Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[RedIbis]

It's a video of a real controlled demolition, in which you hear very loud sequential bangs just before the collapse as the charges go off. These are evident in every single video of real demolitions, but are absent in the WTC collapse videos. Your explanation?

I really should wait to get into a discussion, but is it possible that the 9/11 footage is too far away, audio cut, or some other reason?

I would imagine scheduled demos are video'd and mic'd, capturing the best possible audio. The area around the demo'd bldg is cleared and probably quiet, not the chaos at GZ.

Just a thought.

Like I said, I'll comment on the video. As well, I'll follow up with a similar question and/or video, if you don't mind.

 

[volatile]

I really should wait to get into a discussion, but is it possible that the 9/11 footage is too far away, audio cut, or some other reason?

Are you serious? Have you ever watched any of the 9/11 footage? They all have audio, there is no "cut out".

Also, the video I've shown there is quite far away - they don't let people near buildings that they are about to blow up, do they?

This is the nail in the CD theory's coffin. There are no bangs. Will you reconsider your position?

 

[RedIbis]

The available footage of WTC 7's collapse is at a distance. If you have close up video of WTC 7 collapsing, with audio, please post it.

The only way to make a fair comparison is to put your video against WTC video with similar conditions (i.e. distance, camera position and audio quality.)

I wouldn't be too anxious about trying to find the nail in the CD coffin. There are enormous similarities to CD, most apparently in WTC 7.

 

[volatile]

I wouldn't be too anxious about trying to find the nail in the CD coffin. There are enormous similarities to CD, most apparently in WTC 7.

No there aren't. The only one is that the building collapsed. That's it. Really.

And are you serious about there being no videos of WTC7 collapse with audio? They *all* have audio, and none of them have sequential bangs.

Watch some videos of some real collapses. All filmed from a distance, all with very loud, clear, sequential bangs. All of them.

 

[T.A.M.]

If every skyscraper you have seen collapse, was through watching a controlled demolition, and then someone showed you a picture of the WTC7 collapse, what would you assume?

CD...of course. Why? Not because it was CD, or because there was a shread of evidence pointing towards this, no, you would do so because building collapse DUE TO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION is the only frame of reference you have.

TAM

 

[R.Mackey]

The airfone issue is not in the NIST chapter and thus outside the scope of my study. However, I will give you three:

1. On page 150, he makes the claim (embellishing the words of Eric Douglas, appearing in the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies) that the NIST impact models selected the most severe cases "because, and only because" they were the only ones that led to a collapse.

2. On page 157, he echoes Eric Hufschmid in stating that the fires in the WTC Towers were not hot enough to break windows.

3. On page 192, he claims that 99.7% of the structural steel was shipped off to Asia "before it could be properly examined."

All three of these statements are easily disproven, bald-faced lies.

Let me ask the converse: Name one major claim that he makes that is correct. Don't search too hard.

Bump for RedIbis.

Here's another question: Why doesn't Dr. Griffin, anywhere in his 300+ pages of rambling text, clearly articulate any details of his controlled demolition hypothesis? He doesn't give us the type of explosive or explosives used. He doesn't say how many. He doesn't say where or how they were placed. He doesn't say when. Or how detonated. Or by whom. Or why. Nada. Zip.

Do you still think this is a good book?

 

[T.A.M.]

DRG is the speculation master. He is the opinion guru, he is the conjecture king. It is just silliness to expect any science or real evidence to be found in his "books".

TAM

 

[Gravy]

The available footage of WTC 7's collapse is at a distance. If you have close up video of WTC 7 collapsing, with audio, please post it.

Of course. The FDNY, NYPD, and National Guard let videographers wander about inside the cleared collapse zone.



NBC's Brian Williams: “What we’ve been fearing all afternoon has apparently happened. We’ve been watching number seven World Trade, which was part of the ancillary damage of the explosion and collapse of the other two.”


Brent Blanchard of Protec:

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.

We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to the building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went."

Need more?

Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 fires
Eyewitness accounts of WTC 7 damage
Eyewitness accounts of withdrawal and hold back from WTC 7 due to danger

I wouldn't be too anxious about trying to find the nail in the CD coffin. There are enormous similarities to CD, most apparently in WTC 7.

The building fell. That's the only one, and gravity took care of that, as it does in a demoliton. Once again you disrespect the experts who were there. Why do you do that?

 

[Gravy]

Knock yourself out. Give me the name of an investigator who says the collapses produced molten metal or molten steel, or retract your statement.QUOTE]

Is this how you claim victory in debate, by reconditioning the argument?

