# An angle of the WTC collapse I'd never seen
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [July 19, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182 "2010-07-19T01:39:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 41
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [July 31, 2010, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/801 "2010-07-31T20:03:00Z")
> [@j66](#):
>
> > [@Lute Skywatcher](#):
> >
> > > [@j66](#):
> > >
> > > So, can we answer these questions, to refudiate the explosives theory with something more specific than ‘somebody would have noticed’?
> >
> > Sure: any explosives and their wiring would have needed to survive the fires. The amount of concrete “dust” seen that day would have required the equivalent of 185 tons of TNT per tower placed into holes drilled into each slab; that’s a lot of explosives that would have needed to survive being burned.
>
> Lute, with respect, are you a shill for the conspiracy theorists? I am looking for details to address the Unknown Powerful Explosive theory, and you bring up _ **TNT** _? You just assume wiring is required?
> [@sparky\_1](#):
>
> I assumed that he was joking with the TNT numbers.
No, but I did transpose the 8 & 5:
> [@Zdenek P. Bazant 6/21/07](#):
>
> [A]t least 158 tons of TNT per tower, installed into many small holes drilled into each concrete floor slab and core wall, would have been needed to produce the same degree of pulverization
> [@j66](#):
>
> No, Lute, you are just saying that it is impossible because it is impossible.
I’m saying it’s impossible because Danny Jowenko, the only demolition expert that the “Truth” movement could get to say _any_ 9/11 collapses were demolitions, said the fires would have made it impossible for WTC1 & 2. He was not told about 7 also being on fire until after saying it was a demolition, at which point he said he had no explanation.
---
### Author:  [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)
#### Post date: [August 1, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/802 "2010-08-01T01:31:47Z")
> [@pedescribe](#):
>
> (unless you speculate that the planes just happened to come while an unrelated plot to bomb the towers was in effect, something so crazy I’ve never seen a truther assert it)
But then us Dopers need to be crazier (or smarter) than the truthers.
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [August 4, 2010, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/803 "2010-08-04T14:11:34Z")
[http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100801&name=Fast\_Track](http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComick.mpl?date=20100801&name=Fast_Track)
---
### Author:  [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/804 "2010-08-05T01:09:15Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#):
>
> To answer this, let me tell you how they do things in a conventional demolition.
>
> The fact is radio detonation is something blasting companies bleach white at, the chance for stray signals is too great. They won’t even try radio detonation in the desert, …
>
> … a cut column at a blasting site, [will have] almost purple-colored continuation of the cut where the blast from the charge hit it. I could teach you to spot these features in 2 seconds by showing you one.
With respect, we must keep in mind that OP insists this was not a typical controlled explosion.
As for the identifiable evidence of a blast, don’t forget this a **conspiracy** theory; the basic dogma of a conspiracy theory is that evidence is hidden. [Please, sir, calm down; if we can fake a moon landing, we can hide a few steel beams.]
But the **remote detonation** , that is a good point. Everyone is familiar with remotely detonated IEDs, so I imagine most think that it is a fairly simple and reliable technique.
> [@](#):
>
> Does this give you an idea of what were are talking about here, j66?
Frankly, not much better than I had from television documentaries, other than the point about remote detonation.
I am not an idiot or uneducated; I just don’t know much about blowing stuff up.
I do know a bit about people in general, nuts in particular, and conspiracy theorists.
People are not alway rational. Nuts are often hyper-rational; wrong, but rational.
Conspiracy theorists are both hyper-rational and irrational; they dissect every detail looking for internal inconsistencies, but attribute any evidence against the theory as evidence of the theory. Fascinating, really, as long as they’re not between you and the buffet.
And some are not unintelligent; they become ct’ers because they are just smart and educated enough to know that the water-down half-truths they get as explanations for most complicated phenomena in the common media is lacking something, but they just don’t know enough to know how to research the issue. They need something between news at eleven and a PhD. And you really never know what piece of evidence will sway them.
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence for their basic premise; people of influence will lie and hide evidence. The basic rebuttal, but such acts are always found out, does really beg the question.
The most important technique in countering a conspiracy theory is, possibly counter-intuitively, to _acknowledge the conspiracy is possible._
Of course, most of that doesn’t apply here; the facts and physics and evidence has been discussed _ad nauseum_. Still, I would love those few little facts - such as, there is no explosive of the necessary power and density that could be hidden in the unexposed areas.
---
### Author:  [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/805 "2010-08-05T01:51:27Z")
> [@j66](#):
>
> Of course, most of that doesn’t apply here; the facts and physics and evidence has been discussed _ad nauseum_. Still, I would love those few little facts - such as, there is no explosive of the necessary power and density that could be hidden in the unexposed areas.
But as you’ve seen in this thread, that won’t dissuade the CT’ers. They’ve already said the black ops folks have special explosives that we don’t know about, that leave no trace, and are more powerful than C4. What’s the point in arguing with that?
As it is, demolitions expert after demolitions expert have stated that there would be obvious evidence of explosives used. There wasn’t any. Read the 911 commission report, it’s all in there.
