• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I need serious help with this guy

Sunray Breaker

Critical Thinker
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
498
I've had the misfortune the last couple of weeks of trying to convince an engineer who took controlled demo courses in college and ALSO claims to have worked on the WTC towers, that the official story is accurate...Since I'm not an engineer and I AM a recovering "Twoofer", I could use some help.

I've pretty much demolished this guy up until he posted the below stuff...He's taking a political debate (which is more my expertise) and turning it into a science debate (which I'm anything but qualified to discuss).

So if some of you fine, awesome skeptonauts could help me on this one...I'll buy you a cookie...

We've already thouroughly discussed the usual "Gravy" talking points, almost none of which he's really tried to debunk and has resorted to changing the subject constantly...He's been informed that the fall time was actually 12-and 14 seconds...Here's his response

Read below:

The time t required for an object to fall from a height h (in a vacuum) is given by the formula t = sqrt(2h/g), where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Thus an object falling from the top of one of the towers (taking h = 1306 feet and g = 32.174 ft/sec2) would take 9.01 seconds to hit the ground if we ignore the resistance of the air and a few seconds longer if we take air resistance into account. The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall (see this video clip, originally from http://thewebfairy.com/911/). Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute. But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse. Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause — and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels.

if you want to argue one or two seconds and try and say its for some reason a significant deviation from free fall speeds your welcome to it
given that the calculated time of a natural collapse is over one minute Id say your barking at the wind again

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_fig_01.gif
there's your seismic evidence of the various explosions
read it and weep
Seismic Evidence

But although some kind of "black" technology may have been used in the demolition of the Twin Towers, we do not need to establish this, since their collapse can be explained as a controlled demolition brought about by explosives. In fact (as Christopher Bollyn was the first to point out in his Open Letter) evidence for massive explosions was captured by a seismograph located 34 km from the WTC:

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_fig_01.gif

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.
The seismograph which recorded this data was operated by Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. A report was published by the American Geophysical Union in the November 20 issue of Eos, but the authors misinterpreted the data. They assumed, and thus reported, that the two largest signals were caused by the collapses of the Twin Towers. But:
During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage — but not causing significant ground shaking. — Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, Director of Columbia University's Center for Hazards and Risk Research, as quoted in Earth Institute News
 
LOL

he is using some terrible arguments haha

3, 2, 1 go...
 
I'm not an engineer either... but I don't need to be one to expose this clown as a fraud.

Ask the engineer with controlled demolition expertise who worked on the WTC towers why he doesn't do anything more with his earth-shattering evidence of a heinous crime than use it as Internet debate fodder.

Either this guy is a fraud or a moral coward of unbelievable magnitude.
 
Tell him he should research who Christopher Bollyn and The Web Fairy are before using them to advance any argument.
 
I've had the misfortune the last couple of weeks of trying to convince an engineer who took controlled demo courses in college and ALSO claims to have worked on the WTC towers, that the official story is accurate...Since I'm not an engineer and I AM a recovering "Twoofer", I could use some help.

I've pretty much demolished this guy up until he posted the below stuff...He's taking a political debate (which is more my expertise) and turning it into a science debate (which I'm anything but qualified to discuss).

So if some of you fine, awesome skeptonauts could help me on this one...I'll buy you a cookie...

We've already thouroughly discussed the usual "Gravy" talking points, almost none of which he's really tried to debunk and has resorted to changing the subject constantly...He's been informed that the fall time was actually 12-and 14 seconds...Here's his response

Read below:

Freefall speed.
1. Look up RKOwens4 video on youtube which shows the timing of the collapses of both towers. Neither one is ANYWHERE near freefall. Neither is wtc7.
2. Look up alienentities CDs are not a freefall video to show that even CD isnt at freefall.

Tower one took over 15 seconds (from video and seismic data) tower 2 took over 20 seconds.

There is no such thing as a "natural collapse" taking over a minute... that is complete and utter BS.

The seismic data. Is fully debunked, and shows NO explosives going off. There are very good analysis of the seismic data at 911myths.com and at debunking911.com

This guy isn't a structural engineer, and didn't work on the towers. no way.
 
If I had the time I would debunk all of that crap. A few points though. Here he states:

"But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse."

He cites no evidence for why thousands upon thousands of tons of debris could not destroy each floor one at a time. Remember, the towers were designed for static loads.

Then here:

"if you want to argue one or two seconds and try and say its for some reason a significant deviation from free fall speeds your welcome to it
given that the calculated time of a natural collapse is over one minute Id say your barking at the wind again "

This is just ridiculous. Where the hell did he get a number for a "One minute natural collapse time". What does that even mean?

