Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Gandalf's Beard]

More poor bashing from the Tories. They have proposed a cap on housing benefit for those who are unemployed but a letter has been leaked which says the following;

'the cap could cause some "very serious practical issues".
"Our modelling indicates that we could see an additional 20,000 homelessness acceptances as a result of the total benefit cap," it said.
"This on top of the of the 20,000 additional acceptances already anticipated as a result of other changes to Housing Benefit."
It outlined concerns that an estimated £270m a year in savings from the measure did not take into account the additional costs to local authorities through homelessness and temporary accommodation.
"In fact we think it is likely that the policy as it stands will generate a net cost," the letter stated.
And it said the department was worried about the impact of the policy on its ability to build social housing for families.
"To fund new affordable housing development providers need to be able to charge rents of up to 80% of the market levels but the impact of the overall benefit cap will prevent them from doing so in many areas greatly reducing their financial capacity," it said.
"Initial analysis suggests that of the 56,000 new affordable rent units up to 23,000 could be lost."- BBC News

So at a time of recession the government seem to planning to make roughly 40,000 people homeless and their policy will mean a reduction in nearly 50% of new houses being built. Are we still 'all in this together?' Its getting hard to tell.

Of course!!! Every Economist knows that "Austerity" measures during a Depression is Doubling Down on Disaster. But this is gravy to the Right Wing Plutocrats who see a devastated economy as a Propaganda Windfall to lull the masses into believing that government services should be cut in order to give away more of our taxpayer Public Funds to the already Obscenely Rich.

Case in point: the Greek populace are not as willing to be complacently fooled by Economic Piracy. The Greek populace have the right idea.

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

"do the kids in the UK today still use that term? Or am I hopelessly out of date?"- GB

I asked my brother who is a teenager and got this 'Know-it-all, Geek, Dweeb, Nerd. No one says swot.'- How American our language becomes!

Pathetic really!!!

GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

I was thinking about waiting a couple of days to post another conference vid, but I don't want to lose track of how the two current topics on this thread are actually the same topic: one by example (class struggle in the UK), and the other by analysis.

Michael Parenti is a Yale PHD who has taught Political Science and History at (and been kicked out of some of) the US's finest Universities. His talk dovetails nicely with Anne Machon's, and expands on her brief remarks regarding the Plutocratic control of Government Institutions.






GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Intermission:

It's another angle of the same story really. This is what happens when Conservatives intentionally under-fund the Public Service sector:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14034835

So, Billions of Pounds Sterling from the Public Coffer are showered on the Economic Predators that destroyed our economies to begin with, but there's not enough money to adequately cover the costs of the NHS??? Bloody Bullcrap I say.

The Fascist Party has been looking for an excuse to tear down the NHS for years with the enforced collusion of the Conservative Parties. It's a dastardly and brilliantly simple tactic actually. Lower taxes on the Filthy Rich, then tell people there is not enough money to fully fund public services, allow the Banking Institutions to deliberately collapse the economy, then give Banks the taxpayer's money to "bail them out" of a disaster they intentionally created, then, in the middle of the ensuing depression announce that there will be further cutbacks in services, begin making moves to privatize much of the Public Sector, when people start screaming bloody murder have the NHS chief (most likely under duress or bribery) announce that changes must be made, then, even if the people haven't fully come around you have the perfect excuse to complete your goals of destroying the NHS (at least until people start rioting and/or electorally give you the boot in favour of a Conservative party that will at least keep the status quo in a holding pattern until the Fascists get into office again).

It's exactly the same plan the Fascists in the US are using to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

Fortunately the Conservative Obama Administration is balking at going that far.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

Ok this needs a bit of background. For a while now in the UK a scandal has been running involving the real world counterpart of the NotP, The News of the World, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdochs corporation are involved in a major news take over which would give them control of over 50% of all media outlets in the UK. A while back, whilst the editor of the News of the World was a man called Andy Coulson a phone hacking scandal emerged. Journalists for the paper had been hiring people to illegally hack the phones of celebrities and MP's amongst others. There was a Police investigation which found that it was one rogue reporter and one rogue hacker, who went to jail. The editor resigned over it and is now Chief spin doctor to the Prime Minister David Cameron.
But it was not one man, as everyone suspected, and it all came to the fore again. Only this time the phone hacked was that of a 13 year old schoolgirl who was abducted and murdered. Whilst she was missing and the News of the World were holding press conferences with her parents appealing for her return, their journalist was hacking her phone and listening to the messages, including those from her distraught parents pleading with her to get in touch, and worse, they deleted messages when it was full to make room for new ones, not only interfering with the police investigation but much more horrribly giving hope to her parents that she was still alive and deleting the messages.
But just how much power does Murdoch have? There seems to have been movements of large brown envelopes stuffed with cash to the police during the original investigation, the editor at the time of that now sits by the Prime Ministers right hand. Surey the manner in which, and who controls, the supply of information is something which needs close monitoring, not back handers for shoddy deals.

