This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

[LashL]

500 posts in and it is obvious that the thread was nothing but another lame attempt by yet another lame CT sockpuppet pretending that he/she had something of substance to say, and that he/she failed miserably.

*sigh*

Where have all the good sockpuppets gone?
Long time passing.
(I want to know)
Where have all the good sockpuppets gone?
Long time ago.

Gone to graveyards, every one
Skeptics picked them off one by one
When will they ever learn?

When will they ever learn?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Please guys do me a favour and stop feeding this inane idiots ego.

14 Pages devoted to this fools ONE question which WAS answered.

You people SURELY have better things to do that keep responding to this idiot.

He clearly is not reading or comprehending ANYTHING you have shown him and told him.

He is either a simpleton or is just in here playing with you (I’ll punt for a bit of a combination).

When he posts that the epitome of a critical thinker is one who rejects expert advice it shows what a complete moron he is !

THERE… Now even I have wasted some time.. but I can assure you it is ALL I will waste on this nincompoop !

I know but it's kind of a nice tune-up, keeps the old skeptical muscles stretched and in shape. I think most of us pegged him as disingenuous right out of the chute. I certainly did. That's why my several posts were broad sarcasm.

It's kind of a good illustration to would-be CT posters as to the level of scrutiny they will face. Always good. Might force them to re-examine. Maybe even reconsider their CTism? There's always hope...

 

[einsteen]

I liked MacKey's statistics, the 3 buildings have collapsed which means it is not impossible

 

[PerryLogan]

That "Sockpuppets" song always makes me cry...

I love conspiracy guys. You can debunk them to death...and they just don't know it.

 

[Mobyseven]

If anyone here can present me with hard data...which proves HOW a fire, can completely destroy the core steel columns of WTC 1 & 2 you will convert me to your club. That's really all you have to do. Prove to me, how the core columns of these two buildings...crumbled, when even a pancake collapse would NOT bring down the core columns...which were one of the unique features of the WTC when they were built.

I'm still going through this thread, so doubtless someone else must have pointed out how irrationaly this reasoning is, but I had to do it myself as well...

So what you're saying is: Because WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, it must have been brought down by fire alone?

This ignores the fact that they had a building collapse on them, causing extensive damage - but even if it HAD only been caused by fire, you then take a very strange next step.

You say, "Because WT7 collapsed ONLY because of fire, then WTC1 and WTC2 ALSO must have collapsed due to fire."

You completely ignore the fact that the planes DID fly into WTC1 and WTC2, causing an incredible amount of damage.

It is as if you have three men in a room. You shoot two of them, and the third one collapses from a heart attack. You then conclude that the other two men must have collapsed for a heart attack as well.

I do love my analogies so...

 

[gumboot]

Mobyseven's quote of 28 Kingdom has reminded me of something the CTers bring up that annoys me.

It is talk of the "unique WTC core". They speak of this indestructable engineering feat.

Here's how I understand it. The amazing feat of the towers was not all this additional structure. It was the LACK OF STRUCTURE. Namely, there were no columns spaced evenly throughout the floors.

Most buildings have a regular space of columns. Instead WTC had columns at the exterior walls (which are not structural in most buildings) and at the core (which are structural in most buildings). This left enormous open floors with NO STRUCTURAL COLUMNS WHATSOEVER.

Sure, WTC's core might have been stronger than a regular core, but it had to be, because all these other regular columns weren't there!

Seems to me, in the context of a suicidal aircraft attack, WTC was uniquely WEAK, not uniquely STRONG.

-Gumboot

 

[einsteen]

Moby, let me add something to your story.

First of all FEMA: "The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers."

The damage can be ignored in that case according to the official report.
Today I saw in the newspaper that they are going to demolish the Deutsche bank near the WTC, it will take a year or something, maybe it is better to raise some fire I assume then...

Further at 9/11 wtc6 received the full load of both twin towers and it was still standing. How can you make it plausible that wtc7 then would collapse as a CD-clone ? Using the same statistics as in this thread I now say

"All CD experts that I've seen so far talking objectively about wtc7 (directly and not via third parties or obscure compiled documents on the net) say it is a CD without any doubt"

But to be honest, as lay persons we have to accept what is told, but there is enough room for open discussion because the wtc7 case is not closed. There is not yet an official explanation about the kind of collapse, it is no pancake collapse, it is no progressive collapse, it is a CD-clone caused by fire according to FEMA, laughable... if you look at the videos you clearly see that the structures are broken simultaneously, it was not really a clean collapse but obviously a job done by experts according to Danny Jowenko (CD expert with almost 30 years experience, listed on implosionworld). It's also very logical that a building that will collapse due to something random will not fall in that way. If you use Greening's math or a similar math for wtc7 (although it is no kind of top-down demolition) you really have a problem, a big big problem. You need an initial momentum with a vector pointing to the centre of the earth and that can only be obtained when the building is pulled simultaneously at the supporting columns on some levels. It should gather some fall speed first. If we again notice that the official (quoted at top) report ignores the damage. Then (uncontrolled random raging) fire should be able to pull a building like a CD. Further there are no calculations that prove this, it is just an assumption and nothing more.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Moby, let me add something to your story.

First of all FEMA: "The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers."

The damage can be ignored in that case according to the official report.
Today I saw in the newspaper that they are going to demolish the Deutsche bank near the WTC, it will take a year or something, maybe it is better to raise some fire I assume then...

