I'm making it clear that wasn't sure that his conclusions were right. Reading his tentative conclusion one can see that not once does even state it is his belief. He only says it is his opinion. .
What are you talking about? What’s the point of distinguishing between the two? His opinion , based on the evidence and utilizing his years of experience was that the collapse was caused by the fire.
There may certainly be some details he is not completely sure of, but at no point does he give serious consideration to explosives being responsible, something he makes even clearer in the interview I have linked to.
Your contention that because he uses the words ‘opinion’ and ‘tentative conclusions’, he’s not sure what happened and it may have been explosions is a hopeless attempt to minimize the damage that this expert does to your pathetic conspiracy theory.
Take a look for yourself:
************************************
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS
Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
************************************
Perhaps he has solidified his belief since his tentative conclusions. In any case, there are reams of evidence that make it clear that the fire collapse theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. Apparently, however, I still have to present more before you'll believe me
. .
He had access to the site and the steel. He was in the best position to come to a conclusion. The ‘reams of evidence’ looks rather silly considering steel buildings have collapsed due to fire.
Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.
Sometimes you need to leave your simplistic fantasy land. If the construction of the buildings was found to be faulty then there would be legal implications because people could potentially be held responsible for the collapse. This would be an ugly can of worms.
Which should be even more surprising... .
Are you serious? You cannot be serious. Two bloody skyscrapers fell on them! What do you expect?
If they fell in their own footprint it is suspicious and if they don’t fall in their own footprint it is suspicious. You are deluded.
True. However, It does warrant a more thorough investigation. Instead, it got a less thorough investigation as Jonathan Barnett made clear in the above mentioned video.
There was an investigation. You just don’t like the results.
With a religion such as yours, if there was another investigation and it found nothing you would still not believe it.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but gravity simply couldn't have accounted for the amount of pulverized concrete. 9/11 Research, on its
Concrete Pulverization page quotes 9/11 online researcher plaguepuppy who explains why:
****************************************
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation[:]
In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.
The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.
Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.
Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?
****************************************
That does nothing to explain that gravity wouldn’t be responsible.
His assertion appears to be that because the towers were near free fall speed there was no energy left to pulverize the concrete. The towers may have been
near free fall speed but they weren’t
at free fall speed. When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went.
The claim that dust is shooting out the sides of the building at the very start of the collapse is a ridiculous exaggeration.
He also claims that there is dust when nothing is moving very fast. When the top thirty floors of a building are crushing down on one it doesn’t matter if you have reached a great speed yet. There is an amazing amount of force there. It can also be misleading estimating speed when looking at something that large.
The mechanism for pulverizing the concrete is no mystery - the building’s weight, gravity and kinetic energy.
Watch the video, if there were explosions where are the blasts?
If that were true, the endless discussions we've had would have never taken place.
Scott, you think nuclear devices might have been involved, you thought a missile hit the pentagon and not think a plane flew over the pentagon instead. You blindly read everything these people write and have shown this time and time again.
You are not after the truth, you just want to preach your religion. If you were generally after the truth you would visit debunking sites or the screw loose change guide. You will never stray from the comfort of your pitiful conspiracy sites.
I would have simply referred you to my gurus if you wished to find enlightenment and left it at that.
Your gurus are fools.
As it is, I counter your 'conclusive' evidence on a regular basis.
Such is the nature of the internet and the phenomenon that is the desire to believe in conspiracies. There will always be plenty of links to keep you sure there was a conspiracy. Just as long as you don't think too much or accidentally digest the work of the debunking sites.
Anyway, it seems clear to me that explosives would account best for the tower's disintegration, since gravity didn't have a prayer of accomplishing it as I made clear in my last post.
Not only is "plaguepuppy"s (?) post unconvincing, explosives are not necessarily the answer either. Explosive explode, they don't just make concrete turn to dust. Where are the blasts?
You are constantly employing the false dilemma fallacy. If there are errors in the NIST explanation, and there may certainly be some, that doesn't mean that explosives are the only alternative explanation.
