Debate on the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
This is the thread where the debate on WTC 1, 2, and 7 will take place starting June 21, 2016.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
I am a mechanical engineer by profession and initially started looking into the three building collapses in New York City on September 11, 2001 during the spring of 2006. The reason for it was hearing about a physics professor having written a paper talking about issues due to the finding of molten metal in the rubble of the collapsed buildings.
I had initially accepted the notion put forth by a civil engineering professor in September 2001 that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were due to dynamic impact loads, after the top sections of the buildings fell onto the lower sections at the aircraft impact points. The dynamic loads would be much greater than the static load and would overcome the reserve strength of the structure below.
Thus in the spring of 2006 I wondered if the molten metal issue was just a quirky anomaly, but felt I should read the physics professor’s paper first before deciding. In the paper the physics professor said it looked like the buildings had actually been taken down by controlled demolition charges. After reading this I could not simply allow myself to believe anything without at least looking into what public information there was about it. The NIST WTC report had already been released and I looked at that. I also watched some documentaries on the issue from both sides and read whatever journalistic information was available.
Unfortunately, my own research started to cause me to doubt the story we were told by our government. I was aghast when reading in the NIST WTC report that the NIST investigators received 236 pieces or just 0.25 to 0.50% of the steel from the twin towers for the investigation. This reaction was even stronger, when reading in the NIST WTC 7 report, that no metallographic analysis could be done on its steel, as no steel was salvaged from WTC 7.
In 2008 it was learned that WTC 7 had gone into full free fall acceleration for over 100 feet. The NIST was asked about this and later confirmed in their final report that this actually occurred. Unfortunately, there was no attempt made to explain it.
Also in 2008, measurements of the descent of the North Tower (WTC 1) showed it never decelerated and thus could not have produced the powerful jolt that the civil engineering professor had conjectured in his 2001 paper.
In early 2012 a large percentage of the WTC 7 drawings were released due to an FOIA from a structural engineer. Review of the drawings showed the WTC 7 report had omitted pertinent structural features, which when included in the analysis seemed to preclude the failures asserted in the report.
The continuing additions, over time, of things in the government story being shown to be seriously questionable have caused me to support a new investigation into the events which occurred in NYC on September 11, 2001. I now believe the controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the evidence and that it should be investigated.
I had initially accepted the notion put forth by a civil engineering professor in September 2001 that the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 were due to dynamic impact loads, after the top sections of the buildings fell onto the lower sections at the aircraft impact points. The dynamic loads would be much greater than the static load and would overcome the reserve strength of the structure below.
Thus in the spring of 2006 I wondered if the molten metal issue was just a quirky anomaly, but felt I should read the physics professor’s paper first before deciding. In the paper the physics professor said it looked like the buildings had actually been taken down by controlled demolition charges. After reading this I could not simply allow myself to believe anything without at least looking into what public information there was about it. The NIST WTC report had already been released and I looked at that. I also watched some documentaries on the issue from both sides and read whatever journalistic information was available.
Unfortunately, my own research started to cause me to doubt the story we were told by our government. I was aghast when reading in the NIST WTC report that the NIST investigators received 236 pieces or just 0.25 to 0.50% of the steel from the twin towers for the investigation. This reaction was even stronger, when reading in the NIST WTC 7 report, that no metallographic analysis could be done on its steel, as no steel was salvaged from WTC 7.
In 2008 it was learned that WTC 7 had gone into full free fall acceleration for over 100 feet. The NIST was asked about this and later confirmed in their final report that this actually occurred. Unfortunately, there was no attempt made to explain it.
Also in 2008, measurements of the descent of the North Tower (WTC 1) showed it never decelerated and thus could not have produced the powerful jolt that the civil engineering professor had conjectured in his 2001 paper.
In early 2012 a large percentage of the WTC 7 drawings were released due to an FOIA from a structural engineer. Review of the drawings showed the WTC 7 report had omitted pertinent structural features, which when included in the analysis seemed to preclude the failures asserted in the report.
The continuing additions, over time, of things in the government story being shown to be seriously questionable have caused me to support a new investigation into the events which occurred in NYC on September 11, 2001. I now believe the controlled demolition hypothesis best fits the evidence and that it should be investigated.
-
- Joined: 2:13 PM - Dec 10, 2009
My opening statement is not about my personal background. Since it's late, I'll produce that soon.
Sorry, I had problems with the formatting. I'll get better.
My statement is in the form of an outline.
My roadmap for my intended discussion, and an outline of the first two items on the list.
I trust that my meaning will be clear, even in outline form.
My roadmap:
1.0 What I believe.
2.0 Why I believe it. Generalities.
2.1 Specifics may be brought up by Tony. I’ll address them if required.
3.0 What I believe about the conspiracy theorists’ arguments
3.1 I will address each claim of “evidence of CD” listed on Gage’s AE911T’s website.
4.0 What I believe about the conspiracy theorists.
4.1 Amateurism, & rejection of professionalism.
4.2 Why they believe in the manner that they do.
(Not “what they believe”, but “why they believe something.”
5.0 Evidence against CD
6.0 Closing arguments / summary
__
1.0 What I believe
1.1 The government story is substantially correct.
1.2 The black sheep heir to a rich Saudi family, OBL, became a jihadist fanatic
1.2.1 No surprise. Wastrel descendants of accomplished people take, and piss away their money & advantages on some stupidity.
1.2.2 In Saudi Arabia, the radical, violent wahabi sect is very popular & influential. There is no mystery that OBL come in contact with it.
1.2.3 There is no mystery that his money allowed him to become a popular, powerful force in the jihadist movement.
1.2.4 OBL has never taken a thing from the US, in terms of money or weapons. He hates the US. Several stories from Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower explain exactly how much he despised the US.
1.2.5 He was a personally courageous murderer, who decided to attack the US, in order to bring the US into a land war in Afghanistan. He thought that this would unite the Muslim world against the west, & that he’d be victorious over the infidel West. Not the first religious fanatic to try to instigate war. Not the first to be wrong about the actual outcome.
1.3 KSM & Ramzi Yousef planned the attacks, OBL approved & subsidized them, and 19 clueless suckers carried them out. By flying planes into 3 buildings & being stopped by the passengers from succeeding in hitting a 4th.
1.4 The collapse of all of those buildings were the complete result of what we saw happen: planes, impacts, fires, collapses of WTC 1 & 2, more fires, collapse of WTC7.
2.0 Why I believe it
2.1 Because this entire picture fits together perfectly.
2.1.1 All the diverse pieces, (engineering, forensic, criminal, security, political, historical, etc.) fit together perfectly into one cogent, understandable narrative.
2.2 The people that did the grunt work of the investigation (police, FBI, CIA, FAA investigators, military police, forensic scientists, etc.) are, like everyone else in the world, 95% honorable. Especially motivated by patriotism to do spectacular work by the case of an attack on the US.
2.2.1 From my professional experience, the thought that the rank & file investigators might find one story, and the upper echelon writing the story could get away with inverting the story, “compartmentalize the info” so that the rank & file didn’t know that their info was manipulated, is the delusion of the stupid. It needs no rebuttal.
2.2.2 The thought that the 100,000 people who contributed to this investigation could have their results inverted, without >90% of them realizing it, is delusional. The thought that not one of those >90,000 people going to the NYTimes, or to a US District Attorney, openly or anonymously, is delusional.
2.3 This is a 100,000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
2.3.1 98,000 pieces fit together perfectly, showing an image of OBL, KSM & Ramzi Yousef.
2.3.2 2,000 pieces are missing, or people don’t yet know how they fit into a couple of blank spaces.This is not the slightest bit surprising. There are always missing pieces in multi-country criminal investigations.
2.3.3 Unknown pieces falsify NO known pieces.
2.3.4 There are zero pieces of evidence (as opposed to mere speculation) that are incompatible with the main story. There are 1000s of opportunities for there to be falsifying proofs (hijacker’s picture taken elsewhere, hijacker’s picture taken any time in the last 15 years, hijackers’ interview on al Jazeera TV any time in last 15 years). There has been nothing. Not one thing.
2.3.5 Truthers ignore the big picture. This is exactly why I insisted on including WTC 1 & 2 in this discussion. WTC 7 is part of that greater picture.
2.3.6 Truthers believe that they are going to find ONE puzzle piece that transforms the other 98,000 from a picture of OBL, KSM & RY into a picture of GWB, Cheney & Rumsfeld.
2.3.7 NO discovered piece of trivia, no single jigsaw piece, is ever going to negate the other 98,000 pieces & the picture it shows.
2.4 Events that happened before 9/11:
2.4.1 wars, jihads, fatwas, other terrorist attacks, warnings
2.5 Events that happened with hijackers, before & on 9/11
2.5.1 Movement of hijackers between Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
2.5.2 martyr videos from OBL camp
2.5.3 Movements of 19 hijackers around the US
2.5.4 Practice air trips across US
2.5.5 movement of money on 9/10 (or so)
2.5.6 video of terrorists boarding planes on 9/11 on all terminals that had video surveillance.
2.5.7 Phone calls from passengers on planes
2.5.8 recorded radio broadcasts to ATC from planes.