Further at 9/11 wtc6 received the full load of both twin towers and it was still standing. How can you make it plausible that wtc7 then would collapse as a CD-clone ? Using the same statistics as in this thread I now say

"All CD experts that I've seen so far talking objectively about wtc7 (directly and not via third parties or obscure compiled documents on the net) say it is a CD without any doubt"

But to be honest, as lay persons we have to accept what is told, but there is enough room for open discussion because the wtc7 case is not closed. There is not yet an official explanation about the kind of collapse, it is no pancake collapse, it is no progressive collapse, it is a CD-clone caused by fire according to FEMA, laughable... if you look at the videos you clearly see that the structures are broken simultaneously, it was not really a clean collapse but obviously a job done by experts according to Danny Jowenko (CD expert with almost 30 years experience, listed on implosionworld). It's also very logical that a building that will collapse due to something random will not fall in that way. If you use Greening's math or a similar math for wtc7 (although it is no kind of top-down demolition) you really have a problem, a big big problem. You need an initial momentum with a vector pointing to the centre of the earth and that can only be obtained when the building is pulled simultaneously at the supporting columns on some levels. It should gather some fall speed first. If we again notice that the official (quoted at top) report ignores the damage. Then (uncontrolled random raging) fire should be able to pull a building like a CD. Further there are no calculations that prove this, it is just an assumption and nothing more.

What part of "the FEMA report was preliminary in nature" don't you get? If the FEMA report, which was released very shortly after everything happened was the be-all-end-all then it wouldn't have necessitated NIST doing a follow-up. Also, FEMA was looking that the buildings from an emergency management perspective, whereas NIST is looking at them from an engineering safety/performance standpoint.

 

[einsteen]

And if that became the official standard would you as a debunker accept it? I’m so extremely curious about what NIST is going to present us very soon hopefully.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And if that became the official standard would you as a debunker accept it? I’m so extremely curious about what NIST is going to present us very soon hopefully.

Here is how I choose to whether or not to "accept" something:

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html

The gist of my post is that the upcoming NIST report is, likely to be, more comprehensive that the FEMA report and will be available for all professionals/engineers/etc to scrutinize in the same manner as the report on WTC 1 & 2. Basing your argument off of the FEMA report, which is known to be preliminary, and knowing that the NIST report will be coming out and will be more comprehensive; is disingenuous.

 

[einsteen]

I’ve never seen such explicit definitions, thanks for this lesson Arkan. However in the link you provided testing of the predictions will be a problem with one-off events like this.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I’ve never seen such explicit definitions, thanks for this lesson Arkan. However in the link you provided testing of the predictions will be a problem with one-off events like this.

Not really. The same process can be applied that is used for things like:
* Big Bang
* Evolution
* Formation of diamonds
* Plate tectonics

The event as a whole can not be reproduced, but the individual elements can and those elements can be tested.

ETA: And if you want to argue that the non-reproducibility of the event precludes a scientific explanation then the same stanard must be applied to conspiracy theories; that unless the conspiracy is reproduced in whole with the same outcome that the theory can not be accepted.

 

[einsteen]

But what are the individual elements of a (progressive) collapse? A (progressive) collapse of one floor? If that is the smallest element then even that is not reproduced empirically. That is of course not needed if you have numerical methods, but as far as I’ve heard NIST does only investigate the collapse initiation.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

But what are the individual elements of a (progressive) collapse? A (progressive) collapse of one floor? If that is the smallest element then even that is not reproduced empirically. That is of course not needed if you have numerical methods, but as far as I’ve heard NIST does only investigate the collapse initiation.

No, the smallest elements would be things like:
* effects of debris impact on fire retardant coating of steel
* effects of indirect shock on fire retardant coating of steel
* forces necessary to cause failure in different structural elements
* heat necessary to weaken different structural elements
* computer modeling of changes in the load bearing of the structure given different kinds of support failure/weakening
etc

 

[Brainster]

Moby, let me add something to your story.

First of all FEMA: "The performance of WTC7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers."

The damage can be ignored in that case according to the official report.

Suppose I put you out in the middle of a desert. Ten miles away is an oasis, which I point you towards. Then I shoot you in both feet. Three days later, your body is found, and the cause of death is dehydration. So I say, "Well, we can obviously ignore those wounds in his feet because they didn't kill him."

 

[einsteen]

I don't agree with the fact it is only fire... but the wtc7 wounds... it is just a tall girl who died 7 hours after a paper cut in her feet... sister wtc6 survived a whole metal storm.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

I don't agree with the fact it is only fire... but the wtc7 wounds... it is just a tall girl who died 7 hours after a paper cut in her feet... sister wtc6 survived a whole metal storm.

a "paper cut" from her ankle to her thigh 1/3 of the way through her leg

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

 

[Horatius]

sister wtc6 survived a whole metal storm.

Nothing survives Metal Storm!

 

[negativ]

*This isn't a form of projectile vomiting but an Irish field sport

I thought projectile vomiting was an Irish field sport...

 

[babazaroni]

South Tower collapse video

28th Kingdom,

Here is a google video that shows a close-up of the South Tower at the moment of collapse. See for yourself whether or not the upper part of the building starts it's downward movement before the squibs.

I don't have linking rights yet, so you may need to cut and paste the URL.

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546&q=WTC&pl=true

Notice that the outer columns, which are already bending inward, collapse inward as well.