9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[scott3x]

Once more. Jet fuel of that quantity burns at 8000+ degrees. It could easily shatter the bars just from the extreme difference in heat. Also a lot of people said that the highest temperature of jet fueel is 1000 degrees. The tiny amount of fuel in the engine (and i say tiny) hits 2,400 degrees. So imagine whatan enormous tank of the stuff burns at. Also people claim seeing fires that werent jet fuel. Yah lets remember that it was an office space and there were probably a 20,000 individual sheets of paper in the place that got hit.

You don't specify if you're referring to Fahrenheight or Celsius. In any case, regardless of the temperature the fuel can reach in a jet plane engine, even NIST doesn't believe that that the jet fuel ignited fires got beyond 1000 Celsius (1832 Fahrenheit):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As far as I know, even Ryan Mackey hasn't claimed this to be the case.

You want to disagree both with alternate theory believers -and- the backbone behind the official story believers, go ahead, but I think I'll pass on responding to such claims.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

I believe that if someone has some staggering miscomprehension, it's Mackey.

Based on what? A steel-and-concrete building is massive in a way a Lego building simply is not. If the top part of a Lego building suddenly loses its support ( you say demolition, I say failed construction), does it ride the remainder of the edifice all the way to the ground? No.

Exactly.

Lego, Connectix, whatever. Surely you see that the scale issues are not at all the same?

Ryan Mackey said much the same thing. David Ray Griffin explained it thusly:
****************************************
The Relevance of Erector Sets

I have to assume (in the absence of an explanation) that if Ryan Mackey thinks he has a bona fide reason for dismissing my Erector Set illustration as "not worthy of discussion" it must be based on a tacit assertion that the strength of a structure doesn't scale proportionally to its size — that a large steel framework is somehow significantly weaker relative to its own weight than a smaller one, all aspects being proportional. But is this really true?

One of the reasons steel is used in the construction of high-rise buildings is its relatively LIGHT weight in proportion to its strength and flexibility, particularly when formed into I-beams, H-beams and box columns. Large steel frame buildings are obviously very heavy, but they are also VERY strong.

If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.

The difficulty involved in crushing either structure with pressure applied from above, especially when compared to the downward force of its own weight, should yield an appreciation of the difficulty that would likewise be encountered in crushing one of the Towers.
****************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

 

[scott3x]

Indeed. But now I gather that the plates failed. No explosives required, then?

Sorry, explosives were required. I'm not sure if the plate thing has to do with NIST's final explanation or not, but again, I'm not going to go searching for the 'plate' thing now, just as I didn't go looking for the bolt thing (the fact that I found evidence that that theory was faulty was just coincidence). I think it makes the most sense to focus on and refute the -final- explanation from NIST and I have done so many times (or rather, I have quoted Steven Jones' refutation many times).

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

That 'et al' for the truth movement runs in the millions.

The et al for the official story runs in the millions too. But why would it matter if I proposed it versus anyone else? If an idea makes sense, why would the stature of the person proposing it matter? You have fallen into the trap of Argument from Authority, and you cannot get up.

That's a very big 'if'. Essentially, the problem is this:
No one can investigate -every- claim. So we tend to investigate the claims that are drawing the most attention; there are mainstream alternate theories just as there are mainstream official theories.

Wikipedia defines a hypothesis thusly:
"A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις) consists either of a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or of a reasoned proposal predicting a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Anyone can suppose something. Testing it simply means you look to find if evidence one gathers supports or disproves said hypothesis. Why you feel I don't do this, I don't know.

Very good. The Troof movement have already concluded demolition (the explanation)

True. What you may not be aware of, however, is that notables such as Steven Jones did so -after- weighing the evidence, not before. Ditto for the author of the '9/11 Mysteries' flick. In fact, after seeing something from truthers, he got angry and set out to prove them -wrong-, only to find out that it was the official story that was wrong.

For the record, at the beginning, I believed the official story myself. But then I started reading a book from Jim Marrs and things changed. I note that he -also- didn't immediately believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but as he came to learn more, his view changed.

...and now seek obervable phenomena (nanothermite, squibs, orbital "la-zers") to explain it.

I'm not sure when people began to see squibs, but regardless of when they started, the fact remains that they are quite visible. As to nanothermite, I'm not sure whether Steven Jones tested for it in particular or whether he simply found that the compound fingerprint was nanothermite. Finally, as I believe you know, I consider the 'la-zers' to be one of those 'out there' theories.