He then goes on to talk about how an underground explosion registered on the seismic scale. If there were explosions strong enough to shake the earth, they would have been able to have been heard for miles around. But yet, there is not a single audio recording of an explosive being detonated.
 
He seems to assume that natural collapse equals one second per floor. I think that assumption is his biggest mistake. :rolleyes:
 
It looks like taking one false assumption and basing an entire conspiracy theory on it is pretty much par for the course with some of these folks.
 
These are all great suggestions. I've using debunking 9/11 as a source and its amazing!!!

This guys unbelievable and needs to be put in his place. He's also a good friend of mine who is shocked that I "sold out to the man" and believe the real story...So I'm trying to represent this side of the debate with as much dignity and irrefutable science as possible...

I may have some more questions soon.
 
Have him sign up here and have at it.
I'd love to, but he seems more interested on NOT picking on anyone his own size.

So I thought since he won't come here, I'll bring here to him. Catch him off guard to be debunked by someone who doesn't even study science or engineering...Although, thanks to 9/11, I guess I am...
 
given that the calculated time of a natural collapse

Calculated by whom, where and with what assumptions? Also you are aware that garbage in equals garbage out or to put it another way, his conclusions can not be better than his assumptions.
 
Remind him that shear failures are brittle, thus instantaenous. If he's an engineer, he should already know that.
 
"The Twin Towers each collapsed in less than fifteen seconds, close to free fall."

That is utterly false. The time for total collapse was MUCH greater. Photographs of showing the cores of both towers standing long after the main collapse available all over the place.

The times given for the "time" of the collapse in fact relate to huge sheets of the exterior facade which peeled off the structure and did fall at near free fall speed.
 
Following the start of the collapse the upper floors would have had to shatter the steel joints in all 85 or so floors at the lower levels. If this required only one second per floor then the collapse would have required more than a minute.
Takes much less energy to break the joints holding the columns together than he thinks. He's not exactly considering how the load paths affect the ability of the connecting bolts to function; for example, the moment the south tower began to rotate all of the other columns failed almost immediately from both the lateral forces and the torsional forces. Bending stresses kill columns...


But the material from the upper floors ploughed through the lower floors at a speed of at least six floors per second. This is possible only if all structural support in the lower 85 or so floors had been completely eliminated prior to the initiation of the collapse.
Seeing as the structure still slowed the collapse I don't see the basis of this claim. The debris was gaining momentum, the forces involved were chaotic, and the building at that point was unstable. Gravity does it's job rather well.


Since the lower floors were undamaged by the plane impacts and the fires, the removal of all structural support in these floors must have been due to some other cause —
The cascading failures of individual floors and column sections explains this without ever needing to explore explosives. Buildings are designed for credible loads -- this does not include having 30 stories of building in motion, in rotation, or otherwise. Out of all the examples he could potentially bring to you where buildings survived fires, how many not only started with enormous structural damage and had all floors above the impact region fail as a unit?


and the most obvious possibility is explosives. Thus the speed of the collapse (not much more than the time of free fall) is conclusive evidence that the Twin Towers were brought down in a controlled demolition involving the use of explosives (or some other destructive technology) at all levels

Oh... plenty of ways to argue against this...
Lack of shock damage to surrounding buildings: Only windows facing the collapse front with direct exposure to debris impact were broken

No reports of significant shrapnel injury to those immediately surrounding the buildings

Lack of any kind of blast injuries (such as deafness or blast trauma)

No characteristic noises of charges at the onset of collapse

Absolutely no explosive remnants

I can go on and on... Can he explain that? (I predict he'll go thermite on you soon enough)

if you want to argue one or two seconds and try and say its for some reason a significant deviation from free fall speeds your welcome to it given that the calculated time of a natural collapse is over one minute Id say your barking at the wind again
In case he's forgotten "freefall" is gravitational acceleration without any other external forces working with or against it. It's not a constant speed, but rather dynamic... so I don't expect 80% of free fall or even 60% of free fall acceleration to result in a significant time difference unless the distance traveled is much more significant that 1300 feet. I'd like to know where he got the 1 minutes collapse time figure. If you can, ask him to show how he came to that figure.
 
Last edited:
He's also a good friend of mine who is shocked that I "sold out to the man" and believe the real story.

As Johnny Karate pointed out, isn't it your friend that has "sold out"? Give him the phone number of the FBI and tell him to report his groundbreaking evidence.

If he doesn't call, if he refuses to do anything besides carry out an exercise in Internet debating, then you have proven him a fraud.
 
We seem to be getting more and more of these obviously fake engineers posting on various forums. Is this the new tactic by the truth movement? Lie about your credentials to get to the results you want?
 

Back
Top Bottom