Does kind of put Forumshires free press dispute in some perspective- always remember the NotP could be much worse, much worse it seems!!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Ok this needs a bit of background. For a while now in the UK a scandal has been running involving the real world counterpart of the NotP, The News of the World, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdochs corporation are involved in a major news take over which would give them control of over 50% of all media outlets in the UK. A while back, whilst the editor of the News of the World was a man called Andy Coulson a phone hacking scandal emerged. Journalists for the paper had been hiring people to illegally hack the phones of celebrities and MP's amongst others. There was a Police investigation which found that it was one rogue reporter and one rogue hacker, who went to jail. The editor resigned over it and is now Chief spin doctor to the Prime Minister David Cameron.
But it was not one man, as everyone suspected, and it all came to the fore again. Only this time the phone hacked was that of a 13 year old schoolgirl who was abducted and murdered. Whilst she was missing and the News of the World were holding press conferences with her parents appealing for her return, their journalist was hacking her phone and listening to the messages, including those from her distraught parents pleading with her to get in touch, and worse, they deleted messages when it was full to make room for new ones, not only interfering with the police investigation but much more horrribly giving hope to her parents that she was still alive and deleting the messages.
But just how much power does Murdoch have? There seems to have been movements of large brown envelopes stuffed with cash to the police during the original investigation, the editor at the time of that now sits by the Prime Ministers right hand. Surey the manner in which, and who controls, the supply of information is something which needs close monitoring, not back handers for shoddy deals.

Does kind of put Forumshires free press dispute in some perspective- always remember the NotP could be much worse, much worse it seems!!

I almost posted on this topic last night myself when I read this article:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14040841

At first I thought that the most significant aspect of this particular article was the oddity of the alleged hacks of 7/7 victim's families by a Murdoch owned Property. But as big as any possible connection between Murdoch and the attacks might be (we already know that Giuliani was directly involved), I think the hacking "scandal" as a whole may be as significant and far-reaching, if not more-so, than that.

The timing of this "expose" of Murdoch operatives hacking seems suspect, coming on the heels of the Assange Wiki-leaks case and the attempt by UK officials to restrict access to internet porn. It fits neatly like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle into the whole attempt to control the internet and to cut off whistle-blowers at the knees.

It wouldn't be the first time that Murdoch has played both sides of the propaganda machine. FOX news pundits were instructed to attack the building of a mosque several blocks away from the WTC destroyed on 9/11. This included attacking the major funder of the mosque, Murdoch's friend and part owner of FOX news, Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. The intended effect of the propaganda appears to have been to provoke more hatred of Muslims at a time when Islamo-phobia was on the downturn in the US.The Saudi Royals and the Bin Laden family have been playing along with Wealthy Right-Wingers in the West for decades, so this really isn't as weird as it seems.

This fully supports the fact that Murdoch is a key player in the Rightist Putsch in both the UK and the US. Again, this whole series of events is evidence that supports my main arguments on this thread. It's all part of the same scheme to expand Global Corporate Neo-Feudalism. They're bringing neo-Colonialism back home to advance the Third Worldization of their own countries, and leave the masses out in the cold scavenging for scraps while the Fat Cats lord it up and demolish any remnants of democracy on their home fronts.

ETA: Keep the Deep Politics Analysis of the videos I've posted so far in mind as the series of the various events and topics of discussion on this thread unfold. At first glance, many of the topics discussed on this thread may otherwise appear unrelated, but the relationships are put into sharp focus once one has the right analytical tools to examine the events as they occur.




GB

[Pettytyrant101]

In a dramatic follow up to all this Murdoch has canned the News of the World! This Sunday is to be the final edition. (lucky for us the NotP will continue) This is a huge move, the News of the World is the biggest newspaper in the country and has run for 160 years. To close it and lay off its entire staff, from journalists to printers is a big choice. So why is Murdoch doing it, does he think it will slow the political pressure which has been growing for a public enquiry under oath? Or does he think it will aid in the monoploy commissions decision about his buy out of a majority in Sky? Or is it even possible he is just disgusted by the papers actions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

[Gandalf's Beard]

In a dramatic follow up to all this Murdoch has canned the News of the World! This Sunday is to be the final edition. (lucky for us the NotP will continue) This is a huge move, the News of the World is the biggest newspaper in the country and has run for 160 years. To close it and lay off its entire staff, from journalists to printers is a big choice. So why is Murdoch doing it, does he think it will slow the political pressure which has been growing for a public enquiry under oath? Or does he think it will aid in the monoploy commissions decision about his buy out of a majority in Sky? Or is it even possible he is just disgusted by the papers actions?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14070733

Murdoch shut down operations because it has already done the damage to the Public Discourse (regarding the Corporate Government's control of the internet and to provide an excuse for Draconian new laws against hackers) that he intended it to do. Now he can come in and claim that it was a Rogue Property of his that he has tossed in the rubbish bin...all for the good of the public you know; and thus appearing appropriately contrite. In any case, the worth of News of the World is a drop in the bucket compared to Murdoch's vast empire of properties.

This is actually standard operating procedure for Murdoch. It's not the first time that Murdoch has kicked to the curb one of his operations and/or operatives once they had done his Propagandist Dirty Work and had become a public liability. Most recently, he has given Glenn Beck the boot after Beck had fueled the rise of the Fascist "Tea Party" and plied the Populist Rightists with insane conspiracy theories. Again, presenting the illusion that Murdoch is a Great Guy who takes public outrage seriously.

Glenn Beck doesn't actually seem that cut up about it. Beck's made a mint working for Murdoch and from kickbacks from his endorsements of a Gold exchange outfit, got a lovely severance package, and Beck still has his syndicated radio programme.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

You do love a conspircacy GB. And whilst on this one I rather like the narrative that the hacking scandal at the NotW happened in order to fuel public outrage at hacking and justify new laws to curb it, I don't think it is so. For a start they would have had to be planning well ahead, at least four years before the present government even got elected.
It seeems more likely to me that over the years the press and the police have developed a releationship involving envelopes stuffed with cash and that the NotW has been willing to go to any lengths to get information in order to get exclusives, to sell newspapers and thus rake in the advertising. And with the slow decline in the printed press, smaller circulation numbers and an ever greater dog fight between the survivors for readers this hacking case is symptomatic of it I think, not of a grand scheme to curb all things internet- which is not to say those who want that won't use it as such in their argument.

edit add- "the worth of News of the World is a drop in the bucket compared to Murdoch's vast empire of properties."- GB
In purely financial terms yes. But it was one of Murdochs first major buy ups in the 60's which set him up to build his empire, it was a cornerstone, and more improtantly it has been a constant pressure on the British political scene and mouth piece for his corporations policies, and up until today still was.

