the fifth floor and found an elevator car blown out into the hallway. The morning of 9/11 it would have been irresponsible to deny the possibility that there might be explosives in WTC7.
But after 9/11 it was taboo to talk about explosives. Bush was quite clear about that. "Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories." So how do they explain why they didn't fight the fire if they're not allowed to say they feared explosives? The other reason they didn't fight the fires--that the fires were so wimpy they didn't need fighting--was also politically incorrect, because that leads to the question of why the building collapsed.
The claim is made that there was no water to fight the fire. There were three 19,000 gpm fireboats in the WFC harbor, there were lines run to West Street, there were relay pumpers on the lines. There was water. Maybe the decision was made to allocate it to rescue operations at the towers instead of to WTC7, but there was water.
The striking thing about the reports of damage and of fires is that they are all over the map. There was a bulge in the SW corner, the south facade was scooped out, there was a 20-story gash, there was a 6-story gash, there was fire on every floor. It is not accusing anyone of lying to point out that these tales are inconsistent with each other, and that they are inconsistent with the official reports of FEMA and NIST. It is not accusing anyone of lying to point out that FEMA's report didn't even try to triangulate the reports of structural damage. FEMA ignored them and dismissed their significance, concluding that "the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers." For years, NIST was telling us that a portion of the south face was scooped out 1/4 of the way through the building. They later abandoned this notion and concluded that structural damage from debris impact played no part in the initiation of the collapse.
I share your dismay with the excessive confidence displayed by many of the prominents in the movement when they claim "proof", whether the claim is "incontrovertible", or "eleven ways from Sunday", or "beyond a reasonable doubt". We had such a clear case for coverup, we were buried under a heap of crapulous conspiracy theories, and the public can't distinguish our reasonable theories from the crap.
But don't miss the fact that "suppressed warnings" is a conspiracy theory too, and the coincidence of the hijackings and the war games is an implicit conspiracy too.
I wish that this movement, instead of claiming proof of opinions about events, had stuck to claiming proof of facts: 91% of the widows' questions were not answered, the official reports are incomplete, and there is much reason to believe they're dishonest.
If you really believe that impact damage brought WTC7 down, Mark, then you should be demanding that NIST produce computer models showing how it happened. I suspect that they already ran the models showing that scenario, and they don't want to show them to us because they are not consistent with what we see in the videos. Damage on one side will cause the building to collapse toward that side. That's not what we saw. We saw it come straight down, tilting neither to the right nor the left, and not tilting to the south until the final stages of the collapse.
Posted 11 years ago # -
There is clearly a propaganda mill somewhere churning out a very broad range of social engineering devices.
Governments have learned that they can commit nearly any crime imaginable by simply putting misdirection and disinformation into the hands of useful idiots like Brian. Get the public ranting and raving about magic bullets and grassy knolls while glossing over more constructive avenues of investigation - like Oswald worked at a top secret air force base AFTER defecting to Russia.
How much of MY film was utter complete bullshit fed to me by the wartime psyops websites? I'll never know for sure. All I DO know for sure is that it is happening.
Have people debate hanging chads while the candidate's governor brother strips the voting roles of African Americans. Have the media debate Cheney's knowledge of water boarding while he is clearly guilty of fabricating evidence of WMDs that lead to over 1 million dead.
Limited hangout? No. FICTIONAL HANGOUT. Fabricate fictional crimes that can never be proven so your enemies foam at the mouth chasing rabbits. It's BRILLIANT.
BRIAN - please STFU
Posted 11 years ago # -
John, you just suggested that you could be fooled while acting hostile toward Brian for the same thing. I'm pretty sure you didn't feel like a fool or want people to call you that when you put out your movie.
I think CD is a very obvious honeypot with absolute ZERO benefit to the pursuit of justice. And frankly, I think people who don't see that aren't all that savvy. Many of us were duped, myself included.
However, now, years later, people seem pitifully attached to specific facts that VERY clearly undermine the legitimacy of far more important facts. Ae911truth is anti-911 truth.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I'm glad there are a few of us left posting here in 2013. Please, can we remain respectful of others' beliefs and opinions. I don't think any of us on here are trolls, so it's disrespectful to tell anyone to shut up or call them an idiot.
