'What about building 7'?

[JayUtah]

There are any number of ways that weekend 'renovation-al work' could have been orchestrated. The important part would be to make sure that fresh drywall was in place before the next work day.

Such as ... ?

Any documentary or eyewitness testimony to confirm that any of that purported activity did happen?

But, I can see how it could be part of something much bigger which could take out major columns.

So the nanothermite is no longer the magical element. The magical element is now something else, which you haven't yet decided upon.

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure...

Again, noiselessly. You still haven't described what new magical substance can cut structural steel without leaving a trace.

Appeals to magic are not resolved simply by appealing to more esoteric magic.

 

[jaydeehess]

Its beginning to sound like MM is accepting NIST except for the cause of initiation.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Georgio it seems you've missed my post, care to answer the questions?

Do you believe if a large number of people from Aerospace industries around the world don't sign a petition about the Moon landing that means it was faked? How about one about UFO's, does that make them real all of a sudden?

What if many Zoologists never sign a petition saying there is no such thing as Bigfoot, does that make the fictitious creature real all of a sudden?

Why would Structural Engineers waste their time worrying about an idiotic conspiracy theory?

 

[ProBonoShill]

Hear hear!

I wholeheartedly agree with you Georgio.

We keep hearing about this silent majority of engineers that supposedly disagree with the claims made by AE911 yet it has never been established that this silent majority is even aware of AE911 or its claims.

Just as I asked Georgio, do you believe Aerospace engineers care about clowns who believe the Moon landing was faked?

 

[Animal]

I agree.

There are any number of ways that weekend 'renovation-al work' could have been orchestrated. The important part would be to make sure that fresh drywall was in place before the next work day.

Feel free to list your background/ involvement doing renovation work in Manhattan.

You have no clue what you are talking about.....and are just making things up as you go along to keep your religious beliefs.

 

[beachnut]

... - I'm saying flat out that I think it would be a great idea.

How many engineers have you found personally who agree with 911 truth?

Do it, if you like the idea do it - it beats posting idiots from Gage in videos spewing nonsense.

... If the claims of AE911Truth are invalid, ...

If CD, high explosives and thermite are invalid? How long has 911 truth fooled you?

...
I prefer to ask you -- how can there be 2.25 seconds of free fall at Building 7 without some additional energy source removing 8 stories of structure abruptly from beneath the upper structure?

The energy stored in the building, E=mgh is more than enough energy to do what WTC 7 did.
The interior failed first. If the interior did not fail, why did the Penthouse fall into WTC 7.

 

[Georgio]

Georgio it seems you've missed my post, care to answer the questions?

Sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions.

I would answer that if there existed petitions on the moon landings being faked or the existence of bigfoot with as many signatories from the relevant professions as are exhibited on the AE911Truth petition (half a percent, isn't it?) then I would certainly like an opposing petition to be set up. The AE911Truth petition exists - do the moon landing and bigfoot petitions exist, and with as many relevantly qualified signatories?

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions.

You didn't answer them anyway. You just repeated your desire to set up affirmative opposition. The question is why you think affirmative opposition is required in order to characterize the sentiment of the relevant profession. Please answer that question.

The AE911Truth petition exists - do the moon landing and bigfoot petitions exist, and with as many relevantly qualified signatories?

I can't speak to Bigfoot, but you can find one or two ex-Apollo guys who, in their waning years, throw a bone or two to conspiracy theorists. Raymond Teague comes to mind. He really worked at Mission Control, yet in the last year or so of his life appeared on Alex Jones and was happy to talk hoax talk with him. Astronaut Brian O'Leary briefly allowed that some of the evidence had been faked, until I spent some time with him and allayed his suspicions.

You place a lot of contrived emphasis on the notion of an explicit petition. I wager that exists for Gage's conspiracy theory only because he specifically asked for it. It didn't spontaneously arise out of the ether. Just because some guy gets a bee in his bonnet to collect signatures doesn't mean the rest of the affected profession suddenly changes its nature to accommodate that particular brand of activism and respond accordingly.

No organization presently exists with a driving urge to collect signatures from aerospace engineers disputing the authenticity of Apollo. That is the most plausible reason for why no such petition exists. Yet it doesn't stop the unanimous voice of the aerospace engineering community from disregarding hoax theories. That's because the theories are patently absurd on their face, just as 9/11 controlled-demolition theories are -- not because there hasn't been some formal consideration of them.

