Offer to the Truth Movement: Let's Settle It

[lapman]

There are two that I find so outrageously idiotic.

5. The molten metal and high temperatures observed for weeks afterwards in the debris pile. Only incendiary and explosive materials, such as thermite, thermate, and nano-thermites could produce these temperatures. Particles in the dust indicate these materials.

I have asked numerous twoofers to provide one instance, before or after 9/11 that this phenomenon has occurred. Thermite was used extensively during WWII, so there should be numerous examples, yet there are none. Not even the intense firebombing of Japan and Dresden produce such a result. So to claim that the high temps and "molten metal" is the results of any type of demolition by explosives or therm*te is completely false.

3. Omission from the 9/11 Commission Report of any mention of WTC 7 also points to fraud. The complete collapse of a 47-story building is not trivial.

Twoofers love to proclaim that WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane. Therefore, it was not attacked, nor was it a part of the attack itself. This would put it outside the scope of the report. Twoofers love to call it a crime scene, yet cannot come up with what crime was committed at WTC 7.

Now we have an outright lie:

4. NIST’s failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses strongly suggests government interference in a scientific process, and points to a selective and thereby fraudulent investigation. The standards for fire investigations call for tests for explosives. No such tests were made.

NIST delayed the release of the WTC 7 report to do exactly what that statement claims they didn't do. It would have been nice if the good Dr. had proofread what he cut and pasted from the usual twoofer fantasy sites.

 

[Mince]

Since trying to have a discourse with you, Ryan Mackey, means having to oppose the position of a NIST apologist, I think I'll await your response to the position taken by John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics), before I proceed further.

Apologist? Boy, when Alex Jones teaches his disciples a new word, they really use it exceedingly and with enthusiasm.

1. The testimony of Barry Jennings. Mr. Jennings timeline is crucial and unassailable.

Barry Jennings unassailable!? Yeah, because people never lie and are never mistaken.

2. The video-taped statements of various firemen and policemen before 5:20 pm on 9/11/01 to the effect that WTC 7 was “coming down” or “about to blow up.” This pre-knowledge indicates controlled demolition.

Because the firemen couldn't have suspected the building was going to collapse, because it had happened twice already that day, and taken appropriate precautions.

1. Larry Silverstein’s remarks about the decision to “pull” are clear enough. The arguments about the meaning of “pull” are beside the point.

Yeah, the meaning of people's words are meaningless. (WTF!?) At least he put this under the "anecdotal" category. This statement speaks for itself; and, remember, was said by a "scientist."

Wyndham's "Eyewitness Evidence" and "Circumstantial Evidence" lists are almost as long as his "Physical Evidence" list. This guy is some scientist. Do truthers ever critically analyze their "experts", or just blindly accept their "expert" opinion? JFC!

Miragememories, you are a Wyndham apologist.

 

[lapman]

3. The BBC and CNN early announcements of the complete collapse of WTC 7 have never been satisfactorily explained. Obviously, the pre-knowledge of the demolition was handled badly by these news outlets.

Yeah, news agencies are always dead-on accurate in their reporting.

 

[DavidJames]

Am I missing something here...

First is this...

Your consideration of hypothetical blast scenarios (Appendix D) is disingenuous,

Then this...

4. NIST’s failure to seriously consider other causes besides fire for the building collapses strongly suggests government interference in a scientific process, and points to a selective and thereby fraudulent investigation. The standards for fire investigations call for tests for explosives. No such tests were made.

???

 

[Mince]

Thirdly, will controlled demolition companies now attempt a cheap way to bring down a building by setting a few fires?

Proving that even idiots can earn physics degrees. This guy sounds more like a typical uneducated and uninformed truther arguing from personal, ignorant incredulity than a scientist arguing empirically. I wonder if his credentials have been verified.

 

[rwguinn]

Proving that even idiots can earn physics degrees. This guy sounds more like a typical uneducated and uninformed truther arguing from personal, ignorant incredulity than a scientist arguing empirically. I wonder if his credentials have been verified.