Brian--if you're going to post all these claims, please source at least some of them. I think a lot of the irresponsibility of the movement can be traced to poor sourcing and laziness in following up with verifying the veracity of claims such as the ones you make above. Also, where does all that stuff get us, even if it is true? Is arguing over CD in 2013 really a productive thing to do?
I still acknowledge the suspiciousness of the collapses, but despite all the books and lectures and lab analyses, I think that's what it comes down to--a matter of opinion. A 3 hour lecture by Richard Gage doesn't tell me shit about shit. Maybe like a lot of the people out there, I come out of it feeling like I heard some logical arguments and I now "know" why it's impossible that the towers came down from just crash damage and fires, but really, what the fuck do I know about structural engineering. I could listen to the NIST people, and probably be convinced just as much in the other direction. Also, I don't need CD to shore up my self doubt when it comes to my belief in government complicity. I've assimilated a lot of other evidence, as I know all of us have. CD is a dead end. It either seduces people and blinds them to the more "boring" evidence or it turns off the mainstream public from the entire movement, as they see it as an insane and outlandish claim to make.
I've met people before who know I'm into 9/11 truth and who have immediately started expounding on their doubts about CD, as if that was the lynchpin to my skepticism. I say I don't know and I don't really care if the towers were blown up or not and they look confused.
9/11 truth ≠Controlled Demolition
Posted 11 years ago # -
John, your personal animosities (with have nothing to do with me) are distorting your command of the facts. Since the NYC truth scene quickly became a toxic swamp of disinfo and dirty tricks, I'm not surprised that you're bitter. There's been some of that in the California too (mostly emanating from Madison, from Hoboken, and from Los Angeles), but bullshitters inevitably undermine themselves in time. Illegitimum non carborundum.
If you think any of the facts I asserted above are not solid, identify them and I'll document them. For the three 9/11 fireboats (John J. Harvey, Firefighter, and John D. McKean), see hudsonriverpark.org. Photos show water being sprayed on WTC6, so apparently not all water was needed for rescue ops.
The testimony of Barry Jennings and Michael Hess about an explosion in WTC7 comes from mainstream news. The elevator blown out into the hall comes from the NIST WTC7 report. Chief Turi's speculations about secondary devices were reported on NBC by Pat Dawson--or are you a video-fakery voice-morph guy who thinks that footage was faked? Do you deny that Peter Jennings said that to bring down a skyscraper deliberately it was necessary to get at the building's under infrastructure?
My point is not to defend controlled demolition theory. My point is that on the day of 9/11 it was only reasonable and prudent to suspect that there might be bombs in WTC7, that this (and the wimpy nature of the fires) might have incited FDNY's failure to fight the fire, and that FDNY was then in a difficult position vis a vis explaining why they let the fires burn until an 850 million dollar building was destroyed.
My point is also to show that Mark's creative theory about structural damage is based on unreliable information, it's contrary to the official reports, it's contrary to the structural behavior of the building, and it in no way defeats my thesis--that the official reports are demonstrably incomplete and dishonest and democracy demands that we get a believable report that examines all the issues and explains honestly what happened.
Between Mark's emotional argument from authority and your spook-jacketing you guys are acting more like a couple of JREF peedunkers than truth seekers. I understand that you both have made enormous contributions to, and sacrifices for, the truth movement; I understand that you both have great reason to be bitter about how things have turned out so far; I understand your criticisms of the current leading lights of the movement. Unfortunately youse guys, Thompson, Nick, Cosmos, the TruthMovers, Nafeez, the widows, Kubiak, and even Sibel have pretty much abandoned the field to the dc "9/11 Commemoration Conference" crowd. I can't change that. Only you can.
But don't forget that suppressed warnings, NORAD stand-down, and al Qaeda-CIA links are just as much conspiracy theories as is controlled demolition--so they are just as repulsive to the lazily cynical populace, and more easily written off as negligence, incompetence, and unfathomable State secrets.
The difference is that we may never know about all that secret stuff, but science is science. Ten mysteries of the towers' collapses have not been explained. I think that's worth pursuing because it invites scientists who pride themselves on their objectivity to consider objective issues.