The number of fringe theories that pertain to any one professional field is functionally innumerable. It would be absurd to expect every conscientious practitioner of any of these fields to affirmatively disavow every crackpot theory in writing. Yet we find many of these professionals -- engineers, physicians, geologists, biologists -- to be both aware of the fringe elements and to be appropriately dismissive of them.

 

[Georgio]

The question is why you think affirmative opposition is required in order to characterize the sentiment of the relevant profession.

If we had an opposing petition we would then know that the signatories in question are fully aware of the arguments presented and that they refute them. It would provide useful statistical information that would enable non-specialists like myself, who can't follow all the technical arguments, to make a more meaningful assessment of the sentiment of the relevant profession than is possible by only partially understanding the arguments from both sides.

And 'the sentiment' could include uninformed opinion, which professionals are just as capable of forming as anyone else. Why wouldn't an engineer or architect want to sign a petition that, should it gain many signatories, would efficiently weaken an organization's reputation that, if its claims are baseless, may damage the reputation of the architecture and engineering industries?

 

[JayUtah]

If we had an opposing petition we would then know that the signatories in question are fully aware of the arguments presented and that they refute them.

Straw man. You're insinuating we can't know those things unless we have that petition. That's an absurd expectation. We have other fringe theories for which there exist no petitions either way, yet the opinion of the relevant fields isn't in question.

Why wouldn't an engineer or architect want to sign a petition that, should it gain many signatories, would efficiently weaken an organization's reputation that, if its claims are baseless, may damage the reputation of the architecture and engineering industries?

Because you wrongly presume all professional practitioners are or ought to be activists, and that they respect your inflated opinion of the credibility of fringe theories. Your argument begs the question.

 

[ProBonoShill]

Sorry, I thought they were rhetorical questions.

I would answer that if there existed petitions on the moon landings being faked or the existence of bigfoot with as many signatories from the relevant professions as are exhibited on the AE911Truth petition (half a percent, isn't it?) then I would certainly like an opposing petition to be set up. The AE911Truth petition exists - do the moon landing and bigfoot petitions exist, and with as many relevantly qualified signatories?

So you're willing to believe anything as long as some signatures are put on a petition? That's very odd behaviour. Personally I rely on my own critical thinking skills, science and evidence.


Re the bolded:

What are the "relevant professions" concerning 9/11?

Who on 911 AE's petition are "relevantly qualified signatories" and what papers have they published in a peer-reviewed journal?

You do realize several papers have been published about the incident on 9/11 by structural engineers don't you? None of them mention anything about Gage's delusions.

What are the "relevantly qualified signatories" doing to accomplish the goal of getting a new investigation? There's 2000+ of them, why aren't they doing anything? Why hasn't even one of Gage's structural engineers published a scientific paper regarding 9/11? Not one, doesn't that seem a little strange to you.

There are millions of relevant engineers around the world, why do you think they haven't signed the petition?


It seems you've been down this road before:


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275097&page=4

Hopefully you won't abandon this thread like the last one.

 

[ProBonoShill]

If we had an opposing petition we would then know that the signatories in question are fully aware of the arguments presented and that they refute them. It would provide useful statistical information that would enable non-specialists like myself, who can't follow all the technical arguments, to make a more meaningful assessment of the sentiment of the relevant profession than is possible by only partially understanding the arguments from both sides.

What's "statistical information" are you talking about? And how would it help you make a more "meaningful assessment of the relevant profession"?

And 'the sentiment' could include uninformed opinion, which professionals are just as capable of forming as anyone else. Why wouldn't an engineer or architect want to sign a petition that, should it gain many signatories, would efficiently weaken an organization's reputation that, if its claims are baseless, may damage the reputation of the architecture and engineering industries?

I'm guessing they probably don't care about a bunch of whackos, have better things to do or don't know it exists.
Why hasn't A/E 911 ever conducted one of their seminars here? That doesn't seem to make sense. Doesn't Richard want some more signatories?

 

[GlennB]

Personally, speaking as someone who has never been involved in such planning, I cannot see how a layer of thermitic paint could do much damage on its own.

But, I can see how it could be part of something much bigger which could take out major columns.

I believe it was Dr. Jones who suggested that such paint could also act as a fuse.