[Gandalf's Beard]

You do love a conspircacy GB. And whilst on this one I rather like the narrative that the hacking scandal at the NotW happened in order to fuel public outrage at hacking and justify new laws to curb it, I don;t think it is so. For a start they would have had to be planning well ahead, at least four years before the present government even got elected.

Of course they plan well ahead. Whittling away democratic institutions and rights is a lengthy process when one is attempting to maintain an illusion of democracy. Murdoch has been one of the biggest players of the Corporate Right's Propaganda Machine for some decades. And the Right has been working for 30 + years to get to this point rolling back the gains in economic and civil rights that the working classes have won over the last 150 years.

Wikipedia:

Keith Rupert Murdoch AC, KSG (English pronunciation: /ˈruːpɚt ˈmɚdɑk/; born 11 March 1931) is an Australian-American media mogul and the Chairman and CEO of News Corporation.

Beginning with one newspaper in Adelaide, Murdoch acquired and started other publications in his native Australia before expanding News Corp into the United Kingdom, United States and Asian media markets. Although it was in Australia in the late 1950s that he first dabbled in television, he later sold these assets, and News Corp's Australian current media interests (still mainly in print) are restricted by cross-media ownership rules. Murdoch's first permanent foray into TV was in the USA, where he created Fox Broadcasting Company in 1986. In the 2000s, he became a leading investor in satellite television, the film industry and the Internet, and purchased a leading American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal.

Rupert Murdoch was listed three times in the Time 100 as among the most influential people in the world. He is ranked 13th most powerful person in the world in the 2010 Forbes' The World's Most Powerful People list.[4] With a net worth of US$6.3 billion, he is ranked 117th wealthiest person in the world.[5]

Ronnie and Maggie were just the first step in the lengthy process of destroying Unions and Collective Bargaining Rights, and penetrating deeper into the Near and Middle East.

Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were there from the beginning; funding, arming and, training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan and propping up Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and poking a stick at the Iranian Hornets Nest--all part of their scheme to destabilize the entire region. They also plotted for a decade since the first Gulf War to get back in the driver's seat and finish the job.

They have also worked very hard over the last 30 + years to destroy the Public Sector, Union-bust, outsource jobs, drive down wages, eliminate the taxes on the wealthy while putting a heavier tax burden on the middle class etc. etc.

This is planning ahead big time. And a lot of it wasn't done conspiratorially, but openly in public. You REALLY need to watch Michael Parenti's talk which I posted after Anne Machon's talk.

It seeems more likely to me that over the years the press and the police have developed a releationship involving envelopes stuffed with cash and that the NotW has been willing to go to any lengths to get information in order to get exclusives, to sell newspapers and thus rake in the advertising. And with the slow decline in the printed press, smaller circulation numbers and an ever greater dog fight between the survivors for readers this hacking case is symptomatic of it I think, not of a grand scheme to curb all things internet- which is not to say those who want that won't use it as such in their argument.

Of course; but it's all part of the same game. The multiple goals are not mutually exclusive. And what you yourself are presenting is also a conspiracy FACT.

In fact, the goals fit hand in glove; buying off the police and shifting from a declining form of media (Print) into an expanding form of media (Digital) actually proves my point.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

I dont disagree such things go on, its the idea of there being conspiracies I have a problem with. I just thin its what happens when loads of different unscruplous people try to do things for their own ends, it doesnt need conspiring just humans. Its the idea there is a grand plan I don't buy, the world is too random and too chaotic to have a grand plan, its just opportuinism.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I dont disagree such things go on, its the idea of there being conspiracies I have a problem with. I just thin its what happens when loads of different unscruplous people try to do things for their own ends, it doesnt need conspiring just humans. Its the idea there is a grand plan I don't buy, the world is too random and too chaotic to have a grand plan, its just opportuinism.

But you yourself have just now provided an excellent example of a Conspiracy.

And you are actually unintentionally confused about the distinction between secret and open collusion. The annual Bilderberg Conference, the Trilateral Commission, the G8 and G12 summits, The UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, NATO, and any number of other organizations are where the interests of competing Corporate and Ruling Class Elites meet to haggle and bang out who gets what bit of the Global Pie. These Institutions are well known and the attendants are public, even though the members work things out IN CONCERT behind the various Institutions' closed doors.

Many of these same competing interests also act Conspiratorially against each other to scramble to the top of the heap.

There is no single Grand Conspiracy to Control the World (this is the mistake Right Wing Conspiracy Kooks make with their Tin-Foil Hat Anti-Illuminati/Freemason/Jewish/Commie Grand Trans-historical Conspiracy Theories), but rather numerous shifting alliances of the interest groups of Global Elites Battling and Haggling with each other to control as much of the world as possible. And many of these acts are carried out Institutionally as well as Conspiratorially.

See what I mean? What you describe as mere Opportunism is IN NO WAY Mutually Exclusive to Goals carried out both Institutionally and Conspiratorially.

You REALLY REALLY need to watch the Michael Parenti video.


GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

I just received an email which presents a perfect example of COLLUSION between Conservatives (i.e. the Obama Administration) and the Fascists (i.e. the GOP). On one side you have a party that represents billionaires like Warren Buffett, George Soros, and Bill Gates (Conservatives) and on the other you have a party that represents Billionaires like Rupert Murdoch, the Bush family, and the Cheney family (Fascists).