Well enough, but the problem is that when these phenomena fail to support the thesis, the hypothesis changes again.

That's the way science works. I think it's the official story that has changed more often in regards to the WTC collapses then the alternate story, however.

It wasn't a hologram, so it must be an actual plane followed by a demolition.

I believe that the hologram believers were always on the fringe. And yes, I do believe there may be some misinformation agent(s) in their ranks.

It wasn't a demolition, so the building must have imploded under Karl Rove's powerful thought-rays.

You come up with that one yourself ?

It's not falsifiable from their perspective; no test can ever result in the H0: It wasn't blown up. So, it's not scientific, but faith-based.

I would argue that the demolition theory not only derives from sound science; it's also the most plausible theory, far more plausible then the ever changing government theory on the cause of the WTC collapses.

It's like me asking an Evangelist whether or not he'd stop believing in God if I could prove to him evolution was true, or even that God didn't exist: he'd say no. Of course it wouldn't change his view; it's a matter of faith, not intellect.

Well I say that if you -can- prove to me that 9/11 follows the official story line that I'll change my tune. I simply don't believe that you can do so, because I believe that the evidence lies squarely in the alternate theory camp.

Will you now view SLC, as I have asked repeatedly. Honestly, this is only fair.

As I've mentioned, I've now seen 12 minutes of the 'not freakin' again' edition. I share the director's frustration, but my frustration is focused on SLC, not LC. Forcing myself to view more might be considered cruel and unusual punishment and I'm against torture ;-).

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
The exception I had in mind is rather famous:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

It’s annoying that you post the same things over and over as if they have never been discussed before. It’s as if you think you can overwhelm me with links and somehow that will convince me that I’m wrong. Its frustrating and it makes you seem unreasonable or forgetful.[/quote]

The fact that something was discussed doesn't mean it was refuted. If it wasn't refuted and I believe it to be true, I will certainly bring it up again if the occassion warrants it.

Originally Posted by scott3x

However, thanks to the help of an alternate theory website's admin from letsrollforums.com, I now have a video of the molten metal that had landed on the ground, as well as a firetruck passing through it. The results are drastic, as can be seen.
***************************************

Here's the video with the flowing molten metal; Just found it. And I highly doubt this is a website of Christopher's as there is no mention of the concrete core, which seems to be his main area of interest. I have found many extremely excellent pieces of evidence and proof at this website, and I would recommend the website to people, with a weak disclaimer, about his humorous and comical approach to 911. Yet, this appears to be the websites main and only real drawback.

The part of the video which shows this is toward the end of the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0
***************************************
http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=160519&postcount=2

What? Where is the molten metal in that video? I saw a firetruck at about 5:00.

You see what was to the right of the firetruck? Here's a snapshot:

The video has a picture of what I believe was what the firetruck looked like after contact with said molten iron.

 

[scott3x]

I will repeat, megasuperultrathermite does not burn slowly for weeks.

Does it even exist? I was talking about nanothermite myself

Even if it did the amount required to do so would be ridiculous and certainly noticed.

According to whom?

Originally Posted by scott3x

There's plenty of evidence not only for explosives but for a controlled demolition. From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
*******************************************

...the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders
3. "Squibs", or focused explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
4. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
7. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 4 - 20 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure
12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
*******************************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Rife with errors. Do I really need to go through them again?

Not at all. You can let them bask in all their glory ;-). If, on the other hand, you are trying to say that you have -refuted- them somewhere, just give me the link where you have done so and I will review said post.

 

[shaman_]

I think it would be better if you 'dealt' with the fact that 521 architects and engineers have publicly questioned the official storyline regarding 9/11. Their arguments as to why the WTC collapses were in fact demolitions can be seen on their page on the right hand side:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

ae911 is led by a complete idiot in the cardboard box guy Richard Gage. He provides amusement to debunkers.

Like the ‘scholars’ that list is padded out with people with irrelevant qualifications such as ‘Urban Activist’ and computer related professions. It only requires a petition to be signed; there is no actual verification of these people’s qualifications.

If they truly believe this and are behind the troothers then why don’t they submit some papers for peer review? If they are really qualified and familiar with the peer review process what is stopping them after all these years?

The arguments for a controlled demolition are incorrect, stupid or debunked. We have discussed most of them already in this thread do we need to go through it again?

