This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s
post 362 in this thread.
The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires, round 3
I mean in recent posts. Look, if you've already countered my points on my site,
why can't you simply link to your counters?
This is a stupid childish game that you play. Are you going to tell me that I have never discussed thermite, witness testimony of bombs, ejection of materials during the collapse, squibs, pulverised concrete, symmetrical collapse, molten metal ect ect ect.. These are points we have been over many times and now you are challenging me to link to each one. Are you really trying to imply that you don’t remember discussing these things?
I'm trying to distill the most important arguments for the controlled demolition hypothesis, as well as bring up issues that still need to be worked on.
You’re probably going to filter out any debunking and claim victory! Are you going to include the comments from this document?
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
As Headspin mentioned in post 222, it was a "steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina". And if it were already extremely damaged, why the need for explosives at all?
What a stupid question. To finish it off. That thing is a barge and it looks like four stories.
They were both multi story buildings, atleast, unlike the Mccormick place warehouse, which had no 'core' per se and thus the roof cave in made much more sense; scientifically speaking, it's too bad it didn't have multiple stories as I think it would have resoundingly shown that the rest of the stories wouldn't have pancaked down at near free fall speed without the type of help that the casino had. This whole 'pancake collapse' theory has only been used once in all of history- on 911.
.. so once again you are implying that something happening for the first time is suspicious. Irrefutable evidence…
767s haven’t crashed into many high rise buildings either.
It's just a matter of setting the charges up a little differently.
That’s not the point. Your argument is that it must be a controlled demolition because it looks like one. When I say it doesn’t quite look like, you retreat to well its possible. Are you abandoning the “it looked like one” argument?
At some point (not soon) you are going to have to think about the logic of a master super conspiracy of smashing planes into buildings and then demolishing in such an obvious manner. If they really could get absurd amounts of bombs and thermite into the building they are capable of making it more convincing than that. Why would they need to demolish the damn building anyway? It is absurd.
this post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s
post 362 in this thread.
The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Round 4
So you say. I have a feeling, however, that if you had found a 9/11 truther with characteristics such as yourself,
I would respect that person more than you. You play games to avoid facing the failure of your argument and those of your heroes.
It's not as bad as 'idiot', 'moron' or 'stupid'.
Surely, if I would just stop disagreeing with you, you'd be more civil Fortunately for this debate, I don't put any such conditions on you. Anyone who knows me knows that I am a person of high integrity and honesty.
You certainly might be in everyday life. When it comes to debating you are not. Deep down you know I am right.
This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s
post 362 in this thread.
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site
Originally, you said there were urban activist
s. I'd forgotten that you'd mentioned it in the plural, however, and that slip almost went unnoticed. But most importantly, why did you bring up the urban activist if you felt that it was 'not the point'?
No you’re not getting it. There were several fishy professions. That was but one of the ones I mentioned. You said “but there is only one of those” as if that matters. There were other dodgy professions padding out the list of ‘architectural and engineering professionals’.
They have included all engineers. Even if the engineers in question have nothing to do with architecture (such as software engineers). That's not 'padding' anything, that's simply including all engineers. I have already stated that I think it would have been more meaningful to have a list of people who that only had architects and engineers with diplomas related to building design, but there's a difference between not selecting the best criteria and padding out a list with people who don't fit said criteria.
Well I considering it to be padding out the list when they have people who don’t even work in a relevant field. If they had 500 structural engineers then I might be impressed. They don't. They have architects, electrical and software engineers.
Alright, how about we simply agree that the criteria for their 'architects and engineers' list could have been better and not all 9/11 truthers (or official story believers for that matter) are as informed as they could be?
Then quit telling me to scan through your previous posts for information that you should be linking to yourself.
Don’t you have a memory?
Perhaps you're unaware of all the times I've repeated the same points over and over again to you and to others. That's fine. I will happily repeat them to you 100 times more if that's what it takes, or link to them if they're already nicely said in a previous post, as I've done before. Like a good lawyer, I don't expect you to make my case for me.
Do you feel the same way concerning thermate as well or is that possibility atleast a little more on the credible side for you now?
No I don’t think thermite is as silly as nuclear weapons. Rating the theories I don’t find convincing isn’t really a worthwhile exercise though.
This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s
post 362 in this thread.
Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Round 4
I never said my logic was flawless. However, you will note that I dropped that theory when I felt that there wasn't enough evidence to support it.
You only dropped it for the equally absurd flyover theory!
Yes, yes, they certify the car not the car door. You think that's a victory for you?
Just trying to be accurate. Something Ryan should have made more effort to do.
In all honesty, it would be far better for a 'we had nothing to do with it' argument if they had only tested the steel and not the assemblies. Atleast then they could say that it's possible the people who did the assemblies are the ones who were lax. The assemblies are the 'end of the line'- anything- whether it's the steel or the assembly of the steel components that's wrong, should be able to be seen at that point.
No you’re not getting it. If the assemblies have been damaged and the fireproofing removed, then the results of their tests are no longer relevant.
I've already shown you evidence that:
1- the fireproofing wasn't removed to any substantial degree.
You posted a claim from a truther that the fireproofing wouldn’t be removed as there wouldn’t have been enough energy and I showed you a picture with fireproofing removed……..