2.5.9 ATC radar
2.6 Evidence that was found after 9/11
2.6.1 OBL’s admission to al Jazeera
2.6.2 AQ’s repeated claim of responsibility since 2002, which completely circumvent any influence by US Gov’t.
2.6.3 KSM’s statements
2.7 Physical evidence
2.7.1 DNA of “men of Middle Eastern descent”
2.7.2 refusal of families of hijackers to provide DNA for comparison, which is strong evidence that they also believe that their relatives were, in fact, the hijackers. If they believed otherwise, they would DEMAND that independent DNA tests be performed to exonerate their sons, brothers, etc.
2.8 Complete lack of any falsifying evidence
2.8.1 Incompetent theories by abject amateurs does NOT constitute any sort of evidence.
2.8.2 Especially when that incompetent speculation has been explained - in compelling detail, by real experts.
2.9 This is an incomplete list of the evidence that “OBL & AQ did it.” But it covers the major points.
Sorry, I had problems with the formatting. I'll get better.
My statement is in the form of an outline.
My roadmap for my intended discussion, and an outline of the first two items on the list.
I trust that my meaning will be clear, even in outline form.
My roadmap:
1.0 What I believe.
2.0 Why I believe it. Generalities.
2.1 Specifics may be brought up by Tony. I’ll address them if required.
3.0 What I believe about the conspiracy theorists’ arguments
3.1 I will address each claim of “evidence of CD” listed on Gage’s AE911T’s website.
4.0 What I believe about the conspiracy theorists.
4.1 Amateurism, & rejection of professionalism.
4.2 Why they believe in the manner that they do.
(Not “what they believe”, but “why they believe something.”
5.0 Evidence against CD
6.0 Closing arguments / summary
__
1.0 What I believe
1.1 The government story is substantially correct.
1.2 The black sheep heir to a rich Saudi family, OBL, became a jihadist fanatic
1.2.1 No surprise. Wastrel descendants of accomplished people take, and piss away their money & advantages on some stupidity.
1.2.2 In Saudi Arabia, the radical, violent wahabi sect is very popular & influential. There is no mystery that OBL come in contact with it.
1.2.3 There is no mystery that his money allowed him to become a popular, powerful force in the jihadist movement.
1.2.4 OBL has never taken a thing from the US, in terms of money or weapons. He hates the US. Several stories from Lawrence Wright’s The Looming Tower explain exactly how much he despised the US.
1.2.5 He was a personally courageous murderer, who decided to attack the US, in order to bring the US into a land war in Afghanistan. He thought that this would unite the Muslim world against the west, & that he’d be victorious over the infidel West. Not the first religious fanatic to try to instigate war. Not the first to be wrong about the actual outcome.
1.3 KSM & Ramzi Yousef planned the attacks, OBL approved & subsidized them, and 19 clueless suckers carried them out. By flying planes into 3 buildings & being stopped by the passengers from succeeding in hitting a 4th.
1.4 The collapse of all of those buildings were the complete result of what we saw happen: planes, impacts, fires, collapses of WTC 1 & 2, more fires, collapse of WTC7.
2.0 Why I believe it
2.1 Because this entire picture fits together perfectly.
2.1.1 All the diverse pieces, (engineering, forensic, criminal, security, political, historical, etc.) fit together perfectly into one cogent, understandable narrative.
2.2 The people that did the grunt work of the investigation (police, FBI, CIA, FAA investigators, military police, forensic scientists, etc.) are, like everyone else in the world, 95% honorable. Especially motivated by patriotism to do spectacular work by the case of an attack on the US.
2.2.1 From my professional experience, the thought that the rank & file investigators might find one story, and the upper echelon writing the story could get away with inverting the story, “compartmentalize the info” so that the rank & file didn’t know that their info was manipulated, is the delusion of the stupid. It needs no rebuttal.
2.2.2 The thought that the 100,000 people who contributed to this investigation could have their results inverted, without >90% of them realizing it, is delusional. The thought that not one of those >90,000 people going to the NYTimes, or to a US District Attorney, openly or anonymously, is delusional.
2.3 This is a 100,000 piece jigsaw puzzle.
2.3.1 98,000 pieces fit together perfectly, showing an image of OBL, KSM & Ramzi Yousef.
2.3.2 2,000 pieces are missing, or people don’t yet know how they fit into a couple of blank spaces.This is not the slightest bit surprising. There are always missing pieces in multi-country criminal investigations.
2.3.3 Unknown pieces falsify NO known pieces.
2.3.4 There are zero pieces of evidence (as opposed to mere speculation) that are incompatible with the main story. There are 1000s of opportunities for there to be falsifying proofs (hijacker’s picture taken elsewhere, hijacker’s picture taken any time in the last 15 years, hijackers’ interview on al Jazeera TV any time in last 15 years). There has been nothing. Not one thing.
2.3.5 Truthers ignore the big picture. This is exactly why I insisted on including WTC 1 & 2 in this discussion. WTC 7 is part of that greater picture.
2.3.6 Truthers believe that they are going to find ONE puzzle piece that transforms the other 98,000 from a picture of OBL, KSM & RY into a picture of GWB, Cheney & Rumsfeld.
2.3.7 NO discovered piece of trivia, no single jigsaw piece, is ever going to negate the other 98,000 pieces & the picture it shows.
2.4 Events that happened before 9/11:
2.4.1 wars, jihads, fatwas, other terrorist attacks, warnings
2.5 Events that happened with hijackers, before & on 9/11
2.5.1 Movement of hijackers between Saudi Arabia & Afghanistan
2.5.2 martyr videos from OBL camp
2.5.3 Movements of 19 hijackers around the US
2.5.4 Practice air trips across US
2.5.5 movement of money on 9/10 (or so)
2.5.6 video of terrorists boarding planes on 9/11 on all terminals that had video surveillance.
2.5.7 Phone calls from passengers on planes
2.5.8 recorded radio broadcasts to ATC from planes.
2.5.9 ATC radar
2.6 Evidence that was found after 9/11
2.6.1 OBL’s admission to al Jazeera
2.6.2 AQ’s repeated claim of responsibility since 2002, which completely circumvent any influence by US Gov’t.
2.6.3 KSM’s statements
2.7 Physical evidence
2.7.1 DNA of “men of Middle Eastern descent”
2.7.2 refusal of families of hijackers to provide DNA for comparison, which is strong evidence that they also believe that their relatives were, in fact, the hijackers. If they believed otherwise, they would DEMAND that independent DNA tests be performed to exonerate their sons, brothers, etc.
2.8 Complete lack of any falsifying evidence
2.8.1 Incompetent theories by abject amateurs does NOT constitute any sort of evidence.
2.8.2 Especially when that incompetent speculation has been explained - in compelling detail, by real experts.
2.9 This is an incomplete list of the evidence that “OBL & AQ did it.” But it covers the major points.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
Below are the ground rules we agreed to. If you notice, rule #3 says tfk will go first after the opening statements, so it was not a violation of anything for me to post my opening statement when I did as it wasn't something to be replied to. Your opening statement was over 1,000 words and it was supposed to be no more than 500 per rule #2.
1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.
6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.
7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.
8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.
9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.
10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.
I will not be reading and replying to your comments on the International Skeptics forum nor should you expect me to have seen what you write there. That is excessive and distracting. There is a private message system here if you need to talk to me. It is only fair that any violation of the ground rules should be expressed in the debate, as I am doing here, and not count as a post.
My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble.
I do not wish to expand the debate beyond what is stated in rule #1 and should not be expected to respond to things other than the topic stated there.
You can start discussing the topic first now as agreed in rule #3.
1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.
6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.
7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.
8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.
9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.
10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding.
I will not be reading and replying to your comments on the International Skeptics forum nor should you expect me to have seen what you write there. That is excessive and distracting. There is a private message system here if you need to talk to me. It is only fair that any violation of the ground rules should be expressed in the debate, as I am doing here, and not count as a post.
My opening statement did contain mention of three big pieces of evidence for controlled demolition with the free fall in WTC 7, lack of deceleration in WTC 1, and molten metal in the rubble.
I do not wish to expand the debate beyond what is stated in rule #1 and should not be expected to respond to things other than the topic stated there.
You can start discussing the topic first now as agreed in rule #3.
-
- Joined: 2:13 PM - Dec 10, 2009
OK, we have a little stutter-stepping here, before we get into it.
You got me on the 500 word limit for the first post. I was operating on "1000 words/post", and did not see it changed for the first post.
You're free to ignore the 2nd half of my post.
You got me on "tfk will go first, AFTER the first post", although I was clear that didn't bother me at all.
The word count is your thing. I don't care. i feel either one of us can use as many words to express what needs to be explained.
You're more lawyer than engineer, Tony.
To be precise, there are 985 words in my first post. It's not "over 1000".
Now, back to item #2. Please read it again, carefully.
You did not state "what you believe caused WTC7's collapse."
You'll have a chance to do that later, in your first post in the 2nd group of 4. And I request that you do so clearly.
I'd also appreciate it if you'd be very clear about your choice of evidence. I'll be enumerating mine for easy reference, and to save our dwindling natural resource of "words".
Fair warning: I WILL be asking you, at some point, to put WTC7's collapse into some sort of cogent narrative, vis a vis the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.
I expanded my comments, in my opening post, to include the entire days events, when addressing "why I believe what I believe". I don't feel that there is a valid way to ignore all the rest of that information when answering that question.
In the spirit of fairness, if you have to go outside the strict boundaries of what we agreed to discuss in order to make any point, I will not object.