So there isn’t really anything for me to ‘deal’ with. You argument is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority. It’s like a Christian pointing out that there have been religious scientists as if that somehow matters.

As we have come to learn you believe in the conspiracy but are unable to defend your beliefs in a discussion. So you just post the same links over again and point out that there are other people who also believe the same thing.

As I have mentioned before, Steven Jones has dealt with NIST's deplorable 'evidence' as to the sagging floors. Once again:
***********************************
The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘one must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,...the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted... (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)
The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun (perhaps) to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses -- until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently – one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit -- even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 36

What do criticisms of computer models have to do with anything? The floors were seen sagging! There are photos and video that confirm this. Can you not understand this?

Yes, but objects also follow the path of least resistance; my understanding of this is that when one of the floors collapsed, it would have been easier the debris to have fallen off the side of the building into the air, instead of breaking the floors below it.

You are making a fool of yourself.

I remember seeing a buliding collapsing on its own (poor construction I imagine, not a problem that the WTC towers had) and it definitely collapsed in a certain direction and it wasn't a complete collapse either.

And yes, the tower leaned a bit before it was pulverized in mid air. Did gravity do that too?

What does that even mean? It leaned above the point of impact. Do you know what I am referring to?

Kevin Ryan, who has fired from his job for disagreeing with the official story, had this to say:
***********************************
Kevin Ryan, the whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories, did his own brief statistical analysis in a recent letter regarding the NIST report, arguing that probabilities of collapse-initiation needed to be calculated (Ryan, 2005). NIST nowhere provides such a likelihood analysis for their non-explosive collapse model. Ryan’s estimate is that the probability that fires and damage (the “official theory”) could cause the Towers complete collapse is less than one in a trillion, and the probability is much less still when the complete collapse of WTC7 is included:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).
How convenient that our miraculous result, combined with several other trains of similarly unlikely events [no interception of hijacked planes by the military on 9/11, etc.], gives us reason to invade the few most strategically important lands for the production of oil and natural gas...” (Ryan, 2005).
***********************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf , page 40

Kevin Ryan is wrong and an idiot.

Ugh. Again with the comments that it hasn’t happened before. Anything that happens for the first time is a master conspiracy.

You discard all the critical evidence for the official explanation and desperately cling to the debunked claims of a few crackpots. They are your priests. Keep the faith Scott.

But perhaps you'd like a second opinion, from a site of architects and engineers, perhaps? From Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site (complete with some very educational pictures):
http://www.ae911truth.org/twintowers.php

Squibs, claims of symmetrical collapse, ‘into it’s own footprint’, quote mining for ‘explosions, references to the work of crackpot Steven Jones. I could excuse someone for being convinced by this if they hadn’t done the research. However scott you have had these claims painstakingly debunked for you, so you have no excuse.

There have been good arguments made that the effect of the planes and their jet fuel was negligible.

Thousands of gallons of jet fuel in an office building is not ‘negligible’.

In fact the hole provided by the planes entering the building actually assisted in the burning as it provided ventilation.

Some have argued that the Windsor tower in Madrid, because it did partially collapse, "validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html


There have been good arguments made that the effect of the planes and their jet fuel was negligible. Some have argued that the Windsor tower in Madrid, because it did partially collapse, "validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7."
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...e/windsor.html


However, in the case of the WTC buildings, 9/11 Research states this:
"Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses. "
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Yes but were the fires too high for firefighters to reach? Was the fire started with a small fire on one floor, which slowly grew and moved to the others over a few hours? Or did they start with a massive explosion over many floors? Did the sprinklers still work? Loss of fireproofing? Did they have thousands of gallons of jet fuel to get them going? Was the construction like a cage in a cage?

The flaws in their arguments have been pointed out to you over and over but you don’t want to hear it. You don’t want to actually think. You just want to believe everything they say.

 

[shaman_]

The fact that something was discussed doesn't mean it was refuted. If it wasn't refuted and I believe it to be true, I will certainly bring it up again if the occassion warrants it.

But nothing will ever be refuted in your eyes. Even when you conceded on the absurd missile theory it was only to move to the equally stupid flyover theory.

You see what was to the right of the firetruck? Here's a snapshot:

The video has a picture of what I believe was what the firetruck looked like after contact with said molten iron.