This collusion is being carried out openly and publicly. In other words it is the COLLECTIVE OPPORTUNISM of two groups of the Ruling Class being worked out Institutionally (this is what I mean about not confusing and conflating the distinctive definitions of Collective Opportunism done openly with Collective Opportunism done in Secret. One is Institutional and the other is Conspiratorial). They are haggling between themselves about how much further to the Right Goalpost they want to move the Middle of the Field to.

From the activist group the Bold Progressive's mass email campaign:

URGENT: The New York Times reports that President Obama is offering Republicans "substantial spending cuts, including in such social programs as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security -- programs that had been off the table."

<snip>

The Washington Post reports that "congressional Democrats were alarmed by the president’s proposal."

Frankly, it's outrageous. President Obama is on the verge of doing what George W. Bush couldn't do with a Republican Congress: Put Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits on the chopping block.

We've done the polling in swing states -- by overwhelming margins, voters oppose these cuts. There's no need for a bad "deal." If we fight, voters are on our side.

But if President Obama caves on these core principles, he will be harming all Democrats in 2012 -- and millions of Americans will suffer. It's just wrong.

ETA: In regards to poll numbers, currently about 80% of the populace is AGAINST cutbacks in these social programmes and FOR Tax Hikes on the Wealthy.


GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

Here is a recent interview with Michael Parenti about current events and his new book:






GB

[Orwell]

I will try to get to your videos, GB, I'm on nightshift though, and my head's too weary for thoughtfulness of any depth ...

[Pettytyrant101]

I'm watching the first of his videos now. For all he speaks out against the use of the term 'conspiracy' he seems to adhere to some. 9/11 being an inside job for one. This is a problem for me as I have been reading up on all sides of this debate and there is one piece of evidence which proves to me beyond doubt that those buildings were not demolished. For him to continue to support the inside job theory means he has choosen to ignore this evidence because it does not fit his narrative. So how much else can I take as fact that he says and how much has he left out because it does not fit?

The evidence incidentally concerns the windows on the surroundng buildings. The glass was broken only on sides facing the towers, by debris mainly. Windows on the rear of the buildings were unbroken hence no shockwave hence no explosion. Simple physics and no way round it. No broken windows=no shockwave=no explosion=no demolision.
I see no way round this for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I'm watching the first of his videos now. For all he speaks out against the use of the term 'conspiracy'...

I think you are completely missing the point. He is not at all against the word Conspiracy; quite the opposite in fact. What he IS against is the way the word is used to dismiss certain facts out of hand...that don't support the OFFICIAL NARRATIVE. He goes on to speak quite plainly that "Conspiracy" is a perfectly legitimate word to use.

And he also goes on to explain the difference, as I did myself, between open collusion through institutional means and collusion committed in secret. He uses the words Functionalism and Institutionalism to describe the terms of debate. He points out that they are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.

He also points out that the Institutionalists WON'T EVEN ASCRIBE CONSCIOUS INTENT to the people who run the institutions and use them to advance their own Opportunist Interests. The Institutionalists claim, flying the face of well established definitions of terms, that stating the obvious--that people in power consciously collude publicly within the Institutional Framework to protect and pursue their own interests--is in itself a Conspiracy Theory!!!! What utter rubbish!!! The word Conspiracy has a very clear definition: two or more people colluding IN SECRET to carry out acts that may be (but not necessarily so) illegal or nefarious.

THIS is the MAIN point of his talk which I wanted you to see for yourself, not his (very) brief mention of the events of 9/11. So I am frankly baffled at how you managed to get turned around 180 degrees about what Michael Parenti actually said.

...he seems to adhere to some. 9/11 being an inside job for one. This is a problem for me as I have been reading up on all sides of this debate and there is one piece of evidence which proves to me beyond doubt that those buildings were not demolished. For him to continue to support the inside job theory means he has choosen to ignore this evidence because it does not fit his narrative. So how much else can I take as fact that he says and how much has he left out because it does not fit?

The evidence incidentally concerns the windows on the surroundng buildings. The glass was broken only on sides facing the towers, by debris mainly. Windows on the rear of the buildings were unbroken hence no shockwave hence no explosion. Simple physics and no way round it. No broken windows=no shockwave=no explosion=no demolision.
I see no way round this for 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

1) Michael Parenti has been on the fence about whether the administration Let it happen on Purpose or actually participated in an inside job. But as the bulk of the evidence (including the physics) from experts in the field demolishes the Official Conspiracy Theory, he has more and more leaned to Inside Job.

2) You have been fooled by people propagandizing with completely bogus (Straw Man) information regarding controlled demolitions.

The whole POINT of controlled demolitions is that it MINIMIZES damage to surrounding buildings, so it is not surprising that surrounding buildings only had windows broken on one side. Controlled Demolitions are NOT, in fact, "Explosions," they are IMPLOSIONS; this is a CONFLATION of terms that is intended to bamboozle people. IMPLOSIONS are used in Controlled Demolitions because they DON'T create huge shock waves or topple into other buildings.

Controlled Demolitions done properly collapse buildings in on themselves and straight down into their own footprints. This is done by placing cutter charges on key sections of the steel framework. Cutter charges are INCENDIARY devices, not EXPLOSIVE devices. Controlled demolitions ALSO use Explosive Charges to take out foundations and inner support structures, but they are small in comparison to what the Propagandists want you to believe.

All the charges, Incendiary and Explosive have to be timed PRECISELY to achieve an implosion, i.e. collapse in on itself.