2- even without fireproofing, even the initial floor wouldn't have done more then sag a bit.
Huh? What have you based this on? The steel on the Madrid tower did more than sag a little. The roof on the McCormick place collapsed in thirty minutes! A steel toilet paper factory collapsed after a fire. A steel toy factory collapsed after a fire. A bridge with steel supports collapsed after a gas tanker crashed. That’s kind of a problem for your theory….
He did nothing of the sort and has said as much. But the -real- tragedy here is that UL wanted to distance itself from his beliefs when they were so insightful.
They weren’t insightful. His letter, which even made mention of melting steel, was trying to establish that the fire didn’t go over 250C! The evidence for higher temperatures is overwhelming. Insightful?
Yep- it's included in this post (you won't have to search all of sciforums to find it . If you disagree with what I've said before in this post (as you probably will), we'll take it up next post.
No investigation would ever be enough in the eyes of you religious fanatics. If another investigation happened and nothing was found you would never waver from your faith. Evidence and reason mean nothing to you.
Ah, the all seeing shaman has spoken eh ? Tell me shaman_, why -did- you choose that nick?.
It’s just an internet nick I’ve used for over ten years. It causes some confusion. I wasn’t an evil-close-minded-psuedosceptic-materialist-wanna-be-debunker when I started using it.
This post is in response to the 8th and final part of shaman_'s
post 362 in this thread.
'Normal' office fire tests, Round 4
You know, perhaps I was being a little too charitable when I said that you weren't an official story fanatic. Not the worst of them to be sure, but fanatics tend to think that their claims are self evident, without a need for explanation...
I should have been more precise- I've never seen you acknowledge when I've pointed out your flawed reasoning.
Sigh...
I'm tired. I'll plead no contest to this one. I think it's rather irrelevant, considering the fact that the UL tests done for NIST made it clear that the steel wouldn't have collapsed.
Do you mean the test done on assemblies with fireproofing!?
You are in a corner here with nowhere to go. You can try but you cannot avoid the evidence. Do not say again that it is clear that the fires wouldn’t have reached temperatures near 1000C.
You have not mentioned the other fire tests presented to you either.
Yes, I am. You're right, nothing to do with the Cardington fire tests. They have to do with the WTC towers (remember them?).
Poor response nanoscott. We are discussing particular issues of WTC. Jumping to different issues of 911 when things get tough is still changing the subject.
I'll concede that the Cardington fire tests managed to get the metal up to 900C. Now will -you- concede that the tests conducted to see if the WTC should have collapsed due to fire made it clear that they shouldn't have?
What are you talking about? Which tests were those?
In one of the Cardington tests, there was a section which wasn’t shielded. It started softening and buckling!
Probably because they were even more irrelevant then the Cardington fire tests...
Now you are really looking a bit sad. Just concede and stop trying to argue the point.
It has been painstaking shown to you that normal fires can reach temperatures near 1000C. In one of those fires the steel was unprotected and started buckling. You cannot possibly pretend again that you haven’t seen this information…
See, if I'd been in your place, I would probably have said something like "do you have any evidence to support your claim?". But fanatics aren't really all that interested in hearing the opponents claims; they're much more interested in insisting that they're false, perhaps engaging in a few personal attacks and leaving it at that...
NIST is the one who started with the paint samples. 9/11 research is the one who brings them up. I'm simply quoting 9/11 research, which brings them up.
.. and yet you make no attempt to even understand what you are bringing up, or why it doesn’t show the maximum temperature of the WTC fire.
How many of those core column fragements did they analyse? Or did they ship them all off before getting a chance?
It was an inconclusive test. There is however other evidence which gives a much clearer indication to the temperatures of the fires.
You fail to understand this and keep bringing up the paint tests as if that is the only evidence of the temperatures. It’s not.
Not by a long shot.
Jim Hoffman, in his article "
Building a Better Mirage - NIST's 3-Year $20,000,000 Cover-Up of the Crime of the Century" handily debunks the idea that 120 to 600 seconds is a trifling amount:
************************************************** *
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
************************************************** *
The article goes on, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
That was the statement that Mackey was rebutting! You can’t respond to it with the very comment he was responding to!
I find it hard to believe that it wouldn't affect his conclusions. And who is Ryan including when he states 'our conclusions'?
It’s probably the government because clearly they are paying him to say these things.
Hadn't dealt with this one before (the rest of my response to Mackey I just copied from
this post).
So I will post the same answers to your pitiful post I did the first time.
I don't have an answer to the above as of yet. I would like to stated, however, that Ryan Mackey has been thoroughly debunked in the past, as the following article makes clear:
Only in the eyes of a gullible lazy conspiracy theorist. Mackey’s document is pretty much the definitive debunking on all of Griffin’s claims and I think a few others are in there. The crackpots have returned fire with that one page and Mackey has addressed their comments in version 2.1 of his document.
So no Mackey has not lost any credibility and no you can't just ignore the things he says.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html
At the outset of the article, a good point is made:
***********************************************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.
This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.
***********************************************
Where was the good point in that? They are making excuses why they are too scared or inept to reply to Mackey’s essay in entirety and then just whine on that he is debunking them.