To be honest I thought that was just sunshine on orange dust the first time I saw it. Why is the truck driving straight for it?

If that is molten metal you have the problem of proving that it was molten steel. It looks like the building has collapsed by that point (increasing the heat with friction) and it could be the remainder of the aluminium from the planes.

 

[lixluke]

Look I don't know about WTC 1 and 2, but building 7 was DEMO'd. Anyone with fucking eyeballs that work properly can see that. It casts doubt on the whole official story.

Yes.The whole claim that a fire did that is called one thing.

Many things in fact cast doubt on the whole official story.

 

[shaman_]

Does it even exist? I was talking about nanothermite myself

Which would not burn for weeks either.

According to whom?

By questioning my sources you are trying to avoid what I say. If I mention someone known as a debunker you will just say ‘oh sure that’s what they would say’. It is a dodge. Think for yourself, doesn’t it make sense?

Not at all. You can let them bask in all their glory ;-).

Glory? Oh my god.

If, on the other hand, you are trying to say that you have -refuted- them somewhere, just give me the link where you have done so and I will review said post.

You have been posted many links which you don’t read. Instead you see if the subject matter is mentioned in your tinfoil hat sites and then you claim the debunker has been debunked.

Why don’t we just focus on squibs as you seem to think it is among the most convincing evidence. I think even Richard Gage has admitted that one is wrong. As pointed out by Kenny the squibs are too slow to be demolition charges and appear to be compressed air being forced out.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Access is not the same thing as being able to analyze it all. He had to go through 1,500 tons of steel a -day-. He makes it clear he was unhappy with the amount of time he was given to examine the evidence as well as some other things in a statement before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives:
********************************************
I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are:

1. Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.
2. Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research.
********************************************

Later on, The Committee asks the following questions:
********************************************
Has the confidential nature of the FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?
********************************************

His response should be a concern to anyone interested in what happened on 9/11:
********************************************
I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.
********************************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/astaneh-wtc.htm

I have mentioned several times that he had objections.

If so, I doubt you were as specific as to what his objections were.

However you are still being misleading because he made it extremely clear that he considered the conspiracy theories to be nonsense and believes that the fires caused the steel to weaken which led to the collapse.

Ok, but simply because he believed this doesn't mean that he was right. Evidence doesn't require a person to believe any particular thing; it's simply evidence. Astaneh has said some things that, as deep44 from JREF states: "corroborate the many eyewitnesses who reported seeing molten steel at Ground-Zero."

My personal favourite is the following one, which goes beyond molten steel, to vaporized/evaporated steel (you've got to go way beyond the melting point of steel, which is 1300C/2400F, to beyond the boiling point of steel, which is 3000C/4500F, to get to that temperature):
****************************
One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.
****************************
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63

At temperatures like those, I believe that fireproofing would have been of no help; he found evidence that the fireproofing -itself- had melted:
The fireproofing that had been used to protect the steel also showed evidence of extreme temperatures. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...931A35753C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

His other mentions:
1- He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns: "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

2- In an interview in 2007 for PBS's Online Newshour, Astaneh-Asl said, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x
As to the evaporated steel, I'm simply repeating what was reported in the New York Times:
***************************************
Dr. Barnett and Mr. Baker are part of an assessment team organized by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Federal Emergency Management Agency to examine the performance of several buildings during the attacks....

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.
***************************************
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C1A9679C8B63

Yeh thanks I’ve seen the quote. Keep spamming…

I simply wanted to make it clear that my source was a mainstream media publication.

Once again, while it is a strange comment there is no other evidence whatsoever to support it.

You may have noticed that my previous post mentioned quite a noteworthy witness of vaporized/evaporated steel on a certain I beam...

His own team reported no temperatures in that range.

It would be interesting to know why, considering Dr. Barnett was clearly concerned with this evaporating steel. Perhaps a little pressure from above was applied to stifle that evidence?

Conspiracy theorists are pretty keen to cling onto one testimony

The amount of testimonies that conflict with the official story boggle the mind. In regards to evaporated steel, Dr. Barnett is certainly not the only person to be concerned with evaporated steel. As I mentioned in my last post, one of the key official WTC investigators, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, personally saw proof of steel vaporization.

discard all the evidence they don’t like...

It seems that you yourself are doing your best to attempt to discard this evidence, which clearly doesn't sit well with the official story . If you can show a point wherein I discard evidence from a credible source that doesn't fit the alternate view, by all means, point it out.