Every time I visit this stuff and see all the "science" put up by troofers, I think of this Dilbert Cartoon

 

[R.Mackey]

Since trying to have a discourse with you, Ryan Mackey, means having to oppose the position of a NIST apologist, I think I'll await your response to the position taken by John D. Wyndham, PhD (Physics), before I proceed further.

I've periodically reminded people, you most of all, to keep this discussion respectful. If you're just going to call names, I'll be happy to put you on Ignore.

Also, I remind you that I started this thread as an offer to answer your questions. If you don't want to participate, that's your decision. It has nothing to do with my willingness to jump through hoops that you set out for me.

Anyway, my response to Mr. (Dr.?) Wyndham -- who indeed appears to be using a nom de plume -- would be very simple. His response has nothing to do with the WTC 7 report. For starters, he proceeds from a false premise:

Your theory essentially rests on two physical observations:

1. There were office fires in WTC 7 that burned for some hours.
2. The building completely collapsed.

This is wrong. WTC 7's theory rests on experiment and analysis. These are not the only observable inputs, and NIST conducted a great deal of simulation, including at the component level, structural level, and of the collapse itself, to reach its conclusion. "Dr." Wyndham doesn't appear to be aware of this fact.

Furthermore, the laundry list of 20+ "talking points" are all things that we saw here, and refuted comprehensively, before the WTC 7 report was even completed. This rehash, therefore, cannot be considered a response to the WTC 7 report.

There is no particular physics knowledge required to counter any of these claims. All are available here on the Forum, and several are in this very thread.

 

[bwinwright]

WTC Building Number 7 was clearly a controlled demolition

Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.

Those who passionately attempt to protect the criminals actually responsible for this crime, like Mackey, are traitors who should be behind bars. He's far too intelligent to honestly believe the crap he's trying to sell. It's beyond ludicrous!

The CIA has numerous geeks like Mackey, extremely bright folks, who gladly compromise their integrity to serve their masters. They use their high powered minds in destructive ways, all for a dollar or just to amuse their twisted need for thrills. It's absurd. You'd better hope reincarnation is just a lie too because, if not, folks like Mackey will come back with club feet, hair lips, and really bad breath.

Mackey is like all those who call their self an atheist because they feel you can't be a true intellectual if you believe order requires intelligent direction. Again, truly absurd!

Folks like Mackey believe a tornado can pass through a junkyard and assemble a Rolls-Royce in the process. At least he would argue like hell to prove it's true. Just ridiculous.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[rwguinn]

Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.

Those who passionately attempt to protect the criminals actually responsible for this crime, like Mackey, are traitors who should be behind bars. He's far too intelligent to honestly believe the crap he's trying to sell. It's beyond ludicrous!

The CIA has numerous geeks like Mackey, extremely bright folks, who gladly compromise their integrity to serve their masters. They use their high powered minds in destructive ways, all for a dollar or just to amuse their twisted need for thrills. It's absurd. You'd better hope reincarnation is just a lie too because, if not, folks like Mackey will come back with club feet, hair lips, and really bad breath.

Mackey is like all those who call their self an atheist because they feel you can't be a true intellectual if you believe order requires intelligent direction. Again, truly absurd!

Folks like Mackey believe a tornado can pass through a junkyard and assemble a Rolls-Royce in the process. At least he would argue like hell to prove it's true. Just ridiculous.

Say!
There's a fella that's offering a million bucks, US, for doing what you say!
yOU can obviously read minds, knowing what people BELIEVE!

 

[A W Smith]

Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.

Those who passionately attempt to protect the criminals actually responsible for this crime, like Mackey, are traitors who should be behind bars. He's far too intelligent to honestly believe the crap he's trying to sell. It's beyond ludicrous!

The CIA has numerous geeks like Mackey, extremely bright folks, who gladly compromise their integrity to serve their masters. They use their high powered minds in destructive ways, all for a dollar or just to amuse their twisted need for thrills. It's absurd. You'd better hope reincarnation is just a lie too because, if not, folks like Mackey will come back with club feet, hair lips, and really bad breath.

Mackey is like all those who call their self an atheist because they feel you can't be a true intellectual if you believe order requires intelligent direction. Again, truly absurd!

