Most detailed scientific papers for and against controlled demolition

[WildCat]

it's obvious... he's read conspiracy websites.

And watched youtube.

They couldn't put it on youtube if it wasn't true!

 

[Zeuzzz]

Earlier, you claimed to have read the studies. I responded to your objections with what you had read

The ones I read were the (excruciatingly laborious) NIST reports, and then the WTC7 report.

I'm going to make a point in this thread of responding to every pointless stereotype, ad hominem, non sequitor or general irrelevant logical fallacy with an equally useful reply.

A big fat laughing hyena.

And why are people calling me a truther? Surely a "truther" implies they know the truth and are fighting to expose the truth. I have absolutely no idea what the truth of the matter is, I just find much of the official explanation hard to take in, as I'll discuss later.*

As I said in my "Truthers: Official Story is "wrong"? Prove it!" thread:

And that's how Truthers respond to the Truth, when they're seeking for the truth.

So basically all Zeus has done is want to hear research he wants to believe, and claimed fallacy yet not demonstrated how. Awesome.

it's obvious... he's read conspiracy websites.

And watched youtube.

They couldn't put it on youtube if it wasn't true!

* If you want to find out what amazing truths I have discovered about 9/11 before I post them here I am offering half price sales of my book "The Truth Behind 9/11, plus the shocking involvement of Bush's Nan", available at amazon.

 

[Dragon37]

The ones I read were the (excruciatingly laborious) NIST reports, and then the WTC7 report.

I'm going to make a point in this thread of responding to every pointless stereotype, ad hominem, non sequitor or general irrelevant logical fallacy with an equally useful reply.

Why not take the higher road and just ignore those responses? You did a decent job of keeping a level head but now you imply that people here are low road so you will go low road too? You just threw any respect you could have gained right out the window.

And why are people calling me a truther? Surely a "truther" implies they know the truth and are fighting to expose the truth. I have absolutely no idea what the truth of the matter is, I just find much of the official explanation hard to take in, as I'll discuss later.

Because you seem to refute the NIST reports from a point of indignation instead of bring which points you contest to light and why you contest them. You have to understand that from what you have revealed so far you went from someone seeking answers to someone that appears more interested in what the truther's side has to say while not even addressing what exactly it is that makes you distrust the NIST reports. I talking here about what points of the reports exactly not the general questions you have about them that you posted earlier.

I haven't even been here very long and you are already taking the same track so many other truthers have (I am not saying you are a truther but just that you are taking the same path that they have).

 

[Jackanory]

If I were to trust the random group of people ive started a discussion with here on a forum (that in my opinion seems biased from the get go at debunking any unofficial 9/11 conspiracy theory) then perhaps you are right. Or maybe its not bias, just showing the bare facts. I just don't know yet. I wont reply until I've actually read some of the studies.

Then why are you asking questions of those with a bias?

Am I biased or am I knowledgable and rational enough to know what is what?

Have I simply made my mind up by being a member of JREF and believing those who post here or is it my training, knowledge and years of hands on experience of explosives and demolitions that tell me that none of the buildings in NY collapsed due to a CD?

I dont neccessarily trust the written words of anonymous people I know nothing about. Unlike you, I dont visit any other CT site because I already know from my life and working experiences that the 'CD' mantra is just bluster by those who quite clearly do not know what it is they are discussing.

It simply appears to be cool to use words like 'CD' and 'Footprint' and just pretend to be knowledgable.

 

[DGM]

The ones I read were the (excruciatingly laborious) NIST reports, and then the WTC7 report.

I think you might be under the assumption that these reports were written to disprove conspiracy theories and for the general public. These reports were written for engineers by engineers. If you have specific questions the best course is to ask an engineer. If your questions are not specific then you most likely have no business reading these reports.

Bottom line, What's actually on your mind?

 

[Justin39640]

I think you might be under the assumption that these reports were written to disprove conspiracy theories and for the general public. These reports were written for engineers by engineers. If you have specific questions the best course is to ask an engineer. If your questions are not specific then you most likely have no business reading these reports.

Bottom line, What's actually on your mind?

