Welcome to the Twilight Zone

[Sizzler]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

A few months after the start of the of the 9-11 Commission, it is found that there are conflicts of interest among a few of the top commissioners. The 9-11 Commission is shut down and new one is launched.

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

Evidence for controlled demolition in the 'new-commission' is summarized on ae911truth.org.

A group of skeptical citizens claim the 'new-commission' is a sham, and 9-11 was not an inside job.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?

[HeyLeroy]

Two massive molotov cocktails hitting the towers at ~500 mph (killing almost 3,000 human beings) would be a good place to start...

[Redtail]

Two massive molotov cocktails hitting the towers at ~500 mph (killing almost 3,000 human beings) would be a good place to start...

I'd follow that up with nothing that sounds like the explosions of CD charges have been found on any of the audio from that day.

[HeyLeroy]

And the collapses progressing from the points of impact in a top-down manner...

Jeez, hasn't this all been covered?

[cisco]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

A few months after the start of the of the 9-11 Commission, it is found that there are conflicts of interest among a few of the top commissioners. The 9-11 Commission is shut down and new one is launched.

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

Evidence for controlled demolition in the 'new-commission' is summarized on ae911truth.org.

A group of skeptical citizens claim the 'new-commission' is a sham, and 9-11 was not an inside job.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?
More evidence that this is a fantasy to you people.

Three-thousand human beings died, Sizzler. It's not a game. Stop ignoring the staggering amount of evidence for what really happened in favor of the small pile of conjecture that supports your pet conclusion.

[Gravy]

Since there is not one shred of evidence or logic that supports the crackpot CD claims, those claims are rejected.

Another Failpost, Sizzler. You've come a long way from claiming to be an inside job agnostic. How truly sad.

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

:eye-poppi

[OldTigerCub]

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?

When a structure damaged by impact and fire can no longer support itself, it falls down. Just that simple.
9-11 was an act of war. It is not "Dungeons and Dragons" or a game of "Warcraft".

[~enigma~]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

That's it. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

[boloboffin]

LOL.

"Pretend the truthers have the upper hand."

No.

[johnny karate]

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Actually, I'll give you 10,000 of them.

It's called the NIST report.

As soon as the CTers can supply a consensus of qualified experts to tell me it's wrong, I'll pay attention to what you have to say.

Until then, I'll just leave you and your fantasies languishing in the Twilight Zone where they belong.

[~enigma~]

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle-ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area we call the 'Twilight Zone' and it is inhabited by impotent 9/11 wooish morons.

[Dr Adequate]

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

...

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition? Well, apart from all the evidence that applies in the real world, there would also be the bit where the "New Commision" cries "Inside Job!" and starts executing people without giving any reasons.

(Actually, that's just what a Truther report would be like, wouldn't it? It would just read: "911 was teh INSIDE JOB!!! OMG j00s!!! do your own research!!!" and that would be it apart from an appendix listing the people to be executed.)

So this would make me suspicious. If they had reasons for thinking that there was CD, surely they would publish them? Their failure to do so would lead me to think that there were, in fact, no good reasons for believing in controlled demolition.

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory. No, if this "New Commision" is going to claim a controlled demolition, then they bear the burden of proof for that statement, especially if they're going to execute people on that basis.

[OldTigerCub]

There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle-ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area we call the 'Twilight Zone' and it is inhabited by impotent 9/11 wooish morons.

Thank you, Rod Serling...:D
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1975747a60aed3aec0.jpg

[CptColumbo]

Thank you, Rod Serling...:D
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1975747a60aed3aec0.jpg

Been using him in my sig for almost a year now.

[Jonnyclueless]

Ah, the usual propaganda from a group that is much smaller than even the flat earth society....


Funny, I had always assumed gravity had been proven, but maybe gravity is just in my head.

[beachnut]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

A few months after the start of the of the 9-11 Commission, it is found that there are conflicts of interest among a few of the top commissioners. The 9-11 Commission is shut down and new one is launched.

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

Evidence for controlled demolition in the 'new-commission' is summarized on ae911truth.org.

A group of skeptical citizens claim the 'new-commission' is a sham, and 9-11 was not an inside job.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?
The new guys are carted off to Happy Dale, they are nuts! The idiot team, Dr Jones, Fetzer, and Woods are found crazy beyond all help. They die when they are exposed to the truth ray treatment, invented by Dr Woods; oh the irony.

Why are some truthers so ashamed to be called truthers. Old ploy, failed ploy.

[Quad4_72]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

A few months after the start of the of the 9-11 Commission, it is found that there are conflicts of interest among a few of the top commissioners. The 9-11 Commission is shut down and new one is launched.

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

Evidence for controlled demolition in the 'new-commission' is summarized on ae911truth.org.