---
### Author:  [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 6:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/806 "2010-08-05T06:19:22Z")
> [@j66](#):
>
> With respect, we must keep in mind that OP insists this was not a typical controlled explosion.
Sir, do not malign the OP in that manner! He said nothing about supporting the “‘truth’ movement”, and in fact thought [the video] would help kill said movement.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [August 5, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/807 "2010-08-05T14:17:44Z")
> [@j66](#):
>
> But the **remote detonation** , that is a good point. Everyone is familiar with remotely detonated IEDs, so I imagine most think that it is a fairly simple and reliable technique.
Well, to be fair, we don’t hear about the IEDs that _don’t_ go off. It’s conceivable that many if not most of these devices don’t detonate at all and go unnoticed by their intended targets. In any case, they do leave physical traces and to bring down a building in the manner the CTers describe, you’d need a lot of them and the explosions themselves would be hard to conceal.
Of course, we’re back to powerful yet silent explosives that leave no traces and the expectation that, yeah, sure, the top-secret special-forces black-ops guys have had stuff like that for _years_, man.
---
### Author:  [@Gregg64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregg64)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/808 "2010-09-13T22:50:22Z")
Well, sorry if this has already come up, I haven’t seen this thread in a few weeks and I don’t have time to catch up right now but…
I just saw a special on 9/11 that was a lot of little seen video, a lot of it looks like private webcam kind of stuff but the point is, it wasn’t CNN or anything like that. One segment of the show was a few minutes of someone going into the lobby of WTC 7 after it was evacuated but before it collapsed obviously. This is something I had not realized and had never seen anyone mention it, but the lobby of that building was rubble. They guy went up an escalator and was met by a security guard who turned him back, but it was obvious that the place had major damage that happened as a result of the towers being hit, or falling (not sure what time it was, so I don’t know if the towers had come down yet, although I would think not, surely the whole area was closed off after that).
Anyway, to me, it was just more proof the truffers are wrong, that place didn’t come down from some preparation, it just got whacked by peripheral damage from a few airplanes hitting the place next door.
---
### Author:  [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)
#### Post date: [September 13, 2010, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/809 "2010-09-13T22:59:13Z")
> [@Gregg64](#):
>
> I just saw a special on 9/11 that was a lot of little seen video, a lot of it looks like private webcam kind of stuff but the point is, it wasn’t CNN or anything like that. One segment of the show was a few minutes of someone going into the lobby of WTC 7 after it was evacuated but before it collapsed obviously. This is something I had not realized and had never seen anyone mention it, but the lobby of that building was rubble. They guy went up an escalator and was met by a security guard who turned him back, but it was obvious that the place had major damage that happened as a result of the towers being hit, or falling (not sure what time it was, so I don’t know if the towers had come down yet, although I would think not, surely the whole area was closed off after that).
Is that online anywhere?
---
### Author:  [@Gregg64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregg64)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/810 "2010-09-14T02:37:00Z")
> [@Cisco](#):
>
> > [@Gregg64](#):
> >
> > I just saw a special on 9/11 that was a lot of little seen video, a lot of it looks like private webcam kind of stuff but the point is, it wasn’t CNN or anything like that. One segment of the show was a few minutes of someone going into the lobby of WTC 7 after it was evacuated but before it collapsed obviously. This is something I had not realized and had never seen anyone mention it, but the lobby of that building was rubble. They guy went up an escalator and was met by a security guard who turned him back, but it was obvious that the place had major damage that happened as a result of the towers being hit, or falling (not sure what time it was, so I don’t know if the towers had come down yet, although I would think not, surely the whole area was closed off after that).
>
> Is that online anywhere?
It was on History Channel, forget the name, may have been 102 minutes thing.
---
### Author:  [@Mozart1220](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mozart1220)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/811 "2010-09-14T21:27:26Z")
> [@Zsofia](#):
>
> > [@GIGObuster](#):
> >
> > The first plane impacted between the 93rd and 99th floors. The second plane impacted the 77th and 85th floors.
> >
> > There was more mass to cause the second tower to fall sooner.
> >
> > Your point of the controlled explosions is then contradictory, why wait to detonate the charges out of sequence? If the controlled explosion was true then it makes no sense to detonate the second building first.
>
> That’s what drives me nuts about the Truthers - take, for example, the argument that a plane couldn’t have hit the Pentagon because, sigh, there isn’t a plane-shaped hole. If I were faking it, I’d have made that thing look like Bugs Bunny’s plane ran through it. It would look EXACTLY like you’d expect, if you didn’t know any better, because that’s why I’d be doing it, right? Right.
There was a perfectly round hole, but too small for the size of the plane that allegedly hit it. No parts from a 757 were found either.
---
### Author:  [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/812 "2010-09-14T21:30:40Z")
You mean that hole that was 75-90 feet wide, and about 20 feet high? _That_ perfectly round hole?
---
### Author:  [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/813 "2010-09-14T21:41:11Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#):
>
> There was a perfectly round hole, but too small for the size of the plane that allegedly hit it.