Open, free discussion is the best path to the truth.
"We can't talk about that subject" is antithetical to that goal.
As far as I am concerned, since we're in this stuttered start, you're free to reply to this post, or not. As you choose.
I'll post my first one, "approximately 3 best pieces of evidence against CD" some time in the next 2 days.
You got me on the 500 word limit for the first post. I was operating on "1000 words/post", and did not see it changed for the first post.
You're free to ignore the 2nd half of my post.
You got me on "tfk will go first, AFTER the first post", although I was clear that didn't bother me at all.
The word count is your thing. I don't care. i feel either one of us can use as many words to express what needs to be explained.
You're more lawyer than engineer, Tony.
To be precise, there are 985 words in my first post. It's not "over 1000".
Now, back to item #2. Please read it again, carefully.
You did not state "what you believe caused WTC7's collapse."
You'll have a chance to do that later, in your first post in the 2nd group of 4. And I request that you do so clearly.
I'd also appreciate it if you'd be very clear about your choice of evidence. I'll be enumerating mine for easy reference, and to save our dwindling natural resource of "words".
Fair warning: I WILL be asking you, at some point, to put WTC7's collapse into some sort of cogent narrative, vis a vis the collapses of WTC 1 & 2.
I expanded my comments, in my opening post, to include the entire days events, when addressing "why I believe what I believe". I don't feel that there is a valid way to ignore all the rest of that information when answering that question.
In the spirit of fairness, if you have to go outside the strict boundaries of what we agreed to discuss in order to make any point, I will not object.
Open, free discussion is the best path to the truth.
"We can't talk about that subject" is antithetical to that goal.
As far as I am concerned, since we're in this stuttered start, you're free to reply to this post, or not. As you choose.
I'll post my first one, "approximately 3 best pieces of evidence against CD" some time in the next 2 days.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
Tom,
Your opening statement was actually 1,056 words. If you copy and paste it into Microsoft Word it will show you. The word counts involve numbers also. However, not each number is a full word if they are strung together with no spaces. For instance, 2.3.1 would be counted as one word, and so would 1 by itself. Words are any text that is standalone.
This message is eighty-seven words. If you take out the three numbers in the above paragraph it will become eighty-four.
Tony Szamboti
Your opening statement was actually 1,056 words. If you copy and paste it into Microsoft Word it will show you. The word counts involve numbers also. However, not each number is a full word if they are strung together with no spaces. For instance, 2.3.1 would be counted as one word, and so would 1 by itself. Words are any text that is standalone.
This message is eighty-seven words. If you take out the three numbers in the above paragraph it will become eighty-four.
Tony Szamboti
-
- Joined: 2:13 PM - Dec 10, 2009
3 strongest pieces of evidence against CD
First there is no evidence for CD.
But that is NOT the topic here.
It will be your opportunity to present your arguments for CD on your turn.
You agreed to respond to MY arguments. Please follow through.
__
There is a massive amount of evidence against CD. The following are my 4 (“approximately 3”) best evidence.
1. Photo evidence
Many hundreds of high definition, photos are available for examination TODAY, that definitively prove “no explosives here”.
I have searched extensively. There is not one column or beam, that I’ve been able to find, which shows the clear, “obvious from 10 foot away” indications of either explosive cutting or sagging from melting.
Best sources of photos
FEMA Media Library
http://www.fema.gov/media-library
Enter “world trade center” “New york city”
4 FEMA photographers
James Chestnutt, Kurt Sonnenfeld, Andrea Booher & Michael Rieger
Andrea Booher
https://www.911memorial.org/hope-ground-zero
Capturing History At Ground Zero
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/c ... ero/185038
Kurt Sonnenfeld videos / photos
FEMA Slideshow Steel Dimensions, Corrosion, Deformations, and Cuts
__
Thermite is impossible:
It is NOT make the timing work. The uncertainty in the time that it takes for thermite to cut thru any column is measured in 10s of seconds, at best. The timing required to “melt” columns, as truthers have claimed, is measured in tenths to hundredths of a second. Thermite is impossible.
As mentioned above, there zero evidence of any melted columns or beams
__
“Explosives” is only method to be considered
2. Audio
100s to 1000s of high power explosions would be required.
The audio recording prove that explosions did not occur
Consumer video recorders pick up CD explosions perfectly. Thousands of videos prove this to be unequivocally true.
There is no possibility of explosives without detection on hundreds of video recorders
3. Seismic data proves no explosives
There is no possibility of occurring without seismic detection. See Brent Blanchard’s piece. Address Blanchard’s statements, please. Especially Claim #4.
4. OBL statements prove no explosives (as far as he knew).
Same rationale proves that nobody else would have waited for OBL to get his minions into action.
It would be stupid to wire buildings with explosives, and then risk discovery by waiting hours/days/weeks/month/years to fly planes into them. You’d blow them immediately, as soon as you could & claim your victory.
OBL was a murderer, but he was not stupid.
Nobody else that set them would wait for OBL's planes, for the same reason.
OBL was not shy about announcing to the world “we did it”.
If he had also planted explosives, he would have been proud to say, “And we snuck by your security & planted bombs, too.”
It didn’t happen.
QED: He didn't set any explosives.
QED: Neither did anyone else.
First there is no evidence for CD.
But that is NOT the topic here.
It will be your opportunity to present your arguments for CD on your turn.
You agreed to respond to MY arguments. Please follow through.
__
There is a massive amount of evidence against CD. The following are my 4 (“approximately 3”) best evidence.
1. Photo evidence
Many hundreds of high definition, photos are available for examination TODAY, that definitively prove “no explosives here”.
I have searched extensively. There is not one column or beam, that I’ve been able to find, which shows the clear, “obvious from 10 foot away” indications of either explosive cutting or sagging from melting.
Best sources of photos
FEMA Media Library
http://www.fema.gov/media-library
Enter “world trade center” “New york city”
4 FEMA photographers
James Chestnutt, Kurt Sonnenfeld, Andrea Booher & Michael Rieger
Andrea Booher
https://www.911memorial.org/hope-ground-zero
Capturing History At Ground Zero
http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0002/c ... ero/185038
Kurt Sonnenfeld videos / photos
FEMA Slideshow Steel Dimensions, Corrosion, Deformations, and Cuts
__
Thermite is impossible:
It is NOT make the timing work. The uncertainty in the time that it takes for thermite to cut thru any column is measured in 10s of seconds, at best. The timing required to “melt” columns, as truthers have claimed, is measured in tenths to hundredths of a second. Thermite is impossible.
As mentioned above, there zero evidence of any melted columns or beams
__
“Explosives” is only method to be considered
2. Audio
100s to 1000s of high power explosions would be required.
The audio recording prove that explosions did not occur
Consumer video recorders pick up CD explosions perfectly. Thousands of videos prove this to be unequivocally true.
There is no possibility of explosives without detection on hundreds of video recorders
3. Seismic data proves no explosives
There is no possibility of occurring without seismic detection. See Brent Blanchard’s piece. Address Blanchard’s statements, please. Especially Claim #4.
4. OBL statements prove no explosives (as far as he knew).
Same rationale proves that nobody else would have waited for OBL to get his minions into action.
It would be stupid to wire buildings with explosives, and then risk discovery by waiting hours/days/weeks/month/years to fly planes into them. You’d blow them immediately, as soon as you could & claim your victory.
OBL was a murderer, but he was not stupid.
Nobody else that set them would wait for OBL's planes, for the same reason.
OBL was not shy about announcing to the world “we did it”.
If he had also planted explosives, he would have been proud to say, “And we snuck by your security & planted bombs, too.”
It didn’t happen.
QED: He didn't set any explosives.
QED: Neither did anyone else.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
The statement that there are hundreds of photos available for examination today, that definitively prove “no explosives here”, is not proof of anything other than at those times and places there was no photographically determinable evidence of explosives. Unless you can show they cover all times and places concerning the destruction of the WTC this does not prove “no explosives here” in the overall sense you want to say. Even then you would have to show that photos were capable of showing the evidence. Photos cannot provide or dispute chemical evidence.
Additionally, there was no professional searching or testing done for explosive evidence on material from the WTC site.
Your own photo search has no import in answering the question as to whether or not explosives were involved in the collapses, as you cannot show what its limitations are.
Your timing statement for incendiary use seems to have left out the fact that thermite cutting devices have been developed which are capable of cutting through structural members in milliseconds. See
http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... Moore1.pdf
The finding of a high density of iron microspheres in the dust points to the possibility of incendiary use. Additionally, the calorimeter testing of the nano-thermite claimed to have been found in the dust produced iron microspheres. The documented extreme temperatures under the three collapsed buildings also provides some level of confirmation in this direction. Aerial thermal images taken by NASA over the WTC site days afterward have documented these high temperatures. See
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... l.r09.html
and firefighters have also mentioned melted steel in the rubble. See
Additional discussion of molten metal and the fact that fire could not have produced it is seen here
Your statements concerning audio are subjective and cannot be taken as anything more than your opinion, as they do not provide the sound levels that the audio devices were capable of recording at various distances, or the sound levels which would actually be present outside of the buildings, from charges which would have gone off inside the buildings. They also do not address the possibility of sound abatement efforts or the use of charges with lower noise levels, like nano-thermite.