A group of skeptical citizens claim the 'new-commission' is a sham, and 9-11 was not an inside job.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?

1. Large planes crash into towers at 500mph.

2. Scorching office fires get started

3. Metal begins to weaken

4. Beams can no longer support the loads due to buckling and the towers collapse

5. Oh. And the fact that there is not a single shred of evidence that supports a CD theory (No explosive sounds, no traces of blasting, no witnesses to bombs being planted, no whistle blowers, etc etc)

GROW UP

[R.Mackey]

Maybe I'm alone, but I don't have problems with hypothetical questions like the OP.

The top five evidences against controlled demolition are these:

1. Every independent, published calculation (frauds like the Journal of 9/11 Studies don't count) demonstrates that failure of the Towers was expected, and complete collapse anticipated, from impact and fire alone. Without positive evidence for explosives, there is automatically no reason to conclude there were explosives.

2. Video clearly shows that at the onset of failure, perimeter columns buckled inward, precipitating the collapse. This requires structural connections to remain intact rather than be blasted apart. No one has even proposed any way to replicate this with explosives.

3. Now 1. and 2. turn out to be true for both Towers, even though they were hit quite differently. Rigging of explosives would have to be radically different between the two structures, and would have to anticipate the impact point, speed, and effect of the aircraft to extremely high detail -- which simply cannot be done. As Purdue will shortly publish, the dynamics of impact are quite sensitive to initial conditions, even if you have the best pilot in the world who can hit a dime at +/- 1 knot and +/- 0.1o of roll and pitch angle.

4. Video and seismic records also show that there are no sounds and no shocks at collapse initiation. There were many afterwards, of course, but this is consistent with a gravity-driven collapse. You'd need to set off the explosives first. Didn't happen.

5. The failure modes of recovered material are also not consistent with explosives. Perimeter columns show connection failure, not cutting or breaching or even "heat weakening." There's no cloud of shrapnel. There's no remains of det cord, copper bands, evidence of drilling and placement, nothing.

Ultimately, the best reason to reject it is that nobody can even imagine a plausible situation. Even if we relax our requirements so much that we demand no evidence at all, there just is no way to replicate what we saw with explosives. I've commented on ways to hypothetically plant explosives that would work and would survive the impact and fires, but even I can't explain the failure mode of the structure. Nobody can.

The OP is a little bit unfair. If this Negaverse 9/11 Commission or Anti-NIST recommended explosives, surely they'd have some evdience in support. I can't imagine what that would be, so it's difficult to examine it for mistakes. Nonetheless, even a simple observation of the progression to failure eliminates explosives from the table. NCSTAR1-5A contains no calculations, but single-handedly dismisses CD.

[T.A.M.]

The Twilight Zone...

The USG and its affiliates have determined that the WTCs were brought down by magic Leprachauns.

Then a small group of citizens came up with a theory that it was not Leprachauns, but rather 19 Arab hijackers working for Al-Qaeda.

Name your five pieces of evidence that prove the WTCs were not brought down by magical Leprachauns.

-----

Now do you see the foolishness of your suggestion Sizzler?

TAM:)

[DavidJames]

You have some nice posts to begin your fun little debate.

Personally, I'm not interested.
Personally, I'm embarrassed for you.

[HeyLeroy]

Ah, the usual propaganda from a group that is much smaller than even the flat earth society....


Funny, I had always assumed gravity had been proven, but maybe gravity is just in my head.

Haven't you heard? (http://http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512)

[JimBenArm]

Ah, the usual propaganda from a group that is much smaller than even the flat earth society....


Funny, I had always assumed gravity had been proven, but maybe gravity is just in my head.
Yes, but you need a source of air pressure. Didn't you learn anything from Malcolm?

[StoneRook]

Playing games now Sizzler?


Strange, for someone who started asking questions less than a month ago, do you have the knowledge to play this?


I think I will pass...

[Sizzler]

Thanks Mackey. Sorry for the late reply.




1. Every independent, published calculation (frauds like the Journal of 9/11 Studies don't count) demonstrates that failure of the Towers was expected, and complete collapse anticipated, from impact and fire alone. Without positive evidence for explosives, there is automatically no reason to conclude there were explosives.

We'd have to start at the NIST report, because all other independent reports cite it for collapse initiation sequence.

For the purpose of this thread, the burden of proof is on the official story. I see a few problems in this case.

1. Of the steel nist analyzed, they reported prior steel temps of only ~250C

2.Floor sagging tests could have been more realistic, and sagged much less than the numbers (42 inches?) used in the model.