Normal thermite requires an extremely high activation temperature in order to guarantee ignition, ~4000F (~2204C).

Nano-thermite has been shown by Dr. Harrit et al to ignite at the more manageable temperature of ~806F (430C).

Painted on nano-thermite could be ignited at ~430C creating such a high temperature that igniting large caches of thermite in its path should be quite easy.

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.

So you'd have a conventional fuse igniting the nanothermite which ignites the thermite, with the latter doing the real damage? Then you're right back at the stumbling-block that caused your crew to go for nanothermite in the first place - thermite is not an explosive.

In short you're torturing reality to make it fit in with the Bentham paper. You needed nanothermite but have to throw it under the bus eventually.

You don't really know what you believe, do you?

Based on the captions I found attached to those images, they are all supposed to be photographs from the WTC7 interior.

They're wrong. The geometry of those windows is not WTC7 geometry but fits Twin Towers geometry.

 

[turingtest]

If we had an opposing petition we would then know that the signatories in question are fully aware of the arguments presented and that they refute them. It would provide useful statistical information that would enable non-specialists like myself, who can't follow all the technical arguments, to make a more meaningful assessment of the sentiment of the relevant profession than is possible by only partially understanding the arguments from both sides.

And 'the sentiment' could include uninformed opinion, which professionals are just as capable of forming as anyone else. Why wouldn't an engineer or architect want to sign a petition that, should it gain many signatories, would efficiently weaken an organization's reputation that, if its claims are baseless, may damage the reputation of the architecture and engineering industries?

I think you're combining a couple of fallacies here- you're saying that opinions purely from authority (minus the expertise that actually gives professional opinion its weight) would be ok in an anti-Truther petition because the Truthers started it. No; the validity of opinion from expertise doesn't depend on numbers for support, and the stupidity of an opinion isn't redeemed by any number of folks saying they believe in it.

I'm as much a "non-specialist...who can't follow all the technical arguments" as you, but I don't see any benefit to making the whole thing a farcical "he says she says" argument, where just as much weight is given to one side as the other just because he said it. This gives the Truthers an equality they don't merit when they haven't earned it with evidence.

 

[turingtest]

I agree.



There are any number of ways that weekend 'renovation-al work' could have been orchestrated. The important part would be to make sure that fresh drywall was in place before the next work day.



Personally, speaking as someone who has never been involved in such planning, I cannot see how a layer of thermitic paint could do much damage on its own.

But, I can see how it could be part of something much bigger which could take out major columns.

I believe it was Dr. Jones who suggested that such paint could also act as a fuse.

Normal thermite requires an extremely high activation temperature in order to guarantee ignition, ~4000F (~2204C).

Nano-thermite has been shown by Dr. Harrit et al to ignite at the more manageable temperature of ~806F (430C).

Painted on nano-thermite could be ignited at ~430C creating such a high temperature that igniting large caches of thermite in its path should be quite easy.

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.


Based on the captions I found attached to those images, they are all supposed to be photographs from the WTC7 interior.

Well, you have really gone off the rails now. It's a little difficult to follow such an ever-changing story as yours, but I believe the only reason you invoked your magical nano-thermite here was because you needed it to explain why there is no evidence for explosives, apart from (at best) ambiguous or (at worst) cherry-picked and misrepresented eyewitness testimony. Now you want to put the explosives back in? Why?

And why would any sensible conspiracy do such a thing? If the thermite has already "initiate[d] a major structural failure," they've already started the collapse that was (presumably) their goal. Why would they now use conventional explosives, when that could only make the collapse look like the conventional CD they were trying to avoid having it look like?

I'm sorry, but you're invoking a magical substance to avoid a problem with another substance (conventional explosives), which you then re-insert into the story to resolve a problem with the magical stuff, to posit an overly-complicated conspiracy which very sensibly tries to avoid having the appearance of a conventional CD by, in the end, using what is conventionally used in one- you're making this story up as you go along without keeping up with where you've been or having any idea where you're going with it (except, of course, for your final story resolution of "evil government conspirators!"). As I said in another thread, the Truther Movement does "truth" the way Ed Wood (or Phil Tucker) did films- no continuity, no competence, but kind of fun to watch.

 

[tsig]

I agree.



There are any number of ways that weekend 'renovation-al work' could have been orchestrated. The important part would be to make sure that fresh drywall was in place before the next work day.