...avoid difficult questions

If you feel that I have avoided a difficult question, don't hesitate to point it out.

and then make claims like ‘the official story is full of holes’ and 'NIST are dishonest'.

The official story -is- full of holes and I certainly believe there's evidence that certain NIST individuals involved in the WTC investigation are being dishonest.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Let's see one of Griffin's counters to this 'definitive debunker':
********************************************
My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing Building Theory, "On Debunking 9/11 Debunking"

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey pgs 46-47

(See below for his criticism of my statements, cited by David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking)
Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride?

One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector Set illustration is intended to address this problem.

The Not-so-Plausible Impossible

I can still remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney explain the concept of the "Plausible Impossible." When a cartoon character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling. This is impossible of course in "real life," but a skilled animator can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible.

The self-crushing building theory is another example of the "Plausible Impossible," and tremendous effort has been expended — again involving skillful animation — to sell the plausibility of this notion. But self-crushing steel frame buildings do not actually exist in "real life."
********************************************
The article continues here:
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

What part of that convinces you? He is merely asserting, with a pathetic ramble involving cartoons, that a steel building cannot collapse. The vast majority of structural engineers disagree with him.

Prove it. While you're attempting to do this, I'd like to point out there are 520 architects and engineers who have serious doubts or openly disagree with the official story here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Do you actually believe that the vast majority of structural engineers are behind crackpot Jones? Yes or No?

Despite your fervent desire to label Steven Jones a 'crackpot', the fact that, like all mormons, he believes that Jesus visited America doesn't make him so. Perhaps you may not have noticed, but when it comes to religious beliefs, people generally don't rely on a whole lot of evidence. Steven Jones, atleast, set out to find evidence that Jesus came to America. Personally, having seen Zeitgeist, I'm not sure that Jesus even existed as an actual person, but to each their own beliefs.

As to the 'vast majority' of structural engineers, from what I understand, structural engineers are a rare breed and highly dependent on government permissions to build. I believe Kevin Ryan made it clear that they're the last type of engineers that would want to rock the boat; not wanting to bite the hand that feeds it and all. In terms of engineers in general, however, there are currently 521 architects and engineers (including atleast one structural engineer) who question and/or downright disagree with the official 9/11 story. Here is their petition:
*******************************
The AE911Truth Petition:
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND
OF THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned [list of the 521 architects and engineers follows the petition]
*******************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Why don’t you take into account the twenty something papers in peer reviewed engineering journals which I posted a link to.

Why don't you post a few excerpts from those 'peer reviewed engineering journals'? Having seen how easily the official story arguments for NIST were taken down, I have a strong feeling their arguments would fair no better.

I have no doubt you have erased them from your mind as they all supported the official story.

I'm not going to be chasing down official story stuff. You want to make the government's case, except some material for me to take a look at.

What do the conspiracy theorists have? An environmental magazine and an unknown engineering journal which required only a payment for submission.

Surely you have heard the old adage: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses"? Clearly, with the government on one side of the debate, 'peer reviewed journals' may be a bit hard to come by. Nevertheless, progress is certainly being made, slowly but surely.

Clearly you don’t have the vast majority of structural engineers behind the conspiracy theory but (1) You are deluded and believe this is so or (2) because no one has bothered to get a list together of the majority of structural engineers you think you have a point, which makes you deluded or childish I’m not sure which.

Using base insults against an opponent only detracts from the points at hand. As I have mentioned, structural engineers are particularly beholden to the government and would thus probably be loathe to come out en masse against the government. However, atleast one has. But the most important point is that you don't have to be a structural engineer or even an engineer at all to realize that the official story regarding the WTC collapses is full of holes. All you require is an open mind and a certain amount of time to investigate the facts.

You have been shown cases where the steel has weakened due to fire. One was a toilet paper factory! You will of course conveniently ignore these.

A toilet paper factory isn't a steel framed skyscraper, sorry.

Originally Posted by scott3x

I never said nano thermites were used before 9/11 to demolish something, only that its -capabilities- were proven.

It’s capabilities for demolishing a building have not been proven.

Even if this were so, it's all the more reason to do more research on the subject as Steven Jones has asked for; as in, government funded research.

Yes but the conspiracy theorists just know that it must have been used even before it has been shown to be a possibility.

It's already been shown to be a -probability-, never mind possibility.

Originally Posted by scott3x

How about we look at a simple experiment to see how much fires would weaken the steel:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2005/10/can-hydrocarbon-fires-weaken-steel.html

:roflmao:

There it is all the proof you need! The thread can be ended !

Come on Scott you must see how meaningless that demonstration is.

Why do you believe that the demonstration was meaningless?

 

[scott3x]

Did you just say that? Did you?

Do you realize that concrete is far more fire resistent than steel?

It's more resistant to flexing, but not to breaking. As to the WTC core, here's an excerpt from good article that describes how it had both steel -and- concrete, as well as the fact that the core only accounted for 20% of the gravity bearing load:
*******************************
The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
*******************************
http://911review.org/WTC/concrete-core.html

Here's the start of another good article describing the core of the WTC towers:
*********************************************
The Core Structures
The Structural System of the Twin Towers

Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007. Although the drawings show the dimensions and arrangement of core columns, they do not show other engineering details such as the core floor framing. It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.

Core Denial

Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack -- the 9/11 Commission Report -- denies their very existence, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft:"
For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. 1
*********************************************
The article continues here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html


I also found the following video on the core to be quite good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

 

[GeoffP]

Exactly.

That's because of the issues of scale.

Ryan Mackey said much the same thing. David Ray Griffin explained it thusly:

But, of course they are wrong. Even if it were an issue of the lightness of the beams (lighter than plastic, Scott? Really?), they cleverly omit the massive additional weight those beams were carrying - concrete, filler, office equipment, and so forth, not to mention airplane parts. So not only is their speculation on scale incorrect - Lego, I ask you; is this what Troof is down to? - but they avoid the additional load. There is no similarity whatsoever to their Connetix kit, although it does answer a few questions about the mentality of the movement, and for that reason is useful. You cannot possibly relate the load and weight of a building built with Legos or Bric-a-Blocs or plastercine to that of an actual building.

Sorry, explosives were required.

Then why did the plates fail? You seem to be at something of a theological impasse.

That's a very big 'if'. Essentially, the problem is this:
No one can investigate -every- claim. So we tend to investigate the claims that are drawing the most attention; there are mainstream alternate theories just as there are mainstream official theories.

So why criticize NIST for missing out on some tests, then? No one can investigate every claim.

That's the way science works. I think it's the official story that has changed more often in regards to the WTC collapses then the alternate story, however.

I regret to tell you this, but it doesn't.

What you are confused about here is the refutation of hypothesis, mixed with the avoidance of Type I error (false positive). You have already concluded the demolition of the WTC - as you have stated many times already - and are seeking evidence to bolster your position. You have alluded numerous times to your fervent belief in the demolition; thus, your "hypothesis" is no longer falsifiable. When we illustrate one problem after another to you, your tactic is to switch sub-hypotheses, not to question whether or not it could actually have been a demolition. This is not science, but belief, as you've said several times. The demolition of WTC is not a proven, observable phenomenon; the observed phenomenon is the collapse. There is no doubt it collapsed. The scientic question is the cause, which what you keep shifting your evidence on. And since you will not admit of the falsifiabiliy of your hypothesis, nor review evidence in some cases, and since your evidence keeps switching, it is no longer scientific. I'm sorry.

I believe that the hologram believers were always on the fringe. And yes, I do believe there may be some misinformation agent(s) in their ranks.

See, this is also the problem: fringes and ranks. It's a movement, which one could uncharitably call a cult, rather than a scientific panel.

I would argue that the demolition theory not only derives from sound science; it's also the most plausible theory, far more plausible then the ever changing government theory on the cause of the WTC collapses.

But the facts of the government position are not in doubt: the temperature was enough to drop the steel strength, the aircraft hit all three buildings, the collapse wasn't free fall.

Well I say that if you -can- prove to me that 9/11 follows the official story line that I'll change my tune.

I'm sorry, Scott, but I really don't think this is true.

As I've mentioned, I've now seen 12 minutes of the 'not freakin' again' edition. I share the director's frustration, but my frustration is focused on SLC, not LC. Forcing myself to view more might be considered cruel and unusual punishment and I'm against torture ;-).

I'm sorry you're frustrated by it, but we must all examine evidence with an open mind.

Best,

Geoff

 

[scott3x]

Is there a difference between Kent Hovind and Steven Jones?