3. Loss of fireproofing tests were unrealistic (shot gun blasts on unrealistic steel pieces)

4. very little real physical evidence supports the idea that the fires burnt long enough and hot enough to get STEEL temperatures hot enough to cause what we saw (2 photos of buckling).

2. Video clearly shows that at the onset of failure, perimeter columns buckled inward, precipitating the collapse. This requires structural connections to remain intact rather than be blasted apart. No one has even proposed any way to replicate this with explosives.

I agree with this, because I see it too. That also has me wondering. Therm?te could be a possible answer. I saw a theory i'll try to dig up for you that works in therm?te and blasts. Be patient.
3. Now 1. and 2. turn out to be true for both Towers, even though they were hit quite differently. Rigging of explosives would have to be radically different between the two structures, and would have to anticipate the impact point, speed, and effect of the aircraft to extremely high detail -- which simply cannot be done. As Purdue will shortly publish, the dynamics of impact are quite sensitive to initial conditions, even if you have the best pilot in the world who can hit a dime at +/- 1 knot and +/- 0.1o of roll and pitch angle.

from wiki again.
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.



4. Video and seismic records also show that there are no sounds and no shocks at collapse initiation. There were many afterwards, of course, but this is consistent with a gravity-driven collapse. You'd need to set off the explosives first. Didn't happen.

Hoffman points out;

Paraphrased: CD is an engineered event, and as such can be engineered for specific needs. There is at least one example of a known CD not showing up on the local seismic record.

The seismic record for 9-11 is what it is, a record of vibrations; what caused the vibrations is open to interpretation. But, to assume that ALL CD would have a single type of seismic pattern is simply unfounded.

5. The failure modes of recovered material are also not consistent with explosives. Perimeter columns show connection failure, not cutting or breaching or even "heat weakening." There's no cloud of shrapnel. There's no remains of det cord, copper bands, evidence of drilling and placement, nothing.

Steel pieces with slag were recovered and tested and found to have therm?te residue.

The same signiture (therm?te residue) is found in once molten iron microspheres.
(for the above, remember the burden of prrof is on you for this thread. so show me some lab results that show the same can happen in fire induced collapse)

And to be confirmed, unreacted thermite has been recovered.

In addition, most building contents and concrete were pulverized into dust.

Ultimately, the best reason to reject it is that nobody can even imagine a plausible situation. Even if we relax our requirements so much that we demand no evidence at all, there just is no way to replicate what we saw with explosives. I've commented on ways to hypothetically plant explosives that would work and would survive the impact and fires, but even I can't explain the failure mode of the structure. Nobody can.

Refer to my response to number 3.

[LashL]

Dear Sizzler,

You are 100% wrong.

Love,
LashL (with apologies to Regnad Kcin)

[MIKILLINI]

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was a controlled demolition?

This has yet to be proven.

That makes it a large burden for anyone to prove.

[pomeroo]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

A few months after the start of the of the 9-11 Commission, it is found that there are conflicts of interest among a few of the top commissioners. The 9-11 Commission is shut down and new one is launched.

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

Evidence for controlled demolition in the 'new-commission' is summarized on ae911truth.org.

A group of skeptical citizens claim the 'new-commission' is a sham, and 9-11 was not an inside job.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?


I suppose the total absence of evidence for demolition might be a starting point.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just that simple.
9-11 was an act of war.

By whom?

[Sizzler]

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was a controlled demolition?

This has yet to be proven.

That makes it a large burden for anyone to prove.

it is a large burden of proof. i wonder what it would take to prove the WTC buildings were CD?

ps. start a new thread with 5 pieces of evidence for cD and i'll respond there.

[Sizzler]

I suppose the total absence of evidence for demolition might be a starting point.

It is a starting point. Does that keep one from moving further?

[pomeroo]

It is a starting point. Does that keep one from moving further?


Funny you should ask. Many, many engineers, physicists, chemists, seismologists, demolition experts, avionics techs, pilots, forensic examiners, fire safety specialists, and military personnel have moved much further. You, on the other hand, remain mired in ancient, thoroughly debunked nonsense. Shouldn't you apologize to the people who, against their better judgments, granted you the benefit of the doubt?

[e^n]

Thanks Mackey. Sorry for the late reply.

Like R Mackey I don't mind answering theoretical questions and I think his initial analysis was quite accurate. I will try and respond in his stead for now and I hope he agrees with me.

We'd have to start at the NIST report, because all other independent reports cite it for collapse initiation sequence.
This is not really correct, the NIST report details collapse initiation in an entirely different manner to most (all?) models. The theoretical models are based upon making the collapse of the tower as difficult as possible, to do this they generally rely on every column from the upper block equally and evenly impacting every column from the lower block. There are also impossible limits placed like removing the ability of steel to fracture, which means the columns will absorb more energy than in reality.

