Conspiracy Discussion, Part 2

Posted Sept 14, 2010
Blayne:
What needs to be answered first is how the buildings fell through all their mass at free fall speed when that is impossible without explosives clearing the way down.

JJ
And what makes you think it’s impossible without explosives or even that it will happen with explosives?
The Twin Towers didn’t have a free fall. You can read about it here:
http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

Here is an explantion for WTC7
To many people the apparent collapse of the buildings at ‘near free-fall-speed’ is one of the most compelling arguments in favour of the CD theory. However it is also the most easily dealt with on scientific grounds. The fact is that the near free-fall-speed of collapse of buildings in controlled demolition is entirely due to gravity, and not to explosives. The question of course remains, how come that buildings, impeded by their intact lower floors, collapse so fast? (Though of course, this is not a question with any direct relevance to 9/11.) Put this way, the question conveys the essential fact of controlled demolition: that the only floors effectively ‘removed’ from the building are the lowest. (Further charges are placed in the building if and only if it is necessary to guide its fall in a certain way, for example to collapse a building into its footprint.) In a 20-story building, for example, the bottom floor or floors is extensively rigged with explosive, to remove its load-bearing capability. The remaining 18-odd storeys pancake into the region of the destroyed floor, one at a time, raising exactly the same question as to how is it that this process can take place so quickly? The same question applies to conventional demolition, and to the Tower buildings. The difference is that the pancaking occurs high in the Twin Towers (‘top-down pancaking’), and at the base of WTC 7 (‘bottom-up pancaking’). In the usual bottom-up process each floor impedes the process of collapse through its structural rigidity, just as much as one would expect in the top-down processes in the Towers. Although no text-book account is available which might give a simple answer to the issue of the speed of gravitational collapse of buildings, one might draw on the analogy of a hydraulic press compressing, say, a car body shell. The car body shell may seem strong enough to withstand everyday loadings, but, when it takes the hit of a high-powered press, it collapses with astonishing speed. 18 storeys of a big building, moving even rather sedately as they would at the onset of collapse, probably outstrip the forces of even the biggest hydraulic press ever built.

It seems that all the proponents of the CD theory state the case, like Jones above, along the lines: “The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses.” This is simply unscientific; not corresponding to the reality of how controlled demolition is carried out. Returning to our example of the collapse of a 20-story building, there is simply no need to explode each floor, and such explosions are certainly not the explanation of why buildings fall so fast in controlled demolition. All the calculations produced by the CD theorists, designed to prove their theory, are based on the wrong premise, that explosions accelerate the descent. They don’t: it is purely gravity that does it.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445992

Blayne:
Even if you accept the unprecedented theory that the fires weakened the steel it only would be at the one point and the supposed pancaking floors would hit the lower floors and columns and mass that has not been weakened causing great resistance and slowing it down tipping over, it could not have fallen at free fall speed without explosives it was physically impossible.

JJ
Most engineers who have studied this disagree with you. There has not been one study supporting you that has gotten peer review support.

Blayne:
So you can question how it was possible to pull it off but never the less it is already proven it was done by explosives with the forensic evidence.

JJ
It has not been proven. The proof is in the opposite direction.

Take a listen to this video of the fall of WTC7.
WTC7 Video

Do you hear any explosives going off? How does a building get demolished with explosives when there is no sound of explosions? Did they use some silent explosives from Area 51?

You indicate that Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome may have set the explosive for the towers. Here is a video of one of their demolitions. Notice the obvious explosive noise that is missing from WTC7 and the Twin Towers?
Kingdome Demolition
You might also ask how all the explosives might have been planted in that much smaller structure without being discovered. If you couldn’t do it there in secret then the Twin Towers would have been impossible.

Blayne
…why do you think it is impossible to get a hundred people in there as construction workers when the building had thousands of people working in it daily?

JJ
Preparing for demolition is a pretty intrusive thing. The owner of the building and management would have had to been in on the conspiracy as well. If Turner Construction did the evil deed then you would think that one of the employees would have talked by now. Or you’d think some rich Moslem would have offered one of them a pile of money to talk to exonerate his own people.

Also there is the little problem of no fuses, caps and other demolition materials ever being found at the site.

Blayne:
Here is an interesting compilation of whistle blowers who have tried to come forward:

Whistle Blowers

JJ
There’s no whistle blowers there of anything but conjecture. Where is a real whistleblower – someone who planted the explosives or assisted in killing the passengers of the planes? If the conspiracy theory was correct we’d have a real whistle blower by now.

This video gives the sound at a real demolition and then gives the sound of the twin towers coming down. Obviously there wasn’t demolition type explosions that brought down the towers.

Blayne:
Here are some sound recordings (Sound Recordings)

JJ

That weak sound just does not compare to a real demolition as referenced above. Everyone acknowledges there were some gas line explosions, but they sound different than demolition explosions.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey