Gold's site, 911blogger.com, has a new thread entitled "Ghosts of the Firemen." Spectral images of firefighters haunting Bush ignore the reality that the heroes of 9/11 despise the conspiracy liars. Here is an exchange with a loon who uses REAL SCIENCE to batter poor lil' me:
Ronald Weick needs to answer these 6 points
1. evaporated steel was reported in the new york times by Thomas Barnett, its in jones paper.
2. Wille rodriguiez and at least 20 others heard a big explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane impact.
3. Molten dripping steel, i love the way you dodged that. FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL. Please explain. Jones paper was peer reviewed.
4. Since NIST in there recently released FAQ says its basically a pile driver theory , how does the alleged pile driver turn to dust in midair, how can it crush the building if it turns into dust in midair? i love the way you ignored that.
5. Since no fire has ever caused a building to collapse, why did building 7 collapse? How did all the core and perimeter columns fail at the same time? Its going to be a tough one to answer BC even nist cant answer it. DR. Sunder from NIST in mar 2006.
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
6. Plenty of experts agree with the CD theory. Two swiss structural engineers and an explosives expert jowenko say building 7 was a CD. Charles Pegelow a structural engineer agrees with the CD theory. Stephen jones a phd in Physics.............many more do, read the comment on Jones paper, structural engineers, civil engineers and a professor of Physics from MIT AGREE with him. THEY DO SO AND LEAVE ONLY THEIR FIRST NAMES BC OF PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO RIDICULE AN OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE GALILEO, LUCKILY MORE AND MORE EXPERTS ARE WAKING UP DESPITE THE RISKS TO THEIR CAREERS AND LIVES.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 11:43pm.
» edit | reply | 0 points
New Evidentiary Reasoning.
Great job, anonymous! You are the first conspiracy liar to present actual evidence. There are, however, a few minor problems.
1) Nobody has the slightest idea of what "evaporated steel" is supposed mean. Possibly you meant, evaporated milk.
2) There were no explosions in the basement , or anywhere else, before the plane impact. The seismic data gathered by the Lamont-Doherty laboratories are very clear on this point.
3) Fire melts steel if it's hot enough. The fires at the WTC were not hot enough. Nobody thinks that the steel melted. When the fireproofing was dislodged, pockets of heat were trapped, and the core beams were weakened (not melted).
No, Steven Jones has submitted nothing for peer-review. He publishes in journals run by like-minded cranks. Try to understand that this assertion is not a matter of opinion. An article is either peer-reviewed or it is not. Jones's nonsense is not.
4) This question is a classic. If you're six years old, you're precocious. If you're over twelve, you have a problem. NIST explained the collapse thusly: The impact of the planes severed external columns and core columns. The impact dislodged fireproofing--had the fireproofing remained intact, the buildings would not have fallen. Uneven heating weakened the core columns, causing them to exert an inward pull on the floor trusses, which, in turn, tugged the external columns inward. Many photos of the Twin Towers clearly show this inward bowing, demonstrating the correctness of the NIST's conclusions. Eventually, the trusses gave way and a global collapse ensued.
You have the fantastic notion that the mass of the falling debris somehow vanished. No steel turned to dust.
5) Fires have caused steel buildings to collapse, but what's the difference? You will reject the NIST report on building 7 when it appears. The analysis will be inconvenient to your politics.
6) No structural engineers or demolition experts think that the collapses of the Twin Towers look anything like controlled demolition. Pegelow works on oil rigs. The three Europeans who were taken in by fantasist propaganda photos showing an undamaged WTC 7 have clammed up since receiving accurate information. What will they say when NIST releases its report? We'll have to wait and see.
No experts are "waking up" to the nonsensical, baseless fabrications of the conspiracy liars, except to refute them in the name of science.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 12:12am.
» reply | 0 points
Ronald Weick needs to answer these 6 points
1. evaporated steel was reported in the new york times by Thomas Barnett, its in jones paper.
2. Wille rodriguiez and at least 20 others heard a big explosion in the basement BEFORE the plane impact.
3. Molten dripping steel, i love the way you dodged that. FIRE DOESNT MELT STEEL. Please explain. Jones paper was peer reviewed.
4. Since NIST in there recently released FAQ says its basically a pile driver theory , how does the alleged pile driver turn to dust in midair, how can it crush the building if it turns into dust in midair? i love the way you ignored that.
5. Since no fire has ever caused a building to collapse, why did building 7 collapse? How did all the core and perimeter columns fail at the same time? Its going to be a tough one to answer BC even nist cant answer it. DR. Sunder from NIST in mar 2006.
NIST did have "some preliminary hypotheses" on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. "We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors." Then Dr. Sunder paused. "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7."
6. Plenty of experts agree with the CD theory. Two swiss structural engineers and an explosives expert jowenko say building 7 was a CD. Charles Pegelow a structural engineer agrees with the CD theory. Stephen jones a phd in Physics.............many more do, read the comment on Jones paper, structural engineers, civil engineers and a professor of Physics from MIT AGREE with him. THEY DO SO AND LEAVE ONLY THEIR FIRST NAMES BC OF PEOPLE LIKE YOURSELF WHO RIDICULE AN OPEN AND HONEST DEBATE. THERE WAS ONLY ONE GALILEO, LUCKILY MORE AND MORE EXPERTS ARE WAKING UP DESPITE THE RISKS TO THEIR CAREERS AND LIVES.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 11:43pm.
» edit | reply | 0 points
New Evidentiary Reasoning.
Great job, anonymous! You are the first conspiracy liar to present actual evidence. There are, however, a few minor problems.
1) Nobody has the slightest idea of what "evaporated steel" is supposed mean. Possibly you meant, evaporated milk.
2) There were no explosions in the basement , or anywhere else, before the plane impact. The seismic data gathered by the Lamont-Doherty laboratories are very clear on this point.
3) Fire melts steel if it's hot enough. The fires at the WTC were not hot enough. Nobody thinks that the steel melted. When the fireproofing was dislodged, pockets of heat were trapped, and the core beams were weakened (not melted).
No, Steven Jones has submitted nothing for peer-review. He publishes in journals run by like-minded cranks. Try to understand that this assertion is not a matter of opinion. An article is either peer-reviewed or it is not. Jones's nonsense is not.
4) This question is a classic. If you're six years old, you're precocious. If you're over twelve, you have a problem. NIST explained the collapse thusly: The impact of the planes severed external columns and core columns. The impact dislodged fireproofing--had the fireproofing remained intact, the buildings would not have fallen. Uneven heating weakened the core columns, causing them to exert an inward pull on the floor trusses, which, in turn, tugged the external columns inward. Many photos of the Twin Towers clearly show this inward bowing, demonstrating the correctness of the NIST's conclusions. Eventually, the trusses gave way and a global collapse ensued.
You have the fantastic notion that the mass of the falling debris somehow vanished. No steel turned to dust.
5) Fires have caused steel buildings to collapse, but what's the difference? You will reject the NIST report on building 7 when it appears. The analysis will be inconvenient to your politics.
6) No structural engineers or demolition experts think that the collapses of the Twin Towers look anything like controlled demolition. Pegelow works on oil rigs. The three Europeans who were taken in by fantasist propaganda photos showing an undamaged WTC 7 have clammed up since receiving accurate information. What will they say when NIST releases its report? We'll have to wait and see.
No experts are "waking up" to the nonsensical, baseless fabrications of the conspiracy liars, except to refute them in the name of science.
Submitted by Ronald Wieck on Sat, 01/06/2007 - 12:12am.
» reply | 0 points