I see a few problems in this case.

1. Of the steel nist analyzed, they reported prior steel temps of only ~250C
I don't want to write too much on this because Mackey's paper deals with this quite extensively. In short the steel that was isolated as coming from a specific location all matched the temperatures NIST predicted, there were only 2 core sections recovered and neither were expected to be exposed to an area of heavy fire. I can cite if you really want but you should check R Mackey's paper.

2.Floor sagging tests could have been more realistic, and sagged much less than the numbers (42 inches?) used in the model.
The purpose of the floor tests was to determine the towers ability to resist fire in its 'as-built' state. This is required because if the towers were more vulnerable to fire than was expected, this may have contributed to the cause of collapse. Arup for example has published a study indicating that the towers may have been insufficiently protected from fire and there is a reasonable amount of evidence of poor fireproofing application and pre-impact damage to it which would support this. The truss tests were not designed to determine how far the trusses would sag in the post impact fires for several reasons including the lack of any test facility large enough. The longest trusses tested in NISTs experiments were only half the length of the trusses expected to sag to 42" in the towers so this criticism really isn't valid.

3. Loss of fireproofing tests were unrealistic (shot gun blasts on unrealistic steel pieces)
This is again addressed in Mackey's paper. Shotgun tests (modified to be within a reasonable kinetic energy range) were carried out on realistic pieces and they were not the only tests to be carried out. This is essentially a paraphrasing of Kevin Ryan's criticisms which are entirely invalid. If you don't know that there were two different sets of tests you possibly haven't read the NIST report thoroughly enough. (no offence intended, it is a hefty document and there is much i have still to read)

4. very little real physical evidence supports the idea that the fires burnt long enough and hot enough to get STEEL temperatures hot enough to cause what we saw (2 photos of buckling).
There are more than 2 photographs to support the inward bowing of columns (this is not buckling yet, buckling occurs when the steel fails afaik.) but yes, the amount of physical evidence is quite low. This is unfortunately the case for all theories as the collapse of the towers caused significant damage to everything within it which can not be easily quantified as being pre collapse or during collapse.

I agree with this, because I see it too. That also has me wondering. Therm?te could be a possible answer. I saw a theory i'll try to dig up for you that works in therm?te and blasts. Be patient.
Thermite or thermate (similar burn temperatures) are unlikely to be a good candidate as they exceed the melting temperature of steel significantly and would result only in severing rather than heat weakening. Not only this but it would require extensive work to place, consisting of lifting every ceiling in the area to be affected and placing charges onto fireproofing. A theory which could explain these effects was proposed by Dr Greening but is unsupported by evidence of course.

For this next section you claim that R Mackey is arguing from incredulity, but you perhaps fail to understand his argument. Lets assume for a second we have an absolutely perfect computer simulator, it will tell you the precise result of any physical interaction (this does not exist and is another limiting factor in the modelling of the impacts / collapse). To run this simulation however you have to have inputs, you have to have the plane crashing into the building. From running simulations with various plane impacts it has been determined that the result of the impact is extremely sensitive to any changes in the values of the plane impacting. To this end to accurately predict the results of a plane impacting you would either have to predict every possible case and design appropriately (the software to do this again does not exist) or you would have to ensure the plane impacted with the precise values specified in the model which is obviously impossible (the values are beyond human perception).

Of course you may argue that the planners could have just put charges everywhere and hoped it would work, but the risk of being caught (thermite weakening / shaped charges etc would be immediately obvious if the building did not collapse) was extremely great, this is the only place I can imagine you can seriously claim argument from incredulity.

Hoffman points out;
This is not an entirely bad argument, you can plausibly argue that charges would not certainly appear on seismic records, but you would also have to explain the lack of any sound and the various points above. I think this is probably a valid criticism.

Steel pieces with slag were recovered and tested and found to have therm?te residue.

The same signiture (therm?te residue) is found in once molten iron microspheres.
(for the above, remember the burden of prrof is on you for this thread. so show me some lab results that show the same can happen in fire induced collapse)

And to be confirmed, unreacted thermite has been recovered.

In addition, most building contents and concrete were pulverized into dust.
These two statements are not compatable and furthermore change actual facts, if you suppose that unreacted thermite had been discovered at the WTC then yes of course that would be quite plausible. However unreacted thermite is simply iron and aluminium, metals in huge quantities in the towers. The same argument applies for your microspheres etc, it would be nice if they actually did show evidence of thermite, but as far as I am aware only Steven Jones has formally claimed this. You can't expect to change the evidence discovered and ask whether an alternate theory is plausible.

With regards to your 'pulverized into dust' argument, thermite cannot cause this and would result in us supposing that high explosives were responsible (even they are practically incapable of this). However the buildings were not pulverized to dust and even Steven Jones supports this, so this criticism is entirely invalid.