I said there were credible reports that used the words "molten steel" and "molten metal" at GZ. You called me a liar.

Now you are trying to rephrase your demand. I never said that the presence of molten steel or metal indicated CD. I never said these people said it was produced by the collapse. Im only reporting what they described.

Do you doubt that some people, with exclusive access to GZ, used those words to describe debris?

More lies? You claimed that these people said the molten material was caused by the collapses. I demanded proof or a retraction.

Which will it be, RedIbis? Remember when you joined us?

"Since this is my first day here I expect to get my requisite jref beating. I'll take it like a man."

I've seen the factual beatdown. The manhood? Not evident yet.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Bump for RedIbis.

Here's another question: Why doesn't Dr. Griffin, anywhere in his 300+ pages of rambling text, clearly articulate any details of his controlled demolition hypothesis? He doesn't give us the type of explosive or explosives used. He doesn't say how many. He doesn't say where or how they were placed. He doesn't say when. Or how detonated. Or by whom. Or why. Nada. Zip.

Do you still think this is a good book?

Because, to him, it's a matter of faith.

That, after all, is his specialty.

 

[R.Mackey]

Maybe, maybe not. I'm just wondering why it's taking RedIbis so long to find an answer. Perhaps he, too, can't find any major claim made in the book that is correct.

 

[pomeroo]

Excuse me? NIST dismissed PM's "pancake collapse." That ground has been covered.

Why do you continue to lie when you are simply making yourself look ridiculous?

There is no disagreement between the NIST Report and the PM book. Period. PM cites NIST throughout.

Yes, the ground you allude to has been covered extensively. You are either being dishonest or displaying almost Kirkmanic ignorance of a very familiar subject.

 

[pomeroo]

That's quite amusing. Our old pal Dr. Griffin says that Mark Loizeaux said there was molten steel... and here's his reference:



Source: Debunking 9/11 Debunking, Note 3-152, page 357.

So... two phone conversations. One with Ron Wieck, one with Chris Bollyn, and they have totally different answers. Hmm, I wonder if someone could be mistaken about this?

RedIbis, scratch another molten steel "witness" off the list. That exhausts the supply of technical folks who've supposedly made the claim. You're down even further than I thought.

Well, someone is mistaken. Any scientist--and R. Mackey is a damned good one--knows how important it is to be able to replicate data obtained from an experiment. A phone call to Mark Loizeaux will replicate my data. Bollyn's data is...well...hey, I'm a gubmint shill, for chrissakes! Loizeaux was LYING when he spoke to me!! Come to think of it, I'm lying!!! At least, I'm supposed to be. On second thought--EEEEYAHHHH!!!!

Um, not to keep bringing up a sensitive issue, but that "glitch," the one that was "straightened out"--when do I start seeing some cash? I received another post card from Cozumel and, no, I still can't accept this as an "honest mistake," and I still fail to see the humor.

 

[BeAChooser]

What RedIbis is claiming, though, is that the collapses produced molten metal that people observed days and weeks later. I've never seen that claim before

Really? Because I've heard this claim on forum after forum for years. Maybe the *best* of the twoofers don't visit JREF.

 

[RedIbis]

Since you guys basically all repeat the same thing, I'll summarize here. I don't have unlimited time to address redundant points.

Each time I made a point. I was called a liar. I've asked Mark specifically to address the argument and cease with the ad hominem drama.

NIST: "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers."

I didn't say PM disagreed with NIST. I said NIST rejects the pancake theory, and by extension, PM's and The Commission's collapse theories.

NIST did not report core column temps exceeding 250C.

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)"

I stated that credible people with access to GZ reported "molten metal" or "molten steel."

Mark then required that I produce investigators who claim molten metal was caused by the collapse.

I didn't say it was. I've made that point repeatedly. See the difference?

Just out of curiosity how do you guys spin Leslie Robertson's report that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."?

 

[R.Mackey]

Since you guys basically all repeat the same thing, I'll summarize here. I don't have unlimited time to address redundant points.

Nonsense.

I provided you three examples of gross factual errors in DRG's Debunking 9/11 Debunking at your request. I've asked you two questions in return. It's been 24 hours.

If you can't find a single example of a correct major claim in the book, will you at least please acknowledge that you can't, instead of ignoring the question? Thanks.

Just out of curiosity how do you guys spin Leslie Robertson's report that "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running."?