Jonathan Cole showed that thermite can be used to cut through steel. See
You also seem to be leaving out the various points of evidence that do point to the use of charges from video and eyewitnesses.
It would be interesting to hear honest reactions about the continuous focused expulsions on the visible corner of WTC 1 right where the spandrel beams connect to the corner. These can be seen on this 5 minute video
It would also be interesting to hear what others think about the comments and audible sounds and the cogent arguments made in this 10 minute video by physics teacher David Chandler
It would also be interesting to hear anyone try to deny there were charges in WTC 7 when the fireman talking to Brian Williams says “the building would either come down on its own or it would be taken down”. To be able to make the statement “or it would be taken down” infers that there were indeed already charges in the building.
It would also be interesting to hear anyone who does not want to believe there were explosives in the buildings try to explain away the over 100 firefighter comments about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in the buildings transcribed in the 911 Oral Histories. Some of the comments go so far as to say they saw flashes going around the building like a belt.
As for your claim that there is no seismographic evidence of explosive use in the buildings that is simply not true. See
http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso ... er2012.pdf
Osama bin Laden actually denied involvement in the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in the United States shortly afterward, as seen in this CNN article from Sept. 17, 2001
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/in ... ref=storys
The FBI also said bin Laden was not wanted for 911 as it had no hard evidence that he was involved and he was never indicted for it by a grand jury as there was never any credible evidence for it proffered by anyone. See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-bin- ... ence/15892
No honest court could accept what you are saying as proof that there were no explosives. In fact, it is very likely that just the opposite would happen, as there is a preponderance of evidence that some form of explosives were used.
Additionally, there was no professional searching or testing done for explosive evidence on material from the WTC site.
Your own photo search has no import in answering the question as to whether or not explosives were involved in the collapses, as you cannot show what its limitations are.
Your timing statement for incendiary use seems to have left out the fact that thermite cutting devices have been developed which are capable of cutting through structural members in milliseconds. See
http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... Moore1.pdf
The finding of a high density of iron microspheres in the dust points to the possibility of incendiary use. Additionally, the calorimeter testing of the nano-thermite claimed to have been found in the dust produced iron microspheres. The documented extreme temperatures under the three collapsed buildings also provides some level of confirmation in this direction. Aerial thermal images taken by NASA over the WTC site days afterward have documented these high temperatures. See
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-042 ... l.r09.html
and firefighters have also mentioned melted steel in the rubble. See
Additional discussion of molten metal and the fact that fire could not have produced it is seen here
Your statements concerning audio are subjective and cannot be taken as anything more than your opinion, as they do not provide the sound levels that the audio devices were capable of recording at various distances, or the sound levels which would actually be present outside of the buildings, from charges which would have gone off inside the buildings. They also do not address the possibility of sound abatement efforts or the use of charges with lower noise levels, like nano-thermite.
Jonathan Cole showed that thermite can be used to cut through steel. See
You also seem to be leaving out the various points of evidence that do point to the use of charges from video and eyewitnesses.
It would be interesting to hear honest reactions about the continuous focused expulsions on the visible corner of WTC 1 right where the spandrel beams connect to the corner. These can be seen on this 5 minute video
It would also be interesting to hear what others think about the comments and audible sounds and the cogent arguments made in this 10 minute video by physics teacher David Chandler
It would also be interesting to hear anyone try to deny there were charges in WTC 7 when the fireman talking to Brian Williams says “the building would either come down on its own or it would be taken down”. To be able to make the statement “or it would be taken down” infers that there were indeed already charges in the building.
It would also be interesting to hear anyone who does not want to believe there were explosives in the buildings try to explain away the over 100 firefighter comments about seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions in the buildings transcribed in the 911 Oral Histories. Some of the comments go so far as to say they saw flashes going around the building like a belt.
As for your claim that there is no seismographic evidence of explosive use in the buildings that is simply not true. See
http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso ... er2012.pdf
Osama bin Laden actually denied involvement in the events of Sept. 11, 2001 in the United States shortly afterward, as seen in this CNN article from Sept. 17, 2001
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/in ... ref=storys
The FBI also said bin Laden was not wanted for 911 as it had no hard evidence that he was involved and he was never indicted for it by a grand jury as there was never any credible evidence for it proffered by anyone. See
http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-bin- ... ence/15892
No honest court could accept what you are saying as proof that there were no explosives. In fact, it is very likely that just the opposite would happen, as there is a preponderance of evidence that some form of explosives were used.
-
- Joined: 2:13 PM - Dec 10, 2009
Unmitigated nonsense.The statement that there are hundreds of photos available for examination today, that definitively prove “no explosives here”, is not proof of anything other than at those times and places there was no photographically determinable evidence of explosives.”
This is a statement worthy of a teenage brat or an internet troll. Not of an alleged engineer.
Engineers believe in “sampling theory”.
According to Steven Jones (& you, I believe):
JONES, April 2007, Page 23
Severing half the columns on every other floor would produce 30% of all columns (~6440) & of all column ends (~12,900) “explosively cut / melted”.ROBERTSON: … are [you] really saying every floor, every other, every third floor would have had to have had some kind of explosives in it? That’s absolute nonsense.
JONES: That would be required, to move the mass out of the way, yes, in order for the upper floors to proceed so rapidly to the ground.
Plus another 320 cut columns (& 320 cut ends) for the WTC7 columns.
FEMA allowed 4 photographers unrestricted access to Ground Zero, subject only to safety concerns. They consolidated their photos at the end of every day, and released them that day to the media, without inspection by FEMA or the government. “Without inspection” means zero attempt to censor the photos.
They were taking photos throughout the debris removal process. Even if the cut columns were initially buried, they would have appeared as the upper columns disappeared.
Statistics & sampling theory allows precisely zero probability that the 30% cut columns & 30% cut ends did not appear in these photographs.
Your (fully expected) hand-waving away of this issue is proven untenable & rejected.
__
The FDNY, the FBI, FEMA, and the SAR dogs, ALL with professional explosive detection expertise, crawled all over GZ & Fresh Kills. And found nothing.there was no professional searching or testing done for explosive evidence [or] material from the WTC site.”
Regardless of your erroneous assertion, as mentioned above, the photographic proof of the absence of explosively cut or melted column ends is available TODAY. Your choice to ignore these facts is immaterial.
__
Patents do not prove that any device exists. Patent issuance has no requirement for “physical realizability”.Your timing statement for incendiary use seems to have left out the fact that thermite cutting devices have been developed which are capable of cutting through structural members in milliseconds. See [patent reference].”
If you wish to assert “silent nanothermite explosives”, which can cut 1/2” to 5” thick steel in the required 10 millisecond time span, then it’s your job to produce it.
__
Iron microspheres are ubiquitous in cities. Every spark, every torch cut piece of steel, every car exhaust, every nearby coal fired power plant puts out iron microspheres.
Due to melting point depression, iron microspheres can easily be produced in normal building fires. The Oakland Hills fire (around 1990) produced thousands of steel bed springs with steel balls at the ends of the springs. Far bigger than microspheres.
The Thermitic Materials Report is a bad joke, produced by a gaggle of abject, clueless investigators. They were so clueless that they ignored readily available, cheap and definitive tests for thermite produced by certified labs, and instead invented their own tests that were completely non-definitive. This alone proves their incompetence.
The fact that they could have definitively settled this issue by submitting their samples to certified labs at any time over the last ~7 years, but have not done so & instead left the discussion, proves that they know that they are wrong.
__
There is precisely zero mechanism by which thermite can produce extreme temperatures for 3 months time.Aerial thermal images taken by NASA over the WTC site days afterward have documented these high temperatures.”
The only way to make a fire last that long is either a) provide the fuel slowly or b) choke off the oxygen.
Thermite brings both its fuel and its oxygen (Al & FeO2) to the reaction. For this reason, it fires off immediately & is then finished.
The reason that they lasted that long is that there were 200 acres of buried, unburnt fuel and the atmospheric oxygen was choked back by the compacted debris pile. The extended underground fires were no hotter than a knowledgeable thermodynamic calculation would suggest.
__
And, being metallurgical amateurs, they were wrong.firefighters have also mentioned melted steel in the rubble…”
Molten steel can NOT run down steel channel rails for weeks or months. The steel channel rails melt in a matter of minutes to an hour or so.
There were no monstrously huge pigs of steel that had to be lance cut & removed from GZ.
There were no slumped, melted steel column ends.
QED: there was NO melted bulk steel.
Lots of low melting temp iron microspheres, tho.
YOU are required to make arguments for molten steel. Not post links to clueless YouTube videos.
__
Nonsense.You … [leave] out … video and eyewitness [evidence of explosives].”
I adamantly include all video evidence, because it unequivocally proves “no explosions”.
Audio tracks prove that explosions of the proper number, volume & timing were completely absent.
__
Summarizing, you failed to address:
… the existing photographic evidence. You hand-waved it away.
… the absence of recorded explosions, with an absurd appeal to perfection. 1000s of videos unequivocally prove consumer VCRs easily record real CD explosions. You’re welcome to deny it & look foolish.
… Brent Blanchard’s statement on Protec’s recorded seismic signals.
… the senselessness of a “plan” to wire the buildings for CD, and wait weeks/months/years before setting them off.
… OBL’s repeated public assertions that he did order the attack.
And you failed to produce any evidence for the existence of silent, explosive nanothermite.