I hope this answers some of the questions you have.

[DavidJames]

Sizzler: You've been here a while and Mackey's paper has been mentioned many times. Why have you not read it?

[Sizzler]

Thanks for the reply;

Like R Mackey I don't mind answering theoretical questions and I think his initial analysis was quite accurate. I will try and respond in his stead for now and I hope he agrees with me.


This is not really correct, the NIST report details collapse initiation in an entirely different manner to most (all?) models. The theoretical models are based upon making the collapse of the tower as difficult as possible, to do this they generally rely on every column from the upper block equally and evenly impacting every column from the lower block. There are also impossible limits placed like removing the ability of steel to fracture, which means the columns will absorb more energy than in reality.

Yes, that is more accurate. What I meant is that NIST's collapse mechanism is generally accepted and cited in independent collapse articles. Independent analysis of collapse sequence (Bazant et al) build on it, or at the very least, accept it as the collapse mechanism. Thus, it is the starting point.

I don't want to write too much on this because Mackey's paper deals with this quite extensively. In short the steel that was isolated as coming from a specific location all matched the temperatures NIST predicted, there were only 2 core sections recovered and neither were expected to be exposed to an area of heavy fire. I can cite if you really want but you should check R Mackey's paper.

Right. I understand. But, this same explanation should be taken into account when looking at evidence for CD. Most of the the wreckage was not analyzed.

The purpose of the floor tests was to determine the towers ability to resist fire in its 'as-built' state. This is required because if the towers were more vulnerable to fire than was expected, this may have contributed to the cause of collapse. Arup for example has published a study indicating that the towers may have been insufficiently protected from fire and there is a reasonable amount of evidence of poor fireproofing application and pre-impact damage to it which would support this. The truss tests were not designed to determine how far the trusses would sag in the post impact fires for several reasons including the lack of any test facility large enough. The longest trusses tested in NISTs experiments were only half the length of the trusses expected to sag to 42" in the towers so this criticism really isn't valid.

Ok that makes sense. But then, where did the 42 inches come from? Is this based any realistic test, or just a theory?
This is again addressed in Mackey's paper. Shotgun tests (modified to be within a reasonable kinetic energy range) were carried out on realistic pieces and they were not the only tests to be carried out. This is essentially a paraphrasing of Kevin Ryan's criticisms which are entirely invalid. If you don't know that there were two different sets of tests you possibly haven't read the NIST report thoroughly enough. (no offence intended, it is a hefty document and there is much i have still to read)

I'll read Mackey's paper.


Thermite or thermate (similar burn temperatures) are unlikely to be a good candidate as they exceed the melting temperature of steel significantly and would result only in severing rather than heat weakening. Not only this but it would require extensive work to place, consisting of lifting every ceiling in the area to be affected and placing charges onto fireproofing. A theory which could explain these effects was proposed by Dr Greening but is unsupported by evidence of course.

If a significant portion, but not all, of the support structure was cut pre-collapse, would this not cause stress on the rest of the intact support structures?

I agree that work in putting it together would be extremely difficult.

For this next section you claim that R Mackey is arguing from incredulity, but you perhaps fail to understand his argument. Lets assume for a second we have an absolutely perfect computer simulator, it will tell you the precise result of any physical interaction (this does not exist and is another limiting factor in the modelling of the impacts / collapse). To run this simulation however you have to have inputs, you have to have the plane crashing into the building. From running simulations with various plane impacts it has been determined that the result of the impact is extremely sensitive to any changes in the values of the plane impacting. To this end to accurately predict the results of a plane impacting you would either have to predict every possible case and design appropriately (the software to do this again does not exist) or you would have to ensure the plane impacted with the precise values specified in the model which is obviously impossible (the values are beyond human perception).

This part is bolded because one could speculate here. It isn't beyond imagination that a plane could hit the precise location, for example, between floor A and floor D.


These two statements are not compatable and furthermore change actual facts, if you suppose that unreacted thermite had been discovered at the WTC then yes of course that would be quite plausible. However unreacted thermite is simply iron and aluminium, metals in huge quantities in the towers. The same argument applies for your microspheres etc, it would be nice if they actually did show evidence of thermite, but as far as I am aware only Steven Jones has formally claimed this. You can't expect to change the evidence discovered and ask whether an alternate theory is plausible.

Can you link me to anything in the mainstream that reports the above happening in natural fire?

With regards to your 'pulverized into dust' argument, thermite cannot cause this and would result in us supposing that high explosives were responsible (even they are practically incapable of this). However the buildings were not pulverized to dust and even Steven Jones supports this, so this criticism is entirely invalid.

