SO here is where he is gonna do TWO things.
1. He will bring up the "characteristics of Controlled Demolition Collapse" and then compare those to the observations of WTC7
2. He will likely bring up Chandler's 2.25 seconds of Free Fall, which we all know was not free fall of the entire building but only a portion of it.
Be prepared on the above.
Haven't read the FEMA report in a while, but most of its findings are over-ridden by the more recent and much more thorough NIST report.
1. Fire Theory - I suppose he is referring to the theory that the unfought uncontrolled fires are the suggested reason for the collapse of column 79, and the global collapse that occurred.
2. Computer simulations - no comment
3. Refusal to check for explosives? Well first of all prove they REFUSED to do so rather then DIDN'T BOTHER due to lack of physical evidence such as det cord, etc...
4. Omitted evidence? Omitted from what? And what was this evidence?
5. Standards ignored? What standards, who ignored them, and how?
6. Whistleblowers fired? Who? What was there claim? How long after their "whistleblowing" were they fired?
Thermal Expansion stuff...what the hell does he mean, "has it ever occurred before"? I she mentally retarded?
Fire Duration etc.... that requires technical details as to the contents for a given area on a given floor...tough to do I would think.
Shouldn't this have been covered in the previous segment? Anyway, What about normal office fires...he will likely go into the temps you could expect, and if such temps would have resulted in what we saw...speculation again.
No precedent - ok, but also the building was unique, the fire extinguishing systems failed, the fires were allowed to go unfought for hours, so there were no precedents to go by on all accounts...so what is the point of the "no precedent" argument.
Extraordinary Hypothesis? Oh hell, so if a column failure from unfought uncontrolled fires leading to global collapse is called "extraordinary" then what do you call the hypothesis, that "secret soundless explosives were planted in the building without anyone knowing or seeing, weeks and months in advance, to demolish a building because it contained documents that a simple shredder and sledgehammer could have taken care of"?
I think the latter hypothesis is MUCH MUCH more extraordinary then the former.
Easy one here. They found chips that NO ONE ELSE has been able to find in any of the other WTC samples. Their results have not been verified by independent labs. Their samples have a horrible chain of custody, and ended up in the hands of scientists with a well known bias agenda to prove that CD occurred on 9/11. Their paper is full of methodological errors, and they made a MINIMAL attempt to find more likely, more plausible answers for what their chips are.
Even easier. Molten METAL. Lots of aluminum Lots of Copper Lots of other metals. Molten Glass can look orange at a given temperature. The reason the fires were going on for weeks and months is due to where the fires were...smoldering under tonnes of debris.
Segment 9 is covered above
Segment 10 is non scientific...so why do they want you to debate it?
Segment 11 - ditto
All of the WTC stuff is old, well debunked here. Read Mackey's White Paper on the subject. Understand the NIST report (unlike Gage and his minions) and you will be fine.
TAM