__
As for the rest of your post…
None of these points are responsive to the points that I made.“Chandler’s comments about audio”
“Cole’s ‘evidence’…”
“Explosions in WTC1 …”
“Rousseau’s paper”
“OBL’s denial of involvement”, prior to several admissions of involvement.
“firefighter comments…”
You are welcome to bring them up, & I’ll be ecstatic to dissect them, when you present YOUR evidence.
__
998 words. Perfect.
Oops, now 1004.
Damn, 1006…
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
As for how many floors would require charges in the twin towers, I would speculate that about twenty stories would need to be demolished artificially before the collapses could be self-propagating from the top down. We can only see the roofline of the North Tower for about the first ten stories of the fall and it continuously accelerates, which is what would occur if it was being demolished and would not if it were a natural collapse, where some deceleration would occur upon impact between floors as proven in Verinage demolitions.
See
What you may not know is that about 130,000 tons of material, mostly steel, had been removed and recycled by Sept. 29th. There was about 100,000 tons of steel in each tower, so this is the top third to half of the steel, and in the case of the twin towers is where the demolitions would have occurred and whatever was used in the demolitions would have been laying in the top third of the material. There is a good chance that steel was never even photographed in any close way.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
and http://maxstandridge.net/911girders2.htm
The photographic evidence is not complete enough to be used to rule out explosives. In addition, it has serious limitations in that one must know precisely what they are looking for and it cannot dispute or confirm chemical evidence. It is telling that you cannot provide a professional study to support your claims for no explosives, and we know for a fact that no residue testing for explosives was done, as it was admitted to when the question was asked. In fact, the treatment of this issue by authorities in New York City was nothing short of ludicrous with then mayor Rudy Giuliani turning to police commissioner Bernard Kerik, at a press conference on Sept. 12th, 2001, in response to a reporter’s question asking if explosives had been used, and Bernie saying “no, no explosives”. How could he have possibly known that at that point? Of course, he doesn't explain to us how he could be so sure that early after the event either.
Sampling theory is a worthy method when one knows the overall population and the sample size. You cannot define either. Your sampling using photographs of an unknown percentage of the debris is spurious and has no merit.
The SAR (search and rescue) dogs were trained to find human beings alive or dead. There were no bomb sniffing dogs used at the WTC site after the collapses, so your point here is not relevant.
There is little chance that the high density of iron microspheres found in the dust all over Manhattan was produced by your suggested methods of, torch cutting of steel, car exhaust, or nearby coal fired plants. Their density in all of the dust, including that found inside nearby apartments with broken windows, suggests it occurred during the collapses. Their presence in all of the dust also rules out their being produced in the fires, which only occurred on four to six floors of the 110 story buildings.
I pointed out that thermite can be used with devices to cut steel in milliseconds to refute your claim that it would be too slow to have been used.
I am not saying that thermite continued to react in the rubble. The extreme temperatures were there from the start and thus had to be due to whatever happened in the collapse. The high temperatures would have continued due to the insulation provided by the rubble. The temperatures did abate over time at a relatively slow rate largely due to the amount of insulation. There is evidence of steel melting in the rubble and the temperatures needed to do that could not have been produced by fires, as Dr. Thomas Eagar explains in the paragraph entitled "The Fire" in the article at the link below.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html
See a photo of Dr. John Gross of NIST photographed next to a piece of steel, which has obviously experienced melting, on page 7 of the pdf here
http://www.isgp.nl/miscellaneous/911/mo ... -truth.pdf
I have noticed you provide no rebuttal to Dr. Andre Rousseau’s discussion of the seismographic evidence of explosions contained in the LDEO data.
Osama bin Laden was never indicted for 911 and that is telling. It says the U.S. Justice Department does not consider video of him allegedly confessing to be credible.
It is interesting that you would choose to spuriously attempt to prove that there were no demolition charges of any type, with your low level of information from photographs, to start the debate. I can say that as a mechanical engineer I would have started with the much more tangible issues regarding the dynamics of the collapses and the serious problems with the NIST reports on them which do not explain the observations. Of course, I will be getting into those issues shortly.
See
What you may not know is that about 130,000 tons of material, mostly steel, had been removed and recycled by Sept. 29th. There was about 100,000 tons of steel in each tower, so this is the top third to half of the steel, and in the case of the twin towers is where the demolitions would have occurred and whatever was used in the demolitions would have been laying in the top third of the material. There is a good chance that steel was never even photographed in any close way.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html
and http://maxstandridge.net/911girders2.htm
The photographic evidence is not complete enough to be used to rule out explosives. In addition, it has serious limitations in that one must know precisely what they are looking for and it cannot dispute or confirm chemical evidence. It is telling that you cannot provide a professional study to support your claims for no explosives, and we know for a fact that no residue testing for explosives was done, as it was admitted to when the question was asked. In fact, the treatment of this issue by authorities in New York City was nothing short of ludicrous with then mayor Rudy Giuliani turning to police commissioner Bernard Kerik, at a press conference on Sept. 12th, 2001, in response to a reporter’s question asking if explosives had been used, and Bernie saying “no, no explosives”. How could he have possibly known that at that point? Of course, he doesn't explain to us how he could be so sure that early after the event either.
Sampling theory is a worthy method when one knows the overall population and the sample size. You cannot define either. Your sampling using photographs of an unknown percentage of the debris is spurious and has no merit.
The SAR (search and rescue) dogs were trained to find human beings alive or dead. There were no bomb sniffing dogs used at the WTC site after the collapses, so your point here is not relevant.
There is little chance that the high density of iron microspheres found in the dust all over Manhattan was produced by your suggested methods of, torch cutting of steel, car exhaust, or nearby coal fired plants. Their density in all of the dust, including that found inside nearby apartments with broken windows, suggests it occurred during the collapses. Their presence in all of the dust also rules out their being produced in the fires, which only occurred on four to six floors of the 110 story buildings.
I pointed out that thermite can be used with devices to cut steel in milliseconds to refute your claim that it would be too slow to have been used.
I am not saying that thermite continued to react in the rubble. The extreme temperatures were there from the start and thus had to be due to whatever happened in the collapse. The high temperatures would have continued due to the insulation provided by the rubble. The temperatures did abate over time at a relatively slow rate largely due to the amount of insulation. There is evidence of steel melting in the rubble and the temperatures needed to do that could not have been produced by fires, as Dr. Thomas Eagar explains in the paragraph entitled "The Fire" in the article at the link below.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html
See a photo of Dr. John Gross of NIST photographed next to a piece of steel, which has obviously experienced melting, on page 7 of the pdf here
http://www.isgp.nl/miscellaneous/911/mo ... -truth.pdf
I have noticed you provide no rebuttal to Dr. Andre Rousseau’s discussion of the seismographic evidence of explosions contained in the LDEO data.
Osama bin Laden was never indicted for 911 and that is telling. It says the U.S. Justice Department does not consider video of him allegedly confessing to be credible.
It is interesting that you would choose to spuriously attempt to prove that there were no demolition charges of any type, with your low level of information from photographs, to start the debate. I can say that as a mechanical engineer I would have started with the much more tangible issues regarding the dynamics of the collapses and the serious problems with the NIST reports on them which do not explain the observations. Of course, I will be getting into those issues shortly.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
Now that it has been shown that although many firefighters talked of explosions, and they can be observed in video and in seismographic evidence from LDEO, there was never any real investigations for explosive use conducted, and all those saying there were none can point to is their own personal search through Internet photo sets of unknown completeness for demolition devices, it is time to move to things with some level of official involvement with reports that can actually be critiqued. This obviously brings us to the NIST reports on the building collapses. The first one I would like to discuss is that for WTC 7.
The NIST WTC 7 report claims that girder A2001, situated between exterior column 44 and corner core column 79 in the northeast corner of the building, had its web pushed beyond its 12” wide seat at column 79 under the 13th floor by five beams framing into the girder from the east. They say this applied the load to the girder’s flange, which could not take the load in flexure, causing the girder to fall with the northeast floor section it supported then falling onto the next floor down shearing its seat at column 79 and causing an eight floor cascade leaving column 79 laterally unsupported from the north for nine stories. Column 79 had girders on three sides and the report says the connections to it of those from the south and west had been broken due to thermal expansion on floors 7 through 13 leaving the column completely unsupported for a length of nine stories causing it to buckle. The report says this caused the entire east side interior to progressively collapse and the east penthouse to fall down into the building. The report then says the progressive collapse proceeded from east to west with the entire interior going down leaving the exterior as a hollow shell with all of its columns buckling over a 2 second period starting at the southwest corner and the entire exterior coming down.
The problems with this story start with the amount of expansion required of the beams to push the girder web off its seat. The web is 0.580 inches thick and with the 12” wide seat the expansion would have to be 6.29 inches. At 600 °C the expansion of the longest beam at 53’ 8-11/16” would be about 5.5”, and actually around 5.4” when shortening due to sagging is considered. With shortening due to sagging overtaking expansion at 654 °C the expansion is limited to about 5.7”. It is interesting that the report said the seat was only 11” wide at first, which would work with the maximum expansion, until the drawings were released three years later and it was found that the seat was actually 12” wide. NIST was questioned on this and forced to admit the seat was actually 12” wide and wrote an erratum. However, the erratum simply said the lateral travel of the girder would have been 6.25” without explaining where they got the extra ¾” of expansion. See the Technical Discussion on pages 4 through 14 at the link below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso ... Pepper.pdf
In addition, all of the expansion is considered to go to the west and the ¾” gap between the beams and the east side exterior column web is ignored. Of course, there were four 7/8” diameter bolts at that end of the beam holding it to its seat and top clip, but it is not credible to expect the bolts not to shear at that end of the beams while the 28 shear studs on the beams and the 7/8” bolts on the girder were claimed to have broken due to thermal expansion. See figure 4 at the above link.