I meant, most of the concrete and building contents were totally destroyed. I'm not pushing the usual pulveriztion argument. I was trying to show that the destruction of the building would also destroy evidence of CD.

I hope this answers some of the questions you have.
Yup...gonna read that mackey paper....thanks

[e^n]

Thanks for the reply;

No problem, your questions are mostly relevant and useful.

Yes, that is more accurate. What I meant is that NIST's collapse mechanism is generally accepted and cited in independent collapse articles. Independent analysis of collapse sequence (Bazant et al) build on it, or at the very least, accept it as the collapse mechanism. Thus, it is the starting point.
This still isn't very accurate, the collapse mechanism proposed by NIST includes perimeter wall bowing and column disconnection and rotation, Bazant does not include any of these features in his original analysis. I don't know what point you're trying to make here exactly so I can't really judge whether you are correct or not.

Right. I understand. But, this same explanation should be taken into account when looking at evidence for CD. Most of the the wreckage was not analyzed.
Certainly, in some controlled demolition theories it may be entirely possible that some of the damage would have been indistinguishable from collapse damage. However it depends on the specific theory, and theories involving thermite would leave effects not explainable as collapse damage (again the effects differ between theories). You would have to present a more specific theory to determine whether evidence was likely to be found in the rubble.

Ok that makes sense. But then, where did the 42 inches come from? Is this based any realistic test, or just a theory?
42 inches is taken from a section of NCSTAR 1-6C:
http://xs124.xs.to/xs124/08064/nisttruss985.png (http://xs.to)

If your criteria for 'realistic test' is any test done in reality then no, this is a result of (to my knowledge) relatively common formulas based on steel's properties at 700C. In NCSTAR 1-6C NIST describes their model extensively enough for this to be reproduced by anyone who doubts it, this has yet to be done.

I'll read Mackey's paper.
I really recommend you do, I have only read about 40-50 pages so far (time constraints keep me away from here far too much at the moment) and it is pretty good, i only have two minor wording corrections I would suggest.

If a significant portion, but not all, of the support structure was cut pre-collapse, would this not cause stress on the rest of the intact support structures?
It would and the WTC should survive some pre-weakening, but in that case you would expect collapse upon aircraft impact, not the subsequent fire weakening. Calculating a scenario to allow for aircraft impact and fire weakening before collapse would obviously be even more tricky.

This part is bolded because one could speculate here. It isn't beyond imagination that a plane could hit the precise location, for example, between floor A and floor D.
No offence intended but a distance of two to three floors (depending on how you measure) is not precise. The variances in NISTs simulation for an example resulted in massive differences to behaviour of things like engines with a difference in impact location of 2 feet. That is 1/6th of a floor or at least 12 times more accurate than your example. This is somewhat argument from incredulity but it is supported by the data, hitting something that accurately is extremely unlikely.

Can you link me to anything in the mainstream that reports the above happening in natural fire?
There have been numerous sources unrelated to the fires in the tower proposed you should consider. Even things like toner use microscopic spherical particles. Fly ash is also another example provided which is used in concrete. Now I am no chemical expert and this stuff is way beyond me, so I refer you to Crazy Chainsaw who should be able to answer more of your questions. He has a thread on this somewhere round here but I could not find it through searching.

I meant, most of the concrete and building contents were totally destroyed. I'm not pushing the usual pulveriztion argument. I was trying to show that the destruction of the building would also destroy evidence of CD.
Potentially yes, things like detcord and solidified liquid iron would have a decent chance of surviving and being recovered though (detcord as it is designed for visibility, solidified chunks of iron because of their mass). It is a valid point though if you did not mean it was 'dustified'.

One thing you really should do is read the NIST report, even the summaries of each section are very good and if you are truly interested in 'the truth' then many of their simulations are repeatable without requiring any sources you might consider suspect. Unfortunately the software to do so may be beyond you unless you are at a university or similar.

[R.Mackey]

Thanks Mackey. Sorry for the late reply.

e^n gave pretty good answers already, but I'll add mine anyway.

This would be easier if you didn't bury your answers inside a quote block, however. ;)


[1.] We'd have to start at the NIST report, because all other independent reports cite it for collapse initiation sequence.

No, not really. All other reports cite the visual observations made by NIST. Not all use the NIST estimates of damage, fireproofing, or thermal modeling -- these in fact vary quite a lot between the different independent results, but all nonetheless predict collapse. The collapse initiation mechanisms are quite different between, say, Dr. Quintiere's paper and NIST.

As far as all quoting the visual observations, why not? NIST gathered every photo it could find, and overlaid them with useful measurements. I have yet to see a conspiracist challenge the NIST observations, except of course for the raving lunatics who claim there were no aircraft, or the fires were small.