The STRAW MAN that Morons (or Propagandists) Propagate, is that 9/11 Conspiracy Factists claim the buildings were brought down by MASSIVE EXPLOSIONS. 9/11 Conspiracy Factists DON'T MAKE THAT CLAIM....unless they are complete idiots that don't have a clue or do any research.

The ONLY way for a Steel Frame and Concrete building to be collapsed in on itself is through controlled demolition. Planes knocking into buildings and carbon fuel fires will not cause that effect.

Number One: Jet fuel, drywall, carpets, office equipment etc do not burn hot enough to collapse steel frame buildings. Fires have NEVER brought down Steel frame and Concrete buildings in history. Much hotter fires have burned much longer in a number of skyscrapers around the world without causing building collapses. This is precisely the reason why Steel Frame and concrete are used to build tall bulidings.

Number Two: The Towers were designed to take SEVERAL hits from jumbo jets (747's etc). The Towers did not only have perimeter steel beams and columns, they ALSO had an INTERIOR core of steel beams and columns, which made the Towers practically impossible to KNOCK down. And, for the sake of argument, even if the plane hits DID have enough force to knock the Towers down (they didn't), there is no way the Towers could have collapsed in on themselves and into their own footprints at near Free Fall speeds. The Towers would have TOPPLED OVER, smashing into and crushing other nearby buildings.

The reason this is so is due to VERY SIMPLE secondary school physics. You can test it yourself at home. Stack up a tower of 12 inch pizza boxes to your own height. Whack the top few boxes. What happens? Do they fall through all the boxes underneath? Of course not; they are in the way. So the top few boxes topple off to the side.

Now try something else. Whack a few boxes somewhere closer to the middle of the stack. What happens? The shifted boxes create less support and stability for the upper stack of boxes. If you've shifted the middle boxes enough, the stack of boxes on top TOPPLE OVER TO THE SIDE leaving the bottom stack still standing. Again, this is because stuff can't fall through stuff that is in the way (the path of Maximum Resistance). Stuff falls through THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE.

Just think about it another way for a moment, the middle boxes (or floors) will have shifted to one side (if floors of a skyscraper, just picture the middle floors having one side blown out). What happens to the boxes (or floors) on top? They lean over to the side which HAS NO SUPPORT, i.e. The Path of Least Resistance. And if they lean over far enough, they TOPPLE OFF TO THE SIDE.

The ONLY WAY for the top boxes (or floors) to fall straight down at near Free Fall speeds is to rapidly KNOCK OUT THE BOXES (OR FLOORS) underneath all the way to the bottom.

Now this is no guarantee that the top floors won't topple over to one side, which does happen in flubbed controlled demolitions. To do it properly and collapse the building straight down in on itself (at near free fall speeds) requires precision timing to rapidly take out the right sections of the building in sequence.

None of the above takes a Quantum Physics degree to work out. This is Physics 101 for secondary (or even some primary) school students. In other words SIMPLE PHYSICS.

And considering that WTC 7 WASN'T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE, all you've got is a Fuel Fire event, which cannot, and never has, brought down steel frame and concrete buildings.

*********************************************************************************************************

Now I hadn't intended at all for this to reopen the 9/11 Inside Job debate, but seeing as it has popped up again I will also introduce some examples of Steel Frame and Concrete Skyscraper fires.


Other Skyscraper Fires

Fires Have Never Caused Skyscrapers to Collapse

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

1) The One Meridian Plaza Fire

One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours, gutting eight floors and causing an estimated $100 million in direct property loss. It was later described by Philadelphia officials as "the most significant fire in this century".

The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures of spandrel panel connections. Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.




2) The First Interstate Bank Fire

The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor, and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. The fire caused an estimated $200 million in direct property loss.

A report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

"In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans."




3) The 1 New York Plaza Fire

1 New York Plaza is a 50-story office tower less than a mile from the World Trade Center site. It suffered a severe fire and explosion on August 5, 1970. The fire started around 6 PM, and burned for more than 6 hours. There was no collapse.

(no photo available)


4) Caracas Tower Fire

The tallest skyscraper in Caracas, Venezuela experienced a severe fire on October 17, 2004. The blaze began before midnight on the 34th floor, spread to more than 26 floors, and burned for more than 17 hours. Heat from the fires prevented firefighters from reaching the upper floors, and smoke injured 40 firefighters. Again, no collapse.




5) The Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire

The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.



And while we're at it, let's look at something a little earlier in History:

July 28, 1945—The Empire State Building—New York

A B-52 crashed into the empire state building, A 102-story building. The 79th floor endured most of the impact, but fuel reportedly ran down stairwells as far as the 75th floor. The blaze was extinguished by N.Y. firefighters after about three hours and remained isolated within those floors. Most of the plane’s wreckage remained inside the building. There was no collapse.



Let's compare to the 3 WTC buildings:

Collapse WTC South Tower (2WTC) in approx 56 minutes.
Collapse WTC North Tower (1WTC) in approx 102 minutes.
Collapse WTC Bldg 7 (wasnt even hit by a plane) in 7hrs.

And all of them at near Free Fall speeds straight down.


GB

[Gandalf's Beard]

And hey, while we're at it, lets look at videos of controlled demolition for comparison.

Look for the "shock-waves" that blow out the windows of all the buildings surrounding them.





Here's one gone wrong:


This one is sweet:










Here's what happens when a building falls down without a controlled demolition:


Nicely done:



Alrighty then...lets look at some comparisons with the WTC buildings:

WTC 7--Classic demolition:


WTC 1 and 2 demolitions would have been timed for explosions first in the basements to take out the foundations (which numerous witnesses heard), then the incendiaries and explosives to collapse the top floors above the impact sites, then the explosives and incendiaries to blow out the floors below allowing the tops to come straight down.