An additional discrepancy found during review of the drawings was that the girder had partial height web stiffeners at its column 79 end which were not included in the NIST analysis. These stiffeners were ¾” thick and 18” high and went from the web to the edge of the flanges. See figure 5 in the link provided. These stiffeners would have provided support to the flange and significantly increased the section modulus preventing the flange failure even if the web could have been pushed beyond the edge of the seat. NIST did not admit to this omission of a pertinent structural feature at first, but finally did after 19 months of being questioned about it saying they were for web crippling and their analysis said there was no web crippling.
The NIST report also ignores the side plates on column 79 interfering with the girder’s lateral travel. These plates protruded 1.8” from the flange of column 79 and would have been contacted by the expanded girder, which had broken its seat bolts, after just 3” of travel. The ARUP analysis shows the girder could not have been pushed past the column side plate. See figure A5.11 on pdf page 163 (JA-3237) at the below link to the ARUP analysis.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/ae ... pdf.16781/
The girder being trapped by the column side plate also makes a moot point out of any suggestion that column 79 could have been pushed to the east by the west side girder to generate additional lateral travel of the girder relative to the seat.
The report says the east penthouse collapse was due to column 79 buckling starting from the 13th floor girder failure causing a full east side interior collapse. However, video evidence shows
1. The shock wave from the penthouse collapse goes top to bottom.
2. Daylight is only seen at the top story windows even though the building was 144 feet
wide.
3. Windows are only broken 15 stories down from the roof.
4. There is no dust observed emanating from windows on the east side until the exterior
comes down.
5. There is no deformation of the east side exterior columns.
These observations seem to show that the east penthouse collapse only involved failures at the top of the building.
The NIST WTC 7 report claims that girder A2001, situated between exterior column 44 and corner core column 79 in the northeast corner of the building, had its web pushed beyond its 12” wide seat at column 79 under the 13th floor by five beams framing into the girder from the east. They say this applied the load to the girder’s flange, which could not take the load in flexure, causing the girder to fall with the northeast floor section it supported then falling onto the next floor down shearing its seat at column 79 and causing an eight floor cascade leaving column 79 laterally unsupported from the north for nine stories. Column 79 had girders on three sides and the report says the connections to it of those from the south and west had been broken due to thermal expansion on floors 7 through 13 leaving the column completely unsupported for a length of nine stories causing it to buckle. The report says this caused the entire east side interior to progressively collapse and the east penthouse to fall down into the building. The report then says the progressive collapse proceeded from east to west with the entire interior going down leaving the exterior as a hollow shell with all of its columns buckling over a 2 second period starting at the southwest corner and the entire exterior coming down.
The problems with this story start with the amount of expansion required of the beams to push the girder web off its seat. The web is 0.580 inches thick and with the 12” wide seat the expansion would have to be 6.29 inches. At 600 °C the expansion of the longest beam at 53’ 8-11/16” would be about 5.5”, and actually around 5.4” when shortening due to sagging is considered. With shortening due to sagging overtaking expansion at 654 °C the expansion is limited to about 5.7”. It is interesting that the report said the seat was only 11” wide at first, which would work with the maximum expansion, until the drawings were released three years later and it was found that the seat was actually 12” wide. NIST was questioned on this and forced to admit the seat was actually 12” wide and wrote an erratum. However, the erratum simply said the lateral travel of the girder would have been 6.25” without explaining where they got the extra ¾” of expansion. See the Technical Discussion on pages 4 through 14 at the link below.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/reso ... Pepper.pdf
In addition, all of the expansion is considered to go to the west and the ¾” gap between the beams and the east side exterior column web is ignored. Of course, there were four 7/8” diameter bolts at that end of the beam holding it to its seat and top clip, but it is not credible to expect the bolts not to shear at that end of the beams while the 28 shear studs on the beams and the 7/8” bolts on the girder were claimed to have broken due to thermal expansion. See figure 4 at the above link.
An additional discrepancy found during review of the drawings was that the girder had partial height web stiffeners at its column 79 end which were not included in the NIST analysis. These stiffeners were ¾” thick and 18” high and went from the web to the edge of the flanges. See figure 5 in the link provided. These stiffeners would have provided support to the flange and significantly increased the section modulus preventing the flange failure even if the web could have been pushed beyond the edge of the seat. NIST did not admit to this omission of a pertinent structural feature at first, but finally did after 19 months of being questioned about it saying they were for web crippling and their analysis said there was no web crippling.
The NIST report also ignores the side plates on column 79 interfering with the girder’s lateral travel. These plates protruded 1.8” from the flange of column 79 and would have been contacted by the expanded girder, which had broken its seat bolts, after just 3” of travel. The ARUP analysis shows the girder could not have been pushed past the column side plate. See figure A5.11 on pdf page 163 (JA-3237) at the below link to the ARUP analysis.
https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/ae ... pdf.16781/
The girder being trapped by the column side plate also makes a moot point out of any suggestion that column 79 could have been pushed to the east by the west side girder to generate additional lateral travel of the girder relative to the seat.
The report says the east penthouse collapse was due to column 79 buckling starting from the 13th floor girder failure causing a full east side interior collapse. However, video evidence shows
1. The shock wave from the penthouse collapse goes top to bottom.
2. Daylight is only seen at the top story windows even though the building was 144 feet
wide.
3. Windows are only broken 15 stories down from the roof.
4. There is no dust observed emanating from windows on the east side until the exterior
comes down.
5. There is no deformation of the east side exterior columns.
These observations seem to show that the east penthouse collapse only involved failures at the top of the building.
-
- Joined: 2:13 PM - Dec 10, 2009
Thank you very much for this paragraph.
It demonstrates your "debating sincerity".
It is consummately revealing. Revealing that you have no respect for the difference between assertion & fact, nor for the difference between demonstrated truth & wishful fiction. If you wish to declare something as "shown" or "proven", please make some slight effort to actually do so.
Children attempt to short-cut themselves to victory by asserting, “I’ve proven this ...", or "I’ve shown that …”, without actually putting out any effort. I expect better of adults.
Should I expect better of you in the future?
Tony Szamboti:
You’ve merely asserted several long debunked claims.
(2) Long debunked claim.
Firefighters “talked of” locomotives & tornadoes, too. As similes. Firefighters do not believe locomotives or tornadoes played any role in the collapse of those buildings.
NEITHER do they believe that explosives played any role.
As proven in excruciating detail, in these two references from nearly 10 years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/gpyavam
http://tinyurl.com/hx2fost
You are completely familiar with these dissections of "Firefighters talked about explosions". The fact that you advance this idiocy as proof of anything shows an abiding dishonesty.
Please stop this.
You will not get away with it & each incident only serves to make you & your arguments look juvenile & insincere.
(3) You’ve shown no such thing. You've not even made any effort to show such a thing.
(4) A paper completely debunked in 2010.
Pointlessly re-released, unchanged (i.e., still debunked) in 2012.
We will return to Rousseau’s paper shortly.
(5) The requirement for such an investigation was the FDNY lead investigator’s call. His determination: “We all saw what caused the collapse of the buildings. Plus there was no evidence suggesting explosives”.
If you don't like his call, protest to his boss.
Prepare yourself to be laughed at.
Nonetheless, NIST did address explosives. In significant detail.
Summarizing:
NIST:
(6) Tony Szamboti: “… all those saying there were (no explosives) can point to is …”
You hand wave away ONE claim (because you are unable to address it honestly), and then assert that this ONE claim is “all any debunker can point to”.
Do you know the meaning of the phrase “honest debate”?
(7) We will return to this issue shortly.
I said “blown or melted column ends”, items easily seen from a distance. Not “demolition devices”.
All of your comments above are childish debating gimmicks.
Please stop this, and debate like an adult.
__
Tony Szamboti:
The combination of this eastward push to C79 & the westward push of A2001by the tie-in beams pushed the A2001 girder off of its seat at C79.
In addition, you grossly understate the damage.
NIST:
I suggest that you re-read NCSTAR1-9, Chapter 11.3.2, & 11.4 “Floor Failures Leading to an Initial Failure Event” (pg 531) & “Initial Local Failure for Collapse Initiation” (pg 572), and then come back & correct your assertions match what NIST really says.
Then we can move on.
I’ll consider your corrected statement to be your first statement in the series.
That is, you get a “do over”.
It demonstrates your "debating sincerity".
It is consummately revealing. Revealing that you have no respect for the difference between assertion & fact, nor for the difference between demonstrated truth & wishful fiction. If you wish to declare something as "shown" or "proven", please make some slight effort to actually do so.
Children attempt to short-cut themselves to victory by asserting, “I’ve proven this ...", or "I’ve shown that …”, without actually putting out any effort. I expect better of adults.
Should I expect better of you in the future?