A better explanation (layman) would be that they were created, not to disprove conspiracies, but to figure out why the buildings failed and to make recommendations for changes in construction materials and procedures to minimize the likelihood of the same thing happening again in the future.

This is obvious but truthers ignore it regularly.

 

[Corsair 115]

The accepted narrative is based on facts, radar data, FDR data, CVR recordings, phone calls from the hijacked planes, ATC radio traffic recordings, photographic and video evidence evidence, DNA profiling, etc.

I'm going to quote the above in the hopes that Zeuzzz will address it this time. He didn't the first time it was posted by NutCracker.

 

[leftysergeant]

So who would people say is the person on this forum who gives the best most thorough scientific arguments for a controlled demolition that people here find hard to find errors in?

Or is that like asking for a respected homeopath?

More like a respected practioner of moxibustion.

 

[carlitos]

Most detailed scientific papers for and against Godzilla / Mothra?

 

[tsig]

The ones I read were the (excruciatingly laborious) NIST reports, and then the WTC7 report.

I'm going to make a point in this thread of responding to every pointless stereotype, ad hominem, non sequitor or general irrelevant logical fallacy with an equally useful reply.

A big fat laughing hyena.

1.And why are people calling me a truther? Surely a "truther" implies they know the truth and are fighting to expose the truth. I have absolutely no idea what the truth of the matter is, 2.I just find much of the official explanation hard to take in, as I'll discuss later.

*























* If you want to find out what amazing truths I have discovered about 9/11 before I post them here I am offering half price sales of my book "The Truth Behind 9/11, plus the shocking involvement of Bush's Nan", available at amazon.

Hilited statement two answers the question asked in one.

 

[ProBonoShill]

The ones I read were the (excruciatingly laborious) NIST reports, and then the WTC7 report.

I'm going to make a point in this thread of responding to every pointless stereotype, ad hominem, non sequitor or general irrelevant logical fallacy with an equally useful reply.

A big fat laughing hyena.

And why are people calling me a truther? Surely a "truther" implies they know the truth and are fighting to expose the truth. I have absolutely no idea what the truth of the matter is, I just find much of the official explanation hard to take in, as I'll discuss later.*


*SNIP

Yes we know, MUCH later.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And why are people calling me a truther? I just find much of the official explanation hard to take in, as I'll discuss later.

I just love how Truthers ask a question, then answer it themselves.

 

[grandmastershek]

I just find the official explanation hard to take in = My entire argument hinges on an argument from incredulity, I just don't feel like admitting it.

 

[Dave Rogers]

And why are people calling me a truther? Surely a "truther" implies they know the truth and are fighting to expose the truth.

Sadly, that's not true. As we're seeing in another thread, "truther" is a self-applied identification chosen by the 9/11 conspiracy theory movement essentially as a propaganda strategy. By portraying themselves as a movement dedicated to determining the truth about 9/11, they create two impressions in the mind of the casual observer: (1) that the truth about 9/11 is not substantially known, and (2) they are open to new interpretations of events based on the evidence presented to them. Neither is true; there is a clear and obvious convergence of evidence around 9/11 to the conclusion that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks, and members of the so-called truth movement generally start from a conclusion then re-interpret the evidence to support that conclusion. More recently, the irony of the term has become apparent and it's become pejorative in tone, resulting in truthers now complaining when people refer to them by the term they themselves chose; this virtually constitutes an admission by the movement itself that the 9/11 truth movement is nothing to do with seeking the truth, but rather with belief that they've already found it.

Dave

 

[tfk]

Someone who makes a mistake should be ignored you say? hmm. These are the kind of irrelevant posts I hate about this section. Attack the messenger not the message.

Tony still believes his fantasies.

And here is a question that you can ask him yourself.

The upper block weighed on the order of 50,000 tons. That's equivalent to about 2.5 WWII era aircraft carriers, dry. Or two fully loaded ones.

Let's assume that we welded together (one atop the other) loaded versions of the USS Lexington & Enterprise. (Again, WW II versions.)

And we dropped them 36 feet onto 48 cross braced spikes that had the same cross sectional areas as the core columns, and were stacked on top of 100 feet of similar columns. All held together with tiny welds & 2.75" bolts?