Personally, speaking as someone who has never been involved in such planning, I cannot see how a layer of thermitic paint could do much damage on its own.

But, I can see how it could be part of something much bigger which could take out major columns.

I believe it was Dr. Jones who suggested that such paint could also act as a fuse.

Normal thermite requires an extremely high activation temperature in order to guarantee ignition, ~4000F (~2204C).

Nano-thermite has been shown by Dr. Harrit et al to ignite at the more manageable temperature of ~806F (430C).

Painted on nano-thermite could be ignited at ~430C creating such a high temperature that igniting large caches of thermite in its path should be quite easy.

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.



Based on the captions I found attached to those images, they are all supposed to be photographs from the WTC7 interior.

So the nano thermite ignites the thermite, the thermite ignites the explosives and the building comes down.

 

[pgimeno]

Straw man. You're insinuating we can't know those things unless we have that petition. That's an absurd expectation. We have other fringe theories for which there exist no petitions either way, yet the opinion of the relevant fields isn't in question.

I see a problem with that. One thing is knowing and a different thing is divulging. You may know that, but how do you let the public know? Just saying so makes it a question of trusting you, not a proof.

Of course, I do trust your word on that, as it's the only option that makes sense, but that's not the point. The reason I trust your word is not because it's yours, and I see how others may not trust it. The point is the difficulty in making everyone know what the relevant community thinks.

I'm not saying there should be a "counter-petition" like Georgio proposes either. I'm merely highlighting that difficulty.

 

[Miragememories]

Personally, speaking as someone who has never been involved in such planning, I cannot see how a layer of thermitic paint could do much damage on its own.

But, I can see how it could be part of something much bigger which could take out major columns.

I believe it was Dr. Jones who suggested that such paint could also act as a fuse.

Normal thermite requires an extremely high activation temperature in order to guarantee ignition, ~4000F (~2204C).

Nano-thermite has been shown by Dr. Harrit et al to ignite at the more manageable temperature of ~806F (430C).

Painted on nano-thermite could be ignited at ~430C creating such a high temperature that igniting large caches of thermite in its path should be quite easy.

My best guess is that thermite would be used to initiate a major structural failure and that once that was in play, conventional explosives would immediately take out the required perimeter and core columns.

So you'd have a conventional fuse igniting the nanothermite which ignites the thermite, with the latter doing the real damage?

Then you're right back at the stumbling-block that caused your crew to go for nanothermite in the first place - thermite is not an explosive.

In short you're torturing reality to make it fit in with the Bentham paper. You needed nanothermite but have to throw it under the bus eventually.

You don't really know what you believe, do you?

Unlike yourself, I certainly attempt to respond accurately.

I suggest you carefully read before you lash out at what you think is about to be said.

In the correct formulation, nano-thermite, which is customizable, can also be employed as an explosive. Whether or not it was used in that manner, I do not know.

Obviously any nano-thermite used to remove heavy steel would have to be in a bulk form and not a paint configuration. The paint formulation could still be used as a fuse.

At any rate, my post referred to the use of more conventional explosives (a fact you chose to ignore), after the thermitic activity. That applies in particular to WTC1 and WTC2.

It is pointless for me to continue to provide speculative answers as to the methods used because people like yourself ask for speculation but always end up demanding answers that only the perps can provide.

Based on the captions I found attached to those images, they are all supposed to be photographs from the WTC7 interior.

They're wrong.

The geometry of those windows is not WTC7 geometry but fits Twin Towers geometry.

You asked, and I answered as best I could.

They were identified as WTC7 interior photographs.

IMHO, The windows do not appear to be sufficiently revealed to claim with such certainty that they are not.

 

[GlennB]

Unlike yourself, I certainly attempt to respond accurately.

I suggest you carefully read before you lash out at what you think is about to be said.

I did read carefully. You stated:

Painted on nano-thermite could be ignited at ~430C creating such a high temperature that igniting large caches of thermite in its path should be quite easy.

My highlighting.

in which you mention both thermite and nanothermite, presumably deliberately to differentiate between them.

 

[carlitos]

[color=bl
Obviously any nano-thermite used to remove heavy steel would have to be in a bulk form and not a paint configuration. The paint formulation could still be used as a fuse.]

"Nano-thermite" wouldn't be used to remove heavy steel. So, there's that to consider.