Tony Szamboti:
(1) You have “shown” none of this.Now that it has been shown (1) that although many firefighters talked of explosions (2), and they can be observed in video (3) and in seismographic evidence from LDEO (4), there was never any real investigations for explosive use conducted (5), and all those saying there were none can point to (6) is their own personal search through Internet photo sets of unknown completeness for demolition devices (7) …
You’ve merely asserted several long debunked claims.
(2) Long debunked claim.
Firefighters “talked of” locomotives & tornadoes, too. As similes. Firefighters do not believe locomotives or tornadoes played any role in the collapse of those buildings.
NEITHER do they believe that explosives played any role.
As proven in excruciating detail, in these two references from nearly 10 years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/gpyavam
http://tinyurl.com/hx2fost
You are completely familiar with these dissections of "Firefighters talked about explosions". The fact that you advance this idiocy as proof of anything shows an abiding dishonesty.
Please stop this.
You will not get away with it & each incident only serves to make you & your arguments look juvenile & insincere.
(3) You’ve shown no such thing. You've not even made any effort to show such a thing.
(4) A paper completely debunked in 2010.
Pointlessly re-released, unchanged (i.e., still debunked) in 2012.
We will return to Rousseau’s paper shortly.
(5) The requirement for such an investigation was the FDNY lead investigator’s call. His determination: “We all saw what caused the collapse of the buildings. Plus there was no evidence suggesting explosives”.
If you don't like his call, protest to his boss.
Prepare yourself to be laughed at.
Nonetheless, NIST did address explosives. In significant detail.
Summarizing:
NIST:
The issue was investigated. The consensus of real experts get to determine what is, & is not, a real investigation. The engineering establishment completely accepts NIST's conclusions regarding explosives, as I will demonstrate shortly with a list of published engineering papers which reference NIST's results, and make no mention whatsoever of "explosives".NCSTAR1: “… no corroborating evidence … suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives.”
NCSTAR1A: “Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7… ”
NCSTAR1-9: “NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred and found no evidence of any blast events.”
(6) Tony Szamboti: “… all those saying there were (no explosives) can point to is …”
You hand wave away ONE claim (because you are unable to address it honestly), and then assert that this ONE claim is “all any debunker can point to”.
Do you know the meaning of the phrase “honest debate”?
(7) We will return to this issue shortly.
I said “blown or melted column ends”, items easily seen from a distance. Not “demolition devices”.
All of your comments above are childish debating gimmicks.
Please stop this, and debate like an adult.
__
Tony Szamboti:
No, NIST explicitly states that “an eastward lateral displacement of Column 79, … caused by thermal expansion of the girder between Column 76 and Column 79 at Floor 13” produced “tensile weld failure in the knife connections on the west side of C79 on floors 10, 11 & 12.” NCSTAR1-9 pg 504.The NIST WTC 7 report claims that girder A2001, situated between exterior column 44 and corner core column 79 in the northeast corner of the building, had its web pushed beyond its 12” wide seat at column 79 under the 13th floor by five beams framing into the girder from the east.
The combination of this eastward push to C79 & the westward push of A2001by the tie-in beams pushed the A2001 girder off of its seat at C79.
In addition, you grossly understate the damage.
NIST:
Tony Szamboti:“Columns 79, 80 & 81 had lost lateral support in the north-south direction at Floor 13 … The girders between Columns 80 and 81 had buckled and the girders between Columns 79 and 44 and Columns 26 and 81 had walked off the bearing seat at Column 79 and 81, respectively.” [Lots of connection damage on Floors 11 thru 14, and] “and all of the east floor beams had failed on Floor 13 … Columns 79, 80, and 81 had lost lateral support at one or more floors.”
NIST says nothing of the sort.… causing an eight floor cascade leaving column 79 laterally unsupported from the north for nine stories.
Column 79 had girders on three sides and the report says the connections to it of those from the south and west had been broken due to thermal expansion on floors 7 through 13 leaving the column completely unsupported for a length of nine stories causing it to buckle.
I suggest that you re-read NCSTAR1-9, Chapter 11.3.2, & 11.4 “Floor Failures Leading to an Initial Failure Event” (pg 531) & “Initial Local Failure for Collapse Initiation” (pg 572), and then come back & correct your assertions match what NIST really says.
Then we can move on.
I’ll consider your corrected statement to be your first statement in the series.
That is, you get a “do over”.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
Although ground rule #7 was worded and insisted on by you,
7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.
it is apparent that you felt the need to disregard it concerning the discussion on whether there was evidence of explosive use in the building collapses. The only points I would make here is that it is telling that
- you use a forum post by a tour guide (Mark Roberts aka gravy) to claim that the testimony of over 100 firefighters in the 911 Oral Histories, where they mention seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, has nothing to do with explosive use and can all be explained away as being due to other things.
- you ignore the focused expulsions emanating from the corners and sides of WTC 1 seen on video.
- you simply repeat your claim that the seismographic evidence for explosive use shown by Dr. Andre Rousseau has been refuted but still have not provided evidence backing your assertion.
- you use these quotes of bare assertions to back your claim that NIST did address explosives in significant detail
NCSTAR1: “… no corroborating evidence … suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives.”
NCSTAR1A: “Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7… ”
NCSTAR1-9: “NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred and found no evidence of any blast events.”
As far as your reply to my discussion of the NIST WTC 7 report problems with the initiation of the collapse, simply stating that I should read the NIST report does not constitute a counter point in a debate.
You have not responded to any of the points I made regarding column 79. You should at least try to address each point I have made on this issue one by one. I am speaking of the problems the NIST WTC 7 report has with beam expansion and girder seat width, omission of girder web stiffeners, and the girder being trapped behind the column side plate. You also did not respond to the points I made about the east penthouse collapse.
In addition, there is more that I could not get to in the first post on this topic due to word count limits.
In June 2009 the ARUP report for the Con Edison vs. WTC7 Properties lawsuit made it clear that girder A2001 between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13 did in fact have 30 shear studs installed on it as shown in John Salvarinas’ 1986 paper on WTC 7.
See footnote 2 on pdf page 36 (JA-3069) here https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/ae ... pdf.16781/
and page 11-18 here
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Sa ... s_1986.pdf
Incredibly, at about the same time that ARUP was saying there were shear studs on the girder to the court, but unknown to the public, the NIST WTC 7 report authors said in an FAQ about Salvarinas' paper mentioning shear studs on the girder in question, that it had no merit here and continued to claim that no shear studs were installed on the girder.
The ARUP FEA also showed the knife connections on the girders framing into column 79 from the south and west would have remained stable. The NIST WTC 7 report simply makes assertions they say are results of their analysis but no analysis is ever provided by them. When asked for calculations and analysis used to substantiate their claim that the girder walked off its seat they refused and said release of that information might jeopardize public safety. The ARUP FEA does provide calculation and analysis and it refutes the NIST WTC 7 report here and it has been released now.
Calculations show that even if the girder did fall somehow it could not break through the next floor down as it can’t generate enough of an impact load to shear the seat at column 79 of the girder below. NIST merely asserted that it would, but it has now been shown to be untrue. See the attachment here showing an analysis of it.
It would seem that even if the ARUP contention, that the girder could have been pulled off its seat back to the east, were to have happened, the column would lose no more than one story of lateral support from one direction. It was laterally supported from three directions and only two are needed, and the reality that column 79 could have gone at least five stories with no lateral support makes this possibility completely insignificant. There is clearly no analysis that can show that column 79 would have buckled to initiate the collapse and the assertion that it did is wholly unsupported.
7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.
it is apparent that you felt the need to disregard it concerning the discussion on whether there was evidence of explosive use in the building collapses. The only points I would make here is that it is telling that
- you use a forum post by a tour guide (Mark Roberts aka gravy) to claim that the testimony of over 100 firefighters in the 911 Oral Histories, where they mention seeing, hearing, and feeling explosions, has nothing to do with explosive use and can all be explained away as being due to other things.
- you ignore the focused expulsions emanating from the corners and sides of WTC 1 seen on video.
- you simply repeat your claim that the seismographic evidence for explosive use shown by Dr. Andre Rousseau has been refuted but still have not provided evidence backing your assertion.
- you use these quotes of bare assertions to back your claim that NIST did address explosives in significant detail
NCSTAR1: “… no corroborating evidence … suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives.”
NCSTAR1A: “Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC 7… ”
NCSTAR1-9: “NIST concluded that blast events could not have occurred and found no evidence of any blast events.”
As far as your reply to my discussion of the NIST WTC 7 report problems with the initiation of the collapse, simply stating that I should read the NIST report does not constitute a counter point in a debate.
You have not responded to any of the points I made regarding column 79. You should at least try to address each point I have made on this issue one by one. I am speaking of the problems the NIST WTC 7 report has with beam expansion and girder seat width, omission of girder web stiffeners, and the girder being trapped behind the column side plate. You also did not respond to the points I made about the east penthouse collapse.
In addition, there is more that I could not get to in the first post on this topic due to word count limits.
In June 2009 the ARUP report for the Con Edison vs. WTC7 Properties lawsuit made it clear that girder A2001 between columns 44 and 79 at floor 13 did in fact have 30 shear studs installed on it as shown in John Salvarinas’ 1986 paper on WTC 7.