For the purpose of this thread, the burden of proof is on the official story. I see a few problems in this case.

1. Of the steel nist analyzed, they reported prior steel temps of only ~250C

2.Floor sagging tests could have been more realistic, and sagged much less than the numbers (42 inches?) used in the model.

3. Loss of fireproofing tests were unrealistic (shot gun blasts on unrealistic steel pieces)

4. very little real physical evidence supports the idea that the fires burnt long enough and hot enough to get STEEL temperatures hot enough to cause what we saw (2 photos of buckling).

No, no, no, and... no. I cover all of these concerns in my whitepaper. In the first case, as I've told legions of doubters over the past two years, the analyzed steel is only steel that could be identified. Steel that gets heated more than that loses its identifying marks. Some steel got so hot that it couldn't even be tested. See NCSTAR1-3 for pictures of bales of former truss material, for instance. Then tell me if it only reached 250oC. But since it had no identifying marks to begin with, and nobody could be sure it wasn't heated after collapse instead, it's left out of the analysis. Nonetheless, there is other support for excessive temperatures, i.e. the reports from the NYPD aviation unit who saw the interior of the structure glowing before collapse. And finally, if it just so happened you were correct in your inference, and no steel did exceed 250oC, this would also knock out the therm?te theories. Touche.

Second, the "42 inches" referred to are not a full floor model, but a validation experiment of the computer models of a single truss, all by itself, unfireproofed, heated to uniform temperature. This is in my whitepaper too. However, the actual structural floor models do, in places, predict even more sagging, but only at edges damaged by the impact, i.e. in free space. There are photos of this happening in real life, so this result is totally valid. Regarding the floor sagging tests, they were certification tests, not an attempt to recreate the post-impact conditions. In these tests, the trusses were fully fireproofed and fully intact. Apples to oranges comparison.

Third, the "shotgun tests" are not ideal, but did use pieces of steel sized to match the truss diagonals. It also proved that SFRM loss was expected over a huge range of impact conditions. There's no better testing I'm aware of. I mention in my whitepaper, discussing this issue with Eric Douglas, ways the testing could be further improved, but there's no reason to doubt NIST's results -- it merely could be refined, and should since we will use SFRM in future construction...

Fourth, take a look at NCSTAR1-5E. You will see direct evidence for temperatures required, in the form of a scale test. Dr. Quintiere's scale test predicts even higher temperatures, enough to defeat even fully intact fireproofing in the time allotted. That's more than enough physical evidence for me.

2. I agree with this, because I see it too. That also has me wondering. Therm?te could be a possible answer. I saw a theory i'll try to dig up for you that works in therm?te and blasts. Be patient.

I'll be quite interested to see that. Thus far I've asked everyone I've talked to, even charlatans like Max Photon, and gotten no answer.

3. from wiki again.

Quote:
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

:D If you're suggesting I made an argument from personal incredulity, you're sadly mistaken. It so happens that I'm working a project with NASA Dryden that involves flying a King Air in an extremely tightly controlled flight path in order to simulate Martian gravity conditions with low vibration. The best pilots in the world -- and I'm not kidding -- can mostly keep the aircraft within a tube 5 m in diameter, and within 1 degree of the prescribed pitch angle. No airliner will do better than that. Also, the margin of uncertainty in NIST's impact estimates are published, and they're larger than this.

Regarding Purdue's "not yet published" results, a preprint is available, and I link it in my whitepaper. I'm not making stuff up here. Not one bit. Purdue's results are also totally reasonable to anyone who's ever done dynamic modeling, or studied deterministic chaos.

[4.] Hoffman points out;

Paraphrased: CD is an engineered event, and as such can be engineered for specific needs. There is at least one example of a known CD not showing up on the local seismic record.

The seismic record for 9-11 is what it is, a record of vibrations; what caused the vibrations is open to interpretation. But, to assume that ALL CD would have a single type of seismic pattern is simply unfounded.
Ah, yes, Jim Hoffman. I'm not a fan.

Hoffman is wrong on many levels. We know that the aircraft impacts did show up on the seismic records. This proves, beyond any doubt, that mechanical destruction by explosives would also show up -- the seismic coupling between column and the LDEO seismograph is confirmed. Furthermore, Brett Blanchard of Protec describes additional portable seismographs that were in the area, sensitive enough to pick up not only the impacts and collapses, but air blast events as well. No explosives on these either.

The seismic story doesn't rule out "therm?te," since that doesn't send any impulse through the columns, but this hypothesis is ruled out through other means.

Besides, all you challenged was the seismic records. The audio and video records still remain unchallenged, and also prove no explosives.