How much of a "jolt" would you expect to see, as the lower spikes either folded up or pierced the bottom hull?

Me? I'd expect to see nothing. But that's just because I'm a mechanical engineer.

Tony agrees that the only way to transmit the jolts he is claiming are if the columns contact each other perfectly, end to end. Feel free to ask him.

What do you think the chances are of any particular 36' tall I-beam or box column in the upper block, with a tiny cross section, contacting its matching one in the lower block perfectly square after plowing its way thru 36 feet (3 stories) of crushed down rubble, and "sticking the landing" (as gymnasts say)? (Much less "all of them hitting perfectly...)

Zero, I'd say. (That's the Mech Engr in me talking again.)

What are the chances that the column in the upper block striking its matching one in the lower block after dropping 12' (one story). Surprisingly, those chances are even less than it happening after 36'. Because the chances (after 12') are exactly zero. Because the columns are 36' tall, and there is no mating surface available to contact. Until the intermediate column gets out of the way.

So, where are the lower block's external columns going to hit in the upper block? Nowhere. They are flying thru the air, away from the towers.

Where are the lower block's core columns going to hit in the upper section? Most of them aren't going to hit anything substantial either. Just debris. Because they are going to be levered to the side by a growing mass of compacted debris shoving them laterally in all different directions. Most will snap off at the bottom weld bolts, and get enmeshed in the debris pile.

Eventually, some of the lower column assemblies got sturdy enough to resist these lateral forces. And they did pierce the rubble pile separating the upper & lower blocks. (This was the remnant of the core seen standing briefly after the collapse.)

Where did they hit on the upper block?
On the concrete floors or the cross bracing.

What do you think that the chances of a 4" thick concrete floor, rated for 300 pounds per square foot, stopping a spear of a column, carrying a load of over 150,000 pounds per square foot, traveling at about 26 mph (as the core columns were)?

Here are you choices: a. None or b. None. (Not even a "slim" option.)

How much of an impulse would you expect to see?

Me? Nothing.

Feel free to run all this by Tony.

He'll insist that the columns did contact each other perfectly. As they must for his delusions to have any minuscule chance.

Ask him how in the world he expects that to happen amongst all that chaos & he'll change the subject.


tom

 

[Sam.I.Am]

So who would people say is the person on this forum who gives the best most thorough scientific arguments for a controlled demolition that people here find hard to find errors in?

There has yet to be any theory put forward that meets three very, very basic criteria based upon the situation.

1) The explosive device(s) must be able to withstand the impacts witnessed.

2) After surviving the impacts the explosive devices must then be able to withstand the fires witnessed.

3) The protection provided to meet (1) and (2) above must not be noticable by a casual observer familiar with the area, such as an office worker.

Not one theory has been presented that can meet those three very basic requirements. Until those are met there's really no point in going on to consider access, motive, timing or anything else that the CT's try to bring up to shift the discussion away from what lies at the heart of the matter, namely is what they claim to have been done even possible under the most favorable of circumstances that still stay within the realm of what is known about how explosives react to shock and fire damage.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Even more basiv

4 why were the explosives needed?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Even more basiv

4 why were the explosives needed?

Like I said, motive is irrelevant if it can't be done in the first place. That's like asking why Unicorns have only one horn. There's no such thing as a Unicorn making the question moot.

 

[dtugg]

Zeuzzz, it is a fact that no twoofer has published a paper refuting the NIST reports in a respected journal. Why do you think that might be? Does the CIA control every respected engineering journal in the world?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Judging from the lack of people linking to any papers that show plausible evidence for a controlled demolition of some sort Im forced to conclude that there probably exist none. So far ive found most of the papers written in the journal for 9/11 studies laughable and sort of aimless, assuming a conspiracy and trying to prove it, not just looking at the evidence. They seem to choose the facts they want and ignore the bigger picture.

WTC7 is still a bit odd in my opinion.

Anyone have a link to the velocity curve for WTC7's collapse?

Or anyone have a link to previous progressive collapses in steel structured buildings that have occurred in a similar fashion?