See footnote 2 on pdf page 36 (JA-3069) here https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/ae ... pdf.16781/
and page 11-18 here
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Sa ... s_1986.pdf
Incredibly, at about the same time that ARUP was saying there were shear studs on the girder to the court, but unknown to the public, the NIST WTC 7 report authors said in an FAQ about Salvarinas' paper mentioning shear studs on the girder in question, that it had no merit here and continued to claim that no shear studs were installed on the girder.
The ARUP FEA also showed the knife connections on the girders framing into column 79 from the south and west would have remained stable. The NIST WTC 7 report simply makes assertions they say are results of their analysis but no analysis is ever provided by them. When asked for calculations and analysis used to substantiate their claim that the girder walked off its seat they refused and said release of that information might jeopardize public safety. The ARUP FEA does provide calculation and analysis and it refutes the NIST WTC 7 report here and it has been released now.
Calculations show that even if the girder did fall somehow it could not break through the next floor down as it can’t generate enough of an impact load to shear the seat at column 79 of the girder below. NIST merely asserted that it would, but it has now been shown to be untrue. See the attachment here showing an analysis of it.
It would seem that even if the ARUP contention, that the girder could have been pulled off its seat back to the east, were to have happened, the column would lose no more than one story of lateral support from one direction. It was laterally supported from three directions and only two are needed, and the reality that column 79 could have gone at least five stories with no lateral support makes this possibility completely insignificant. There is clearly no analysis that can show that column 79 would have buckled to initiate the collapse and the assertion that it did is wholly unsupported.
-
- Joined: 2:13 PM - Dec 10, 2009
My apologies for the delay in this post. I’ve been in Baja California for the last week, with zero WiFi.
Now, I’ve got a little phone reception, so I can leash to it. I bet the bill’s gonna be eye-opening.
We still haven’t gotten out of the gate successfully.
We agreed that, first, we’d both give “approximately 3 strongest pieces of evidence” for/against CD.
And we agreed that “Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. etc.”
I did that, providing 4 pieces.
I expected you to give your 3 to 5 strongest pieces of evidence. You have not yet done that. I invite you to do that now, to get us back on track.
I figured at that point, we’d discuss both of our list items, one topic at a time. My first point (the photo evidence) will be my first topic. After we’d gone over that point, then you’d bring up your first topic & we’d address that.
Instead of giving your strongest pieces of evidence, you began to reply, immediately, to the points that I’d brought up.
You simply dismissed the photo images.
This sort of mindless dismissal is exactly what thoughtful discourse avoids.
And instead of keeping the discussion to one topic, you immediately brought up:
1. chemical testing
2. thermite cutting devices
3. iron microspheres
4. calorimeter testing
5. extreme temperatures
6. firefighters comments about melted steel
7. molten metal
8. audio levels (responsive to my list)
9. Jonathan Coles thermite experiments
10. video & eyewitness accounts of “explosives”
11. David Chandler’s video about explosive sounds
12. fireman’s comments to Brian Williams
13. 100+ firefighters comments about explosive sounds
14. seismographic evidence (responsive to one of my points)
15. Rousseau’s paper
16. OBL’s comments
17. OBL’s status on the FBI’s Most Wanted List
18. your assertion that no one has ever produced any evidence against OBL
19. your assertion of whether a court would accept or reject evidence of explosives.
All the above in … one … post.
This scattershot nonsense is the polar opposite of “keep it to one topic”.
Please stop this & abide by at least the spirit of the rules that we established.
And debate honestly.
__
Meanwhile, I have finished my response to your latest post.
But, before posting it, I would like you to first fill in the post that you skipped:
Please provide your “approximately 3 strongest pieces of evidence for CD.”
Please think before posting, and give your STRONGEST evidence.
Let’s stay focused on your list & my list first.
One item at a time.
After you post your list, my first topic will be a more in-depth discussion of the photographic evidence.
Your first topic can be anything that you wish it to be, such as the collapse paper that you’ve brought up.
But I will ask you to quickly return to the items on your “best evidence” list.
Once we’ve addressed those items, then we can start to wander all over the map.
PS. There does not seem to be a copy of the Arup report at any of the original links.
Do you have an active link?
Or can you forward a pdf to me @ etymon43836@mypacks.net
Thanks.
Now, I’ve got a little phone reception, so I can leash to it. I bet the bill’s gonna be eye-opening.
We still haven’t gotten out of the gate successfully.
We agreed that, first, we’d both give “approximately 3 strongest pieces of evidence” for/against CD.
And we agreed that “Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. etc.”
I did that, providing 4 pieces.
I expected you to give your 3 to 5 strongest pieces of evidence. You have not yet done that. I invite you to do that now, to get us back on track.
I figured at that point, we’d discuss both of our list items, one topic at a time. My first point (the photo evidence) will be my first topic. After we’d gone over that point, then you’d bring up your first topic & we’d address that.
Instead of giving your strongest pieces of evidence, you began to reply, immediately, to the points that I’d brought up.
You simply dismissed the photo images.
This sort of mindless dismissal is exactly what thoughtful discourse avoids.
And instead of keeping the discussion to one topic, you immediately brought up:
1. chemical testing
2. thermite cutting devices
3. iron microspheres
4. calorimeter testing
5. extreme temperatures
6. firefighters comments about melted steel
7. molten metal
8. audio levels (responsive to my list)
9. Jonathan Coles thermite experiments
10. video & eyewitness accounts of “explosives”
11. David Chandler’s video about explosive sounds
12. fireman’s comments to Brian Williams
13. 100+ firefighters comments about explosive sounds
14. seismographic evidence (responsive to one of my points)
15. Rousseau’s paper
16. OBL’s comments
17. OBL’s status on the FBI’s Most Wanted List
18. your assertion that no one has ever produced any evidence against OBL
19. your assertion of whether a court would accept or reject evidence of explosives.
All the above in … one … post.
This scattershot nonsense is the polar opposite of “keep it to one topic”.
Please stop this & abide by at least the spirit of the rules that we established.
And debate honestly.
__
Meanwhile, I have finished my response to your latest post.
But, before posting it, I would like you to first fill in the post that you skipped:
Please provide your “approximately 3 strongest pieces of evidence for CD.”
Please think before posting, and give your STRONGEST evidence.
Let’s stay focused on your list & my list first.
One item at a time.
After you post your list, my first topic will be a more in-depth discussion of the photographic evidence.
Your first topic can be anything that you wish it to be, such as the collapse paper that you’ve brought up.
But I will ask you to quickly return to the items on your “best evidence” list.
Once we’ve addressed those items, then we can start to wander all over the map.
PS. There does not seem to be a copy of the Arup report at any of the original links.
Do you have an active link?
Or can you forward a pdf to me @ etymon43836@mypacks.net
Thanks.
-
- Joined: 5:43 PM - Aug 02, 2008
Please post your reply to my last post and don't try to change the rules to what you may now prefer. There was never any agreement to stay on what each thinks are the strongest evidence for or against controlled demolition in our opening statements. The opening statements were intended as an introduction and to show what each participant generally believes to each other and anyone watching. Rule #1 gives the topic restrictions.
In case you forgot here are the rules we both agreed to again:
1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.
6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.
7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.
8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.
9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.
10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding. [/font]
The links I gave to specific ARUP reports for the Con Ed/Aegis Insurance vs. WTC 7 Properties lawsuit, in my posts above, work fine for me. You can find them at Metabunk.org at an initial post about them here https://www.metabunk.org/aegis-insuranc ... rts.t7112/
In case you forgot here are the rules we both agreed to again:
1. The debate is restricted to the collapses of WTC 1, 2 & 7 in NYC on September 11, 2001, the NIST reports on these events, and any additional objectively verifiable information and analyses in the public domain about them.
2. Each person shall make an opening statement (of no more than 500 words) explaining what they believe caused the collapse of WTC 7 and briefly stating what they believe are the (approximately) 3 strongest pieces of verifiable evidence for/against Controlled Demolition, as "Controlled Demolition vs. No Controlled Demolition" is the heart of the debate.
3. tfk will go first after both participants make an opening statement on June 21, 2016.
4. Each person shall make no more than one post per day and cannot make another until it is responded to.
5. If a post is not responded to within a week the person not responding is considered to have forfeited his turn & the other person will proceed with his next statement.
6. Individual posts are limited to 1,000 words. If it is deemed necessary to exceed that limit, justification shall be provided by the person wanting to exceed it and agreement to by the other participant received prior to doing so. This should be done by private messaging, so as not to interrupt the flow of the debate, and should be the exception rather than the rule.
7. Each post will discuss one principle topic. Each topic consists of 4 posts. Person A will state a topic post, Person B replies, Person A counters, then Person B counters, and that topic is closed. Person B then leads off the next sequence.
8. Every point that either person brings up must be addressed in some manner by the other. Both parties will do their best to stay focused on the original topic point.
9. There shall be no name calling, denigration, or defamatory language used. Each person shall bring only technical arguments to the debate. If any derogatory comments are used they shall be addressed to arguments only, not to individuals.
10. The debate will end after a maximum of 50 total posts, or earlier if the participants mutually agree to an earlier termination, or whenever either participant decides to stop responding. [/font]
The links I gave to specific ARUP reports for the Con Ed/Aegis Insurance vs. WTC 7 Properties lawsuit, in my posts above, work fine for me. You can find them at Metabunk.org at an initial post about them here https://www.metabunk.org/aegis-insuranc ... rts.t7112/