Notice that one of the tops does tilt as it collapses. If the lower floors weren't taken out it would have toppled off to the side of the building.

WTC 1:


WTC 2:

[Pettytyrant101]

I brought up 9/11 becasue that was as far as I got listening to his speech. And it was worrying.

So to just stay on the subject lets have a look at what you say.

"Controlled Demolitions done properly collapse buildings in on themselves and straight down into their own footprints."-GB

And the actual evidence;

"Footage of the event shows it took nine seconds for the north tower to fall, and 11 seconds for the south tower."
Slower than free fall speeds, not by much but in physics not by much counts for a lot. It was not freefall speeds for any of the three buildings which collapsed that day. Had it been a controlled demolition they would have fallen at free fall speed because there would have been no floors beneath to resist, the fact they fell slightly slower than that shows there was still some resistance.
Then there is comment by Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, who told the Washington Post: "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints. Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

So who should a person believe? A conspiracy theorists such yourself GB who has already been a little loose with his interpretation of 'freefall' or a Professor of Materials at MIT?


You said; "The ONLY way for a Steel Frame and Concrete building to be collapsed in on itself is through controlled demolition. Planes knocking into buildings and carbon fuel fires will not cause that effect.... Jet fuel, drywall, carpets, office equipment etc do not burn hot enough to collapse steel frame buildings."

Official invetigations into this found the following;

'the towers did not collapse because the steel melted, they collapsed because the columns, already damaged by the jetliners' collision, softened and warped under the heat, until they buckled and the floors collapsed.
The planes also broke water pipes connecting the emergency water sprinkler systems. But even if the sprinklers had worked after the planes hit, they would have done little to lessen the severity of so much burning jet fuel, spread over an estimated 40,000 square feet.'
And there is also this quote; "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
And this; "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
And this ; "But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, aa structural engineers and fire expert. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams says. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

So your point that the fire was not hot enough to melt steel is a complete straw man. It is not even relevant to why they collapsed.
And again who should a person believe, conspiracy theorists or the American Institute of Steel Constructions experts? Who one would think might know a thing or two about steel. If they do not think it impossible why should I instead believe people who more often than not seem to lack the expert knowledge required to make the judgement?

And there is loads more. No demolition in history has not left behind a lot of demolition stuff, the detonators and a couple of inches of cable nearly always survive and these should have been littering the site, not one person picking through the debris has come forward to say they found such a thing. The 'explosions' eyewitnesses report hearing coincide exactly with fallig masonry strikes from one builiding onto another.
It is asking a lot to assume all the experts, including those I have sited are all willing to put their professional reputations and their careers on the line to make George Bush happy. It just makes no sense.

[Gandalf's Beard]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/08/us-newscorp-hacking-idUSTRE7641IO20110708?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

It appears more and more likely that there has indeed been a Conspiracy in the NotW Scandal. Not the one I was speculating about, but something much closer to the sort of Conspiracy of collusion between media organizations, police, and politicians--verifying much of what Anne Machon was on about in her talk.

This looks like it will be a much bigger hit on the Murdoch Empire than I had originally anticipated. I hope it takes Murdoch down, and Cameron too. The firing of 200 + journalists and shutdown of NotW is certain to backfire on Murdoch. It seems that his usual MO of getting his employees to pull off dirty tricks and then sacking them after they've done their jobs is coming to an end. I don't think Murdoch thought it would explode so badly on him.

One of my biggest concerns though, is still that the Government officials will jump at this opportunity to crack-down on the Press, and possibly hackers as well. I now doubt this was the intention of Murdoch. It would be cutting off his nose to spite his face, and will almost certainly derail his bid to completely take over SKY. Murdoch has clearly over-reached in the UK, where he is clearly much less loved than in the US where he continues to enjoy the adulation of US Fascists and FOX "News" Fans.

Though if speculation by other media outlets pans out, Murdoch could conceivably take a huge hit on this side of the pond too. Good Riddance I say.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

There is an interesting side issue to all this regarding Andy Coulson. Last year in Scotland the MSP Tommy Sheridan was convicted of perjury at his trial against the NotW. At that trial Sheridan claimed the NOtW had hacked his phone and that payments had been made to police for information. Several NotW employess were called to the stand to refute this, including Andy Coulson who was editor of the NotW at the time. If it is now found that he did know about these things then ironically he will have committed perjury in a trial which convicted Sheridan of perjury.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I brought up 9/11 becasue that was as far as I got listening to his speech. And it was worrying.

So to just stay on the subject lets have a look at what you say.

"Controlled Demolitions done properly collapse buildings in on themselves and straight down into their own footprints."-GB

And the actual evidence;

"Footage of the event shows it took nine seconds for the north tower to fall, and 11 seconds for the south tower."
Slower than free fall speeds, not by much but in physics not by much counts for a lot. It was not freefall speeds for any of the three buildings which collapsed that day. Had it been a controlled demolition they would have fallen at free fall speed because there would have been no floors beneath to resist, the fact they fell slightly slower than that shows there was still some resistance.
Then there is comment by Thomas Eager, a professor of materials science at MIT, who told the Washington Post: "At first, I thought it was amazing that the buildings would come down in their own footprints. Then I realized that it wasn't that amazing -- it's the only way a building that weighs a million tons and is 95 percent air can come down."

1) MIT Engineer Jeff King would disagree.



2) Not to mention that Eager is just making crap up to cover for his naivete. The 95% Air is a Red Herring that is purely speculation on Eager's part. And it is irrelevant to the collapses anyway.