Folks like Mackey believe a tornado can pass through a junkyard and assemble a Rolls-Royce in the process. At least he would argue like hell to prove it's true. Just ridiculous.

and there we have it, bwinwright, your post is a perfect example for what is called "limiting case" and by posting such you have already lost your argument,

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2323813#post2323813

The Inflationary Limit of Conspiracy Theories is reached when it requires those questioning the conspiracy theory to be a part of the conspiracy. This final excuse occurs because any alternate hypothesis, no matter how well it fits the known facts, is viewed as a threat to the conspiracy hypothesis. No further inflation is possible because, when this point is reached, any criticism is considered suspect -- thus encompassing the entire world outside the conspiracy hypothesis.

Conversely, reaching the Inflationary Limit logically implies that any alternate hypothesis is superior to the conspiracy hypothesis.

Therefore, a conspiracy theory that reaches the Inflationary Limit is by definition the worst of all possible hypotheses

dismissed

 

[R.Mackey]

Anyone who watches the video of WTC Building Number 7 collapse at the speed of gravity, so symmetrically, directly into its own footprint and says it was not a controlled demolition is either insane or part of the cover up.

Those who passionately attempt to protect the criminals actually responsible for this crime, like Mackey, are traitors who should be behind bars. He's far too intelligent to honestly believe the crap he's trying to sell. It's beyond ludicrous!

The CIA has numerous geeks like Mackey, extremely bright folks, who gladly compromise their integrity to serve their masters. They use their high powered minds in destructive ways, all for a dollar or just to amuse their twisted need for thrills. It's absurd. You'd better hope reincarnation is just a lie too because, if not, folks like Mackey will come back with club feet, hair lips, and really bad breath.

Mackey is like all those who call their self an atheist because they feel you can't be a true intellectual if you believe order requires intelligent direction. Again, truly absurd!

Folks like Mackey believe a tornado can pass through a junkyard and assemble a Rolls-Royce in the process. At least he would argue like hell to prove it's true. Just ridiculous.

Quoted in its entirety for posterity. I won't bother to report you for your blatant personal attacks, rather you simply go on Ignore.

Permanently.

For those rational members of the Truth Movement who may be reading, doesn't it bother you that so many in the Truth Movement can't even bring themselves to a simple discussion of the facts? I created this thread for polite and open exchange, declaring this clearly at the outset, and have absorbed any number of slights up to this point without retaliation. Yet still it comes to this.

This should be a warning sign that, perhaps, the Truth Movement isn't true after all.

I'm still open for factual discussion. I still implore you, especially newcomers or those "on the fence," to voice what your specific doubt is that keeps you from accepting the "official theory." I promise to treat you fairly and politely. I've had very few takers. That is an interesting result in itself.

 

[Miragememories]

"For those rational members of the Truth Movement who may be reading, doesn't it bother you that so many in the Truth Movement can't even bring themselves to a simple discussion of the facts? I created this thread for polite and open exchange, declaring this clearly at the outset, and have absorbed any number of slights up to this point without retaliation. Yet still it comes to this."

I certainly don't approve of disrespectful behavior.

But, too say that you have "..absorbed any number of slights up to this point without retaliation.", is less than true.

As stated, you've kept a good face.

But, you know, as well as I do, that a legion of loyalists "retaliated" by mocking and ridiculing for you.

But that's old news.

I see 9/11 Truth members as being part of a loosely-knit group of people, who for whatever reason, feel they need more and better answers.

Does one disown the Republican and Democratic Parties?

Because they've been known to have the odd member with bad manners.

I may not agree with you on a lot Ryan, but I do appreciate your civility.

MM

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But, you know, as well as I do, that a legion of loyalists "retaliated" by mocking and ridiculing for you.

I'm sorry, but I just wanted to shine a light on this example of irrational paranoia.

 

[Mince]

New offer to the truth movement:

Let's settle it...with a knife fight. The winner gets to be right. It would be more productive than this atrocity of a thread, with apologies to the OP.

 

[leonAzul]

Quoted in its entirety for posterity. I won't bother to report you for your blatant personal attacks, rather you simply go on Ignore.