Definitely. Kent Hovind "holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Now let's see about Steven Jones:
**********************************
Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[1]
**********************************
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Steven-E.-Jones#Education

A little different, wouldn't you say?

I won't respond to the rest of your post, as you seem to be getting a little emotional again...

 

[fedr808]

You don't specify if you're referring to Fahrenheight or Celsius. In any case, regardless of the temperature the fuel can reach in a jet plane engine, even NIST doesn't believe that that the jet fuel ignited fires got beyond 1000 Celsius (1832 Fahrenheit):
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

As far as I know, even Ryan Mackey hasn't claimed this to be the case.

You want to disagree both with alternate theory believers -and- the backbone behind the official story believers, go ahead, but I think I'll pass on responding to such claims.

Bullsh*t, total and ridiculous amounts of bullsh*t.

Dude the actual inside of the engine where it burns is 2000 degress Celisus. And that's a tiny amount of jet fuel. The only way it would burn less is if it were in like the arctic, mixed with water at like a % (water) : 1 (fuel) ratio.


You are such bullsh*t.


Your like saying that if i light these 7 sticks of dynamite that can take down three houses, will only explode to the size of a firecracker.

 

[KennyJC]

It's more resistant to flexing, but not to breaking. As to the WTC core, here's an excerpt from good article that describes how it had both steel -and- concrete, as well as the fact that the core only accounted for 20% of the gravity bearing load:

Can you put together a sentence which doesn't have me feeling sorry for you?

Steel burning in fires at a temperature of 1832 degrees will be down to 10% or less strength. Bearing in mind that steel is holding up a building, why wouldn't it break? Concrete on the other hand doesn't lose much/any strength as a result of fire. This is why the buildings replacing the WTC are designed with a concrete core.

Silly structural engineers, eh? Why can't they see it was demolished and not due to fire?

Here's the start of another good article describing the core of the WTC towers:

You should probably know that I stopped reading your quoted articles from truther websites a LONG time ago. I'm just saying this to save you time. You could say this is very unscientific of me, but I don't care. You have proven a long time ago that you have bullshit evidence which funnily enough, isn't supported by the scientific community.

I also found the following video on the core to be quite good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ

By finding it to be 'quite good', you become like an audience member of Kent Hovind who knows nothing about science, but enjoys that he is talking in a scientific manner to support their wild beliefs, ignorant to the fact that it is complete bullshit and not supported by the scientific community.

Definitely. Kent Hovind "holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

Now let's see about Steven Jones:
**********************************
Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[1]
**********************************
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Steven-E.-Jones#Education

A little different, wouldn't you say?

I won't respond to the rest of your post, as you seem to be getting a little emotional again...

No, there is no difference.

As I have stated before, but not had you address them specifically yet, Steven Jones is a proven liar.

Why? Well I base this on one thing alone (although I could use countless other examples if I wanted to): The picture of fire fighters huddling over "molten steel" without having their faces melted off.

 

[lixluke]

CanSilly structural engineers, eh? Why can't they see it was demolished and not due to fire?

Because it was not caused by fire. Fire has never and will never cause buildings to collapse in that manner.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Steel burning in fires at a temperature of 1832 degrees will be down to 10% or less strength. Bearing in mind that steel is holding up a building, why wouldn't it break?

The jet fuel will burn at 1800 deg F if it is a 100% efficient burn. This can occur in an engine designed to mix the air and fuel properly or in a 100% oxygen environment. The atmosphere is only 20% oxygen.

Try finding in the NCSTAT1 report where they found evidence of 1800 deg F. Not the summaries that are even more BS.

If you put 10 tons of steel into a furnace set at 1800 degrees how long will it take the CORE TEMPERATURE to rise to 1800 deg F?

If you put 100 tons of steel into a furnace set at 1800 degrees how long will it take the CORE TEMPERATURE to rise to 1800 deg F?

Won't it take 100 tons longer than 10 tons? So why don't we know the TONS OF STEEL on every level of the WTC after SEVEN YEARS?

How could enough steel weaken in less than 1 hr and 45 minutes?

Why don't people who try to give the impression they know physics ask such an obvious question? The WTC averaged 770 tons of steel on each level but of course the quantity had to taper toward the top, as in any skyscraper. So why don't we have a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level by now. It is hilarious that the nation that put men on the moon can't provide such simple information about buildings designed before the moon landing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

psik