Truthmod, thank you for your patience and indulgence. If you listen carefully to NIST, I doubt you will be favorably impressed. Have you seen the video of NIST's Dr. John Gross, nervously playing with his glasses while he's questioned about the molten steel seen in the rubble pile? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcqf5tL887o
Dr. Gross chooses to respond to the question narrowly, questioning the existence of evidence of "huge pools" of molten steel (which evidence is pretty damned poor), but implicitly denying that there was any evidence of molten steel at all. 5 PhDs testified to molten or melted steel, and one FDNY Captain. Steel that the NYT said was "vaporized" represented what the NYT called "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". FEMA included in their report an investigation of this steel which concluded that further investigation was needed. NIST did no further investigation. The melted steel is just one of ten essential mysteries that NIST dodged through the tactic of cutting off their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation.
If you listen to Dr. Shyam Sunder, NIST's lead investigator, in his interview with NOVA, you can hear him lie brazenly when he claims that the structural steel NIST needed to study had been "scattered" from rescue operations. Rescue operations were terminated after a week. The destruction of the crime scene went on for months. The "scoop and dump" cleanup was so careless that (according to Harper's Magazine) the complete body of a man in a business suit was found at the Freshkills rubble-collection site. The steel was not just scattered--it was destroyed. Over the protests of firefighters, engineers, and family members, the steel was hastily gathered up and shipped off to China and India before experts could examine it. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to support their claim that fires weakened the structure.
If you listen to Dr. Sunder you can hear him deny that there was any structural freefall with respect to WTC7--because freefall would mean there was no supporting structure beneath it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA&fea... (start at 2:13). But there was freefall, and in its final report, NIST was forced admit it. Keep watching the video and see how convincing you find Dr. Gross's non-answer to a simple question about the difference between velocity and acceleration.
You can say these clips are cherry picked, but in truth NIST gives you little opportunity to be convinced by them. They avoid contact with the public on these issues.
Posted 11 years ago # -
It's not a "theory" that the crashes caused massive damage to the buildings. It's fortunate the towers stayed standing as long as they did.
The collapse of 9/11 "truth" was the real controlled demolition.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Mark, it is a "theory" that the crashes caused massive damage to the buildings. NIST does not claim that massive structural damage brought the buildings down. NIST's claim is that it was not the structural damage from the crashes, and not the ensuing fires--it was damage to the fireproofing that made the structure vulnerable to ordinary fires. Of course their demonstration of this is very "theoretical"--because tyhey can not produce even one core steel sample that supports their "theory" that fire weakened the structural steel.
The towers were designed for a hurricane--150 mph winds. They were designed to survive an impact from a 4-engine 707 jetliner going 600 mph. Plus the fires, said John Skilling, the lead engineer.
We can see the holes in the buildings, sure. Believe it or not, that's not "massive damage" for these buildings. They were designed so that you could remove all of the perimeter columns from one side, and several more around both corners, and the building would still take a 100 mph wind load.
NIST started from 3 "reasonable" estimates of damage to core columns from the planes: 1, 3, or 6 columns severed. Consider that the airplane elements massive enough to sever core columns were limited: 2 engines, 2 wing landing gear, and the central landing gear/keel/wingbox structure. So you had 5 chances to hit columns that were 17 feet apart. How many core columns were hit? NIST ran computer models and found that 1 and 3 severed would not cause a collapse. So they assumed that 6 columns were severed, because that's the only way they could get a collapse. Is that scientific? 6 columns severed from 5 shots looks like they're batting 1200!
NIST labeled their opinion a "probable collapse sequence". NIST claims in the famous letter from Catherine Fletcher that they did not analyze the collapses. This is very peculiar, because one of their lead investigators, Dr. John Gross, had done his PhD work at MIT in building collapse theory--so he should have known the leading collapse experts in the world.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Brian, everyone here knows all this stuff. I'm sure it's worth a quick summary for the uninitiated, but the issue here is less about specifics and more about strategy.
Whatever it's merits, CD is a dead-end honeypot.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable, too. It stayed up long enough for some to survive, too.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.