Permanently.

Aw Mackey, the entertainment factor is at least worth a draw.

Then again, I understand how much your patience has been tried :-/

 

[leonAzul]

New offer to the truth movement:

Let's settle it...with a knife fight. The winner gets to be right. It would be more productive than this atrocity of a thread, with apologies to the OP.

Steel is good.

Word is better.

 

[CliveHill]

But there is no uneven resistance to speak of, particularly in the case of WTC 7. As you yourself noted, the perimeter fell as a unit. The resistance occurs at the ground, and that's completely even. Additionally, the "uneven resistance" has to be really uneven, to the point that the centroid of the descending mass is actually outside of the lower structure. No collapse even approached this.

But uneven resistance should have been expected, and no, having the centre of mass completely outside the structure is not at all necessary. That should be obvious!

No, it does work this way. Dave Rogers explained it correctly, but let me try to do it in simpler terms.

Dave Rogers explained, in rather patronising terms, something which is very obvious and well understood. I could have explained the same thing better to him.
What he did was to completely miss the point!

Let us change the structure of the upper block of 17 floors that fall in WTC1 and assume that all the floors have been compressed down against the lower floor, and the roof has been left where it was, now totally disconnected from the rest.

When this new structure starts to drop, the lower 16x super floor impacts the one below and performs the same slow down due to conservation of momentum that we all agree on and understand.

But why should this cause the totally separate roof to decelerate?
That roof is still in gravitational free fall. Where is the force acting to reduce that acceleration?

When the bottom of a structure experiences a deceleration, it has to apply force through the structure in order for the top of the same structure to experience the same deceleration. This happens in WTC1(upper) and not in WTC7.

In the WTC 7 collapse, as the structure descends, it contacts the ground. That descent breaks the lower structure and transfers the momentum of the stopped bits of structure to the ground.

By comparison, in WTC 1, the descending structure contacts the lower structure. And that descent breaks the structures, and accelerates the lower structure, and eventually transfers momentum to the ground.

That middle step -- transfer of momentum from part of the structure to another part -- doesn't occur in WTC 7 and represents an additional energy sink. As it turns out, this energy sink dominates the collapse time. Dr. Bazant of Northwestern, in particular, has published several journal articles that demonstrate this fact.

Another way to look at it is WTC 7 all began falling at more or less the same time, whereas WTC 1 and 2 didn't. This means WTC 1 and 2 experience a whole bunch of inelastic collisions, and every single one of those dissipates energy. There's nothing like that in WTC 7. As a result, WTC 7 is closer to "free fall." Again, we had this discussion in the thread I linked before, and even the thread starter -- a member of the Truth Movement -- accepts the logic.

WHy do you claim that the middle step, of accelerating the lower floors is additional? It is not additional to the momentum transfer into the ground, because in the case of WTC1 at this point the building that is falling has not struck the ground.
The comparison should be between the lower structure that the WTC1 top block lands on, and the structure or ground that WTC7 lands on.

Again the energy sink of accelerating the lower floors is known and clear.
Your error is to consider it additional, when it is in fact the alternative to hitting the ground, and it is a lesser energy sink than hitting the ground.

Your explanation is a poor failure!
I continue to believe that the question of controlled demolition at WTC on 9/11 requires a specific investigation to be settled.
Goodbye!

 

[Dave Rogers]

Dave Rogers explained, in rather patronising terms, something which is very obvious and well understood. I could have explained the same thing better to him.
What he did was to completely miss the point!

I would dispute that I'm the one missing the point here. As for being patronising, I hope you'll forgive me, in answering a question, for assuming that the questioner doesn't think he already knows all the answers.

Let us change the structure of the upper block of 17 floors that fall in WTC1 and assume that all the floors have been compressed down against the lower floor, and the roof has been left where it was, now totally disconnected from the rest.

Since this structure bears no resemblance to the actual physical condition of either WTC tower at any point in its collapse, one would expect that any conclusions drawn from its analysis would be completely irrelevant to the actual collapse observed. There is in fact no possible way that such a situation could come about, because it would require the roof to remain unsupported in place while seventeen floors collapsed below it. In simple terms, your analysis is GIGO.