I already answered that a few posts back -- go back and reread it. He didn't "report" it. He doesn't even remember saying it. Artistic license or a misquote. Doesn't matter either way. Even if he thought there was molten steel, doesn't mean that there was.

 

[RedIbis]

Nonsense.

I provided you three examples of gross factual errors in DRG's Debunking 9/11 Debunking at your request. I've asked you two questions in return. It's been 24 hours.

If you can't find a single example of a correct major claim in the book, will you at least please acknowledge that you can't, instead of ignoring the question? Thanks.


I already answered that a few posts back -- go back and reread it. He didn't "report" it. He doesn't even remember saying it. Artistic license or a misquote. Doesn't matter either way. Even if he thought there was molten steel, doesn't mean that there was.

Thought so. You're confusing him with Loizeaux.

I'll answer your Griffin question about D9/11D (looks a bit like a bra size, doesn't it). For the record you claimed his book was filled with errors, I asked you to give examples. That's not an unreasonable request that ensures I'm going to respond to every question thrown at me on this thread.

The purpose of D9/11D was to address those attempts to "debunk" "conspiracy theories." Why would he speculate and conjure a scenario of how the operation took place?

This is similar to the question I've been asked to answer, which is: Where's the narrative?

As for a fact, Griffin is pretty good at incorporating research. His quotes and sources are really what makes his analysis strong, such as quoting Thomas Eagar who stated,

"A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types."

That's a fact, right?

 

[pomeroo]

Since you guys basically all repeat the same thing, I'll summarize here. I don't have unlimited time to address redundant points.

Each time I made a point. I was called a liar. I've asked Mark specifically to address the argument and cease with the ad hominem drama.

NIST: "NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers."

I didn't say PM disagreed with NIST. I said NIST rejects the pancake theory, and by extension, PM's and The Commission's collapse theories.

You should simply stop. PM cites NIST to explain the collapses. The 9/11 Commission did not provide a comprehensive scientific explanation for the collapses.

 

[pomeroo]

Thought so. You're confusing him with Loizeaux.

I'll answer your Griffin question about D9/11D (looks a bit like a bra size, doesn't it). For the record you claimed his book was filled with errors, I asked you to give examples. That's not an unreasonable request that ensures I'm going to respond to every question thrown at me on this thread.

The purpose of D9/11D was to address those attempts to "debunk" "conspiracy theories." Why would he speculate and conjure a scenario of how the operation took place?

This is similar to the question I've been asked to answer, which is: Where's the narrative?

As for a fact, Griffin is pretty good at incorporating research. His quotes and sources are really what makes his analysis strong, such as quoting Thomas Eagar who stated,

"A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types."

That's a fact, right?

Griffin is not so good at reminding us that Thomas Eagar rejects the fantasist explanation completely.

 

[R.Mackey]

Thought so. You're confusing him with Loizeaux.

One of those was Leslie Robertson. I presume you know who he is. Amusingly, it isn't 100% clear that he ever stated that at all -- it appears that his comments at an open lecture were either embellished by the reporter, or it was simply a figure of speech. When someone followed up on his comment, it was learned that Mr. Robertson didn't recall saying that in the first place, and freely admits that even if he did, he would have been speculating. Read here for details.

I'll answer your Griffin question about D9/11D (looks a bit like a bra size, doesn't it). For the record you claimed his book was filled with errors, I asked you to give examples. That's not an unreasonable request that ensures I'm going to respond to every question thrown at me on this thread.

I will give you three:

1. On page 150, he makes the claim (embellishing the words of Eric Douglas, appearing in the "Journal" for 9/11 Studies) that the NIST impact models selected the most severe cases "because, and only because" they were the only ones that led to a collapse.

2. On page 157, he echoes Eric Hufschmid in stating that the fires in the WTC Towers were not hot enough to break windows.

3. On page 192, he claims that 99.7% of the structural steel was shipped off to Asia "before it could be properly examined."

All three of these statements are easily disproven, bald-faced lies.

I think you're just stalling. It's your turn. What did he get right? Anything? Why won't he tell us what his "controlled demolition" hypothesis even is?

The purpose of D9/11D was to address those attempts to "debunk" "conspiracy theories." Why would he speculate and conjure a scenario of how the operation took place?

You tell me.

ETA: On further review, it appears you believe that the following is an answer to my question:

"A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types."

That's a fact, right?

That's not what I asked. Dr. Griffin could state water is wet or the sky is blue, and that wouldn't lend him much credibility. Stating obvious facts is not the question.

The question is, what major claims did he get right? Your answer is a meek evasion.

Now I'm sure you're stalling.