3) NEAR Free Fall speeds is what one would expect from a controlled demolition and is not in contention by the Architects, Engineers, Physicists and Demolitions Experts who have challenged the Official Theories. The timing of the charges clears away the lower floors fairly quickly, But there would still be a measure of resistance that would slow the collapse slightly.

So who should a person believe? A conspiracy theorists such yourself GB who has already been a little loose with his interpretation of 'freefall' or a Professor of Materials at MIT?

Watch the videos of controlled demolitions as compared to the video of a collapse due to structural damage. the only one playing fast and loose is Eager. He offers no evidence to support his faulty speculations.

And I would contend that the MIT Engineer is more credible than the MIT Materials Scientist.

You said; "The ONLY way for a Steel Frame and Concrete building to be collapsed in on itself is through controlled demolition. Planes knocking into buildings and carbon fuel fires will not cause that effect.... Jet fuel, drywall, carpets, office equipment etc do not burn hot enough to collapse steel frame buildings."

Official invetigations into this found the following;

There were no official investigations. Only Theories put forward by Agencies like NIST. And when one of the Department Heads of NIST challenged the unsupportable theories, he was summarily sacked.

...'the towers did not collapse because the steel melted, they collapsed because the columns, already damaged by the jetliners' collision, softened and warped under the heat, until they buckled and the floors collapsed.

1) Steel conducts heat and distributes it evenly lessening the heat, which disqualifies statements to the contrary.

2) The statement about the columns conveniently ignores the redundancy of the interior columns.

The planes also broke water pipes connecting the emergency water sprinkler systems. But even if the sprinklers had worked after the planes hit, they would have done little to lessen the severity of so much burning jet fuel, spread over an estimated 40,000 square feet.'

Perfectly true, which is why it is another Red Herring irrelevant to the actual facts.

And there is also this quote; "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety.

Which just proves my point. Molted steel was found still Molten several weeks later by clean-up crews. This was reported by the mainstream media, and was thus one of the inconvenient facts which had caused the Administration to concoct a new explanation.

"But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

Again, Vincent's comments support the Controlled Demolition facts. Vincent is speculating without any basis to support it. The majority of the steel was in short lengths consistent with controlled demolition, rather than long pieces of bent and warped steel.

And this; "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent."

I have already debunked this BS. Also, again, we have people who should know better GUESSING and using words like "probably", which demonstrates that Farid had no actual evidence to support his statement.

NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

1) Which proves that NIST hadn't actually conducted an investigation, only producing hypotheses. Belief is not evidence. If they had evidence they would not have to BELIEVE anything.

2) In any case the crashing jets could not have knocked the fireproofing off all the steel Columns and Girders in the Building

The transference of heat would have distributed it evenly, thus putting the lie to Farid's statement.

And this ; "But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, aa structural engineers and fire expert. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

This is flat-out false. There was no inferno after all the jet fuel burned off in the explosion. And the combustible material cannot burn hot enough to melt steel.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams says. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

See my comment above.

And yet another expert let's facts slip-out that undermines his case and supports my case. He actually acknowledges that there was heat transference without discussing the fact that heat transference LESSENS the heat in any one spot and evenly distributes at a much lower temperature through out the entire steel structures.

So your point that the fire was not hot enough to melt steel is a complete straw man. It is not even relevant to why they collapsed.

1) Clearly you don't understand what the term Straw Man means. It means that instead of arguing against your opponent's argument, you create a false argument that is easier to attack. I have not done so.

2) You have just spent most of your post claiming that the temperature of the fires IS relevant. Make up your mind.

And again who should a person believe, conspiracy theorists or the American Institute of Steel Constructions experts? Who one would think might know a thing or two about steel. If they do not think it impossible why should I instead believe people who more often than not seem to lack the expert knowledge required to make the judgement?

1) I don't "believe" anything. I only take evidence into consideration. Evidence does not require belief.

2) I submit that the 1,517 Architects and Engineers who see the gaping lack of evidence to support the speculations by agencies like NIST (who should have collected evidence instead of just making stuff up) are more credible.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

And there is loads more. No demolition in history has not left behind a lot of demolition stuff, the detonators and a couple of inches of cable nearly always survive and these should have been littering the site, not one person picking through the debris has come forward to say they found such a thing.

And no steel frame and concrete building in history has ever collapsed due to fire. Again, the Fire Did It is the the central hypothesis (speculation) that NIST and Scientific American have come up with. Why? Because they have no explanation and provide no evidence for how WTC 7 came down. So the fire hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis that is not backed up by any evidence and extrapolated to include WTC 1 and 2.

There was a whole lot of crap to sift through, and the Administration put the fast-track on disposing all of the evidence by carting it all away before any proper forensic investigation had been done. Any such demolition material would not have stood out to people who were more concerned about cleaning up than they were about finding evidence of something they didn't believe to be true. If one's basic assumption that the Official Conspiracy Theory about some Arabs living in caves is true, any evidence to the contrary would have been ignored.

The 'explosions' eyewitnesses report hearing coincide exactly with falling masonry strikes from one builiding onto another

The explosions that many of the Firefighters heard are in the public record. The FOI Act finally got the City Officials to release the Firefighter's reports of their experiences, and a large number of Firefighters had written that they heard numerous small explosions popping, and some even witnessed the squibs going off visually. I think the Firefighters would know the difference.

In any case there is no factual basis for the speculation that any debris falling coincided with anything. How would they even prove such a thing? Were people sitting around with stop-watches timing every piece of debris and attributing it to the sounds of multiple explosions? Of course not. They would have to either be psychic or be in on it.
.

It is asking a lot to assume all the experts, including those I have sited are all willing to put their professional reputations and their careers on the line to make George Bush happy. It just makes no sense.

That is patently ridiculous.