When this new structure starts to drop, the lower 16x super floor impacts the one below and performs the same slow down due to conservation of momentum that we all agree on and understand.

But why should this cause the totally separate roof to decelerate?
That roof is still in gravitational free fall. Where is the force acting to reduce that acceleration?

There would be no such force, because there would be no support columns transmitting force to the roof from the collapse zone. However, as I've pointed out, this is a physically impossible situation, so what's its relevance?

When the bottom of a structure experiences a deceleration, it has to apply force through the structure in order for the top of the same structure to experience the same deceleration. This happens in WTC1(upper) and not in WTC7.

That's simply not true. The retardation of the fall of the roof of the upper block of WTC1 follows from the fact that (a) it is connected to the structure just above the crush zone by support columns, and (b) as the net downward acceleration is positive, the force in those columns is less than their initial design strength; hence, the upper block is not expected to collapse, but to experience a deceleration that partly balances out gravitational acceleration.

In WTC7, the momentum transfer from the falling structure into the ground is negligible. This follows from the fact that the lower mass is in this case the mass of the Earth, which is greater than the building mass by many orders of magnitude. The recoil of the Earth is therefore negligible, and no significant momentum is lost by the upper parts of the structure.

As for the energy sink from hitting the ground, that is not a loss of energy by the parts of the building that are still falling; the fracture of the support columns at ground level leaves no force path for any such energy loss. Therefore, the only energy loss to be considered in the case of WTC7 is column fracture.

Dave

 

[leonAzul]

But uneven resistance should have been expected, and no, having the centre of mass completely outside the structure is not at all necessary. That should be obvious!
<snippage>
Goodbye!

In accordance with the OP, IFF you have a critical question, the answer to which would assuage your suspicions, then pose it.

Else,

S or get off of the pot!

 

[R.Mackey]

WHy do you claim that the middle step, of accelerating the lower floors is additional? It is not additional to the momentum transfer into the ground, because in the case of WTC1 at this point the building that is falling has not struck the ground.
The comparison should be between the lower structure that the WTC1 top block lands on, and the structure or ground that WTC7 lands on.

Again the energy sink of accelerating the lower floors is known and clear.
Your error is to consider it additional, when it is in fact the alternative to hitting the ground, and it is a lesser energy sink than hitting the ground.

Your explanation is a poor failure!
I continue to believe that the question of controlled demolition at WTC on 9/11 requires a specific investigation to be settled.
Goodbye!

No. You're totally confused.

Think of what happens at the interface between falling material and the collision zone. In the case of WTC 1 and WTC 2, this interface is high in the structure. For the collapse front to move downward, it has to break the next floor down, and it has to overcome the inertia of the next lower floor. Both of these consume energy.

If you were standing, somehow protected, on say the 50th floor during the collapse, you'd feel shocks and vibrations, gusts of wind, etc., but nothing worse until the collapse itself got to you. Then all of a sudden, the floor you were standing on would crunch, and would be accelerated at several g's for a fraction of a second, until that floor was moving at the same speed as the debris pushing it. Afterward, you would experience negative g's as you fell, crushing material below.

It is that acceleration that takes additional energy. The collapse front has to accelerate the lower structure as it moves downward. That's a huge energy sink. This is true even if the lower structure has no strength at all.

In the case of WTC 7, this doesn't happen at all. The descending mass doesn't have to overcome the inertia of anything. The only thing it hits is the ground, and it can't overcome that inertia even if it wanted to. Instead, it just grinds to a halt, expending its energy in strain and fracture and heat and so on.

That additional sink in WTC 1 and WTC 2 is very real, very obvious, and is solely responsible for the delay in collapse. Had WTC 1 and WTC 2 toppled from the bottom, their collapses would have been even faster. There is nothing at all unexpected about WTC 7's collapse time.

If you still can't comprehend this or don't trust me for whatever reason, I invite you to print out this page and discuss it with a physics professor of your choice. He or she will readily confirm that the above is correct. It's actually not complicated at all.