Do you mean [the entry hole](http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage_files/hole11.jpg), [the entry hole (cropped)](http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/06-14-04/tail-damage.jpg), or [the exit hole](http://911lies.org/911PRESS/pentagon_damage_by_missile5.jpg)?
> [@](#):
>
> _No parts from a 757 were found either._
What are [these](http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml), then?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/814 "2010-09-14T21:42:43Z")
> [@Mozart1220](#):
>
> > [@Zsofia](#):
> >
> > That’s what drives me nuts about the Truthers - take, for example, the argument that a plane couldn’t have hit the Pentagon because, sigh, there isn’t a plane-shaped hole. If I were faking it, I’d have made that thing look like Bugs Bunny’s plane ran through it. It would look EXACTLY like you’d expect, if you didn’t know any better, because that’s why I’d be doing it, right? Right.
>
> There was a perfectly round hole, but too small for the size of the plane that allegedly hit it. No parts from a 757 were found either.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Truther Trifecta.
---
### Author:  [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/815 "2010-09-14T21:46:45Z")
[QUOTE=CurtC]
You mean that hole that was 75-90 feet wide, and about 20 feet high? That perfectly round hole?
[/QUOTE]
I think he’s talking about the exit hole in the C-Ring (that was caused by the fact that the plane had, essentially, turned into a liquid after smashing through the interior of the Pentagon). It’s really not all that mysterious and has been explained extensively using computer models, but the word hasn’t gotten out the the CT crowd (who don’t believe it anyway).
As to no parts of the plane found, that is complete fabrication…there was plenty of debris. For some reason, CTers feel that if you can’t see an essentially intact air plane sitting there that means no debris was found…even though anyone with even half a brain is going to realize that if you smash an aluminum framed air craft into a reinforced brick wall at high speed (not to mention full of jet fuel), that there isn’t going to be anything resembling an air craft that comes out on the other side…
-XT
---
### Author:  [@kidchameleon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kidchameleon)
#### Post date: [September 14, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/816 "2010-09-14T22:33:58Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#):
>
> What are [these](http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml), then?
Parts from a 767, obviously. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Gregg64](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gregg64)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2010, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/817 "2010-09-15T00:32:38Z")
Another thing truffers don’t ever act like they know is that aluminum IGNITES AND BURNS and a relatively low temp. Don’t believe it? Next time you are around a campfire or even your home fireplace, toss a soda can under the logs into the charcoal like stuff under it, in a few seconds, instead of melting like a lot of people would think, it’ll burst into flames and in just a few seconds it’s gone. So a lot of airplane that is in a crash like at the Pentagon literally vaporizes and leaves no evidence. But there are plenty of pieces of airplane in photos of the Pentagon, hell, the whole vertical stabilizer is is one pic I have seen. Another thing that shoots down the “it was a cruise missile” crowd is something I personally saw (I was in DC on 9/11, was actually in Alexandria when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon) was the light poles in the area in front of the building. There were a lot of parking lot type lights taken out by the wings as the plane came in, and if you saw them one thing was pretty obvious, the ones cut off were too far apart to be anything smaller than a commercial airliner.
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2010, 9:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/818 "2010-09-15T09:28:42Z")
> [@Gregg64](#):
>
> Another thing truffers don’t ever act like they know is that aluminum IGNITES AND BURNS and a relatively low temp. Don’t believe it? Next time you are around a campfire or even your home fireplace, toss a soda can under the logs into the charcoal like stuff under it, in a few seconds, instead of melting like a lot of people would think, it’ll burst into flames and in just a few seconds it’s gone. So a lot of airplane that is in a crash like at the Pentagon literally vaporizes and leaves no evidence. But there are plenty of pieces of airplane in photos of the Pentagon, hell, the whole vertical stabilizer is is one pic I have seen. .
Would you provide a link to the picture of the vertical stabilizer?
How thin is the metal of a pop can? An entire can will fit in a campfire and will not be able to conduct heat out of the fire.
psik
---
### Author:  [@psikeyhackr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psikeyhackr)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2010, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/819 "2010-09-15T09:32:41Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> > [@Mozart1220](#):
> >
> > There was a perfectly round hole, but too small for the size of the plane that allegedly hit it. No parts from a 757 were found either.
>
> Wrong, wrong and wrong.
> Truther Trifecta.
So provide a link to a picture of the Pentagon with elongated holes for the wings. Cut out the talk like people are supposed to believe mere talk.
psik
---
### Author:  [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)
#### Post date: [September 15, 2010, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182/820 "2010-09-15T10:08:20Z")
> [@psikeyhackr](#):
>
> > [@Czarcasm](#):
> >
> > Wrong, wrong and wrong.
> > Truther Trifecta.
>
> So provide a link to a picture of the Pentagon with elongated holes for the wings. Cut out the talk like people are supposed to believe mere talk.
>
> psik
We could - if the Pentagon were made out of cardboard.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=40)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-angle-of-the-wtc-collapse-id-never-seen/547182.md?page=42)