The only experts who have to fear for their careers are the ones who challenge the Official Conspiracy Theory. No-one get's canned for going along with what most people and government officials believe.

GB

ETA: By the way I noticed that you haven't said anything about the fact that I blew a huge hole in the argument that Controlled Demolition would cause a shock-wave breaking all the windows of adjacent buildings.

[Pettytyrant101]

Gave your latest vid a watch GB. Had to laugh at the opening footage he uses of the 'explosions' marked with arrows, it was also cited as evidence in a BBC documenary debunking conspiracy theories about 9/11 as evidence of the top floors collapsing and pushing the air and material out the sides as it does so-which would seem to make perfect sense and requires no explosions or demolisions.

You say Eager is just making crap up and that what he says is a red herring and speculation, yet you fail to say why or why what he says is irrelevant.

You dismiss Vincents comments as 'speculation' yet he gives an eye winess account-"I have seen..." why do you accept some eye witness accounts that fit your version and dismiss as speculations others which don't?

On the point about steel losing strength under heat the figure for 18000 degess is an estimate. The figure for 50% loss at 1100 seems to be given as fact. The question therefore is at what point would the loss of strength equal an inability for the steel to keep the floor up? The temperature for fires in the building are given as well above the required temprerature for the 50% strength loss.

As to straw man, a slight misuse of the term on my part, I meant that conspiracy theorists often sight the steel failing as 'proof' that a demolishion must have occured. Where the evidence I've sighted would seem to offer an explanation for the failing without the need to resort to such arguments, and that as such its a flase accusation. The steel never melted becasue of demolision but because of a loss of stength brought about by a combination of huge stress and heat which caused it to warp, buckle, twist and thin. So when conspiracy people attack this idea they are attacking something which is false in the first place- hence a straw man.

And it still does not explain the complete lack of evidence for demolition in the debris. There should have been detonators, lengths of wiring, all of which are commonly found in demolitions. Yet not a single one of these has turned up.

The idea that just becasue someone supports the governments version means they have nothing to fear shows a poor undrstanding of the pressures in scienticfic groups. Peer pressure is far more important and immediate to a career than any outside influence. If what you are saying is true then these people whom I have cited, who work in high up positions within their own fields or industry only have what the govenrment thinks to worry about for their careers. Not so, if what they are saying is obviously untrue and lies they would be called out by their own peers first. They would lose respect, standing all the things which actually mean something to such people. So yes I do think its a lot to ask of someone just to support Geoge Bush.

[Eldorion]

NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

1) Which proves that NIST hadn't actually conducted an investigation, only producing hypotheses. Belief is not evidence. If they had evidence they would not have to BELIEVE anything.

Did I read that right? Did you just say that the quote "the NIST believes..." proves that they didn't actually conduct experiments and are just making things up, GB? Since when does the word "believe" imply that? For someone who posts so much about science (all the while asserting that the vast majority of professional scientists and engineers, those who have not joined your conspiracy organizations, are wrong) you seem to have forgotten that scientists don't make absolute statements. They only comment on what seems most likely based on the available evidence.

With that in mind, the word "believe" does not imply that they haven't conducted an investigation. I am far more skeptical of people who claim to know for sure one way or another. This is especially true when the people who are so sure of themselves haven't conducted any investigations beyond watching lots of YouTube videos.

[Pettytyrant101]

To tackle the glass breaking issue I would like to cite the example of the demoltion of the J.L Hudson Department Store- a good example as like the Twin Towers it was surrounded by other buildings.
But as well as the windows thing it will also bring into focus I hope what it takes to prepare this sor tof thing.

"The store was built in 12 separate stages, the first in 1911 and the last in 1946. The complex had two retail basements and 23 above grade retail floors, including mezzanines. Two additional basements and six upper stories in a tower, provided storage and mechanical support for the 2.2 million square foot building. In all there were 33 levels in the structure.
Hudson’s was bordered on four sides by streets filled with critical infrastructure and flanked on 3 sides by poorly maintained, turn-of-the-century structures
CDI (the demolition company)had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil.
CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Even with all the precautions to control overpressure, the age, existing cracks, and poor condition of glazing windows in vacant structures on the north, east and west sides of the J.L. Hudson complex, window breakage was a concern. CDI had seven glass company crews on standby to handle any problems. Although Homrich/NASDI has placed over 2,000 yards of soil over utilities in the four adjacent streets, emergency utility crews were also standby "just in case."
There was far less window breakage in adjacent buildings than glass company crews were prepared to handle."

Now one has to assume demoltioning the Twin Towers would be a considerably greater job than this one department store. And just look at what had to go into it, they even had to fill the basement with sand to make sure it came down in its own footprint. And yet you expect me to beleive this was somehow accomplished on a huge scale with the Twin Towers in complete secrecy whilst the buildings were still in use.
And as you can see, althought in the end the window breaking was less than expected it is clear it is a concern in such demolitions. And it would appear part of the reason for the damage to windows being as little here as it was is thanks to the choice to take steel plates off to weaken the structure thus allowing less charge to be used and the use of the extra micro-delayers. This would be unlikely, given the extra work, to have happened in the case of the Twin Towers were they demolished, so yes the windows should have been broken on both sides of the surrounding buildings had it been a demoliion. They were not, ergo no demolition.
For what you are saying to be true the people who demolished it, and this remember is all in order to create a 'Pearl Harbour', so presumably the worse the better, took the time to lay at least an extra 1000 micro delays per tower in order to keep the pressure down on the explosives enough to prevent glass breaking in the surrounding buildings? (as they had to do in the above example) Very considerate of them considering they are engaing in the act of mass murder. Really how does that make any sense what so ever?