Steel pieces with slag were recovered and tested and found to have therm?te residue.

The same signiture (therm?te residue) is found in once molten iron microspheres.
(for the above, remember the burden of prrof is on you for this thread. so show me some lab results that show the same can happen in fire induced collapse)

And to be confirmed, unreacted thermite has been recovered.

Before we even get into whether or not "normal fire" could do this, assuming the above is true (it's not), how do you disambiguate from the thermal lances used in the recovery effort? I wouldn't be surprised at all to find all of these features.

If you found "unreacted thermite," which again you haven't, then we have something interesting. I'm expecting a device. If you can produce that, well, then we can talk about alternate theories. But I know you can't.

At this point we've gotten far too hypothetical. If you produced (a) a reasonable alternate hypothesis, and (b) physical evidence supporting this, like an undetonated device, then I would take this theory seriously. In the real world, however, I'm still waiting for both.


In addition, most building contents and concrete were pulverized into dust.

No. Even Steven Jones says this is false. And what pulverization there is can only be described by gravity. If not, then you have to postulate an enormous additional explosive -- not therm?te -- contribution to the destruction. By "enormous," I mean > 100 tons TNT equivalent, since that's the approximate collapse energy of each tower. And, somehow, you have to also hide this fabulous amount of explosives.

Fat chance.


[5.] Refer to my response to number 3.


No dice. It's not a matter of personal incredulity if it's shared by everyone. If you can produce a valid hypothesis, then you can require me to refute it directly. But until then, it's not an issue. You're asking me to accept a theory that you can't even define. I, on the other hand, have a perfectly viable, working theory. I win.

[MIKILLINI]

it is a large burden of proof. i wonder what it would take to prove the WTC buildings were CD?

ps. start a new thread with 5 pieces of evidence for cD and i'll respond there.

I also wondered how these buildings could be brought down by CD. Along with that thought came a question almost simultaneously; Has there ever been a building as tall as the WTC towers brought down by CD? No there has not.

Then more questions; Why would you rig up the towers for demolition and then set them off, murdering your own citizens at the risk of getting caught?
Wasn't the image of planes crashing into these structures disturbing enough?
Wouldn't crashing an airliner into the Statue of Liberty have made a stronger resounding effect on the American psyche since it was a much more recognizable and beloved symbol of America?

I have no evidence of CD on the twin towers, nor have I come across any precedents of reference to use as a similar comparison: Such as a top down demolition on buildings of such magnitude as the towers were.

Like I say, since there has been no proof presented of CD on the towers, then those who believe it was a CD have a large burden to carry. I'm not one of those who believe it was a CD.
Now do you see what I mean?

[Gravy]

Yes, Sizzler, it beggars belief that fireproofing could have been removed by airliners impacting at 440-580 mph.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046a66b7c96bf7.jpg

[Sizzler]

e^n gave pretty good answers already, but I'll add mine anyway.

This would be easier if you didn't bury your answers inside a quote block, however. ;)




No, not really. All other reports cite the visual observations made by NIST. Not all use the NIST estimates of damage, fireproofing, or thermal modeling -- these in fact vary quite a lot between the different independent results, but all nonetheless predict collapse. The collapse initiation mechanisms are quite different between, say, Dr. Quintiere's paper and NIST.

As far as all quoting the visual observations, why not? NIST gathered every photo it could find, and overlaid them with useful measurements. I have yet to see a conspiracist challenge the NIST observations, except of course for the raving lunatics who claim there were no aircraft, or the fires were small.



No, no, no, and... no. I cover all of these concerns in my whitepaper. In the first case, as I've told legions of doubters over the past two years, the analyzed steel is only steel that could be identified. Steel that gets heated more than that loses its identifying marks. Some steel got so hot that it couldn't even be tested. See NCSTAR1-3 for pictures of bales of former truss material, for instance. Then tell me if it only reached 250oC. But since it had no identifying marks to begin with, and nobody could be sure it wasn't heated after collapse instead, it's left out of the analysis. Nonetheless, there is other support for excessive temperatures, i.e. the reports from the NYPD aviation unit who saw the interior of the structure glowing before collapse. And finally, if it just so happened you were correct in your inference, and no steel did exceed 250oC, this would also knock out the therm?te theories. Touche.

Second, the "42 inches" referred to are not a full floor model, but a validation experiment of the computer models of a single truss, all by itself, unfireproofed, heated to uniform temperature. This is in my whitepaper too. However, the actual structural floor models do, in places, predict even more sagging, but only at edges damaged by the impact, i.e. in free space. There are photos of this happening in real life, so this result is totally valid. Regarding the floor sagging tests, they were certification tests, not an attempt to recreate the post-impact conditions. In these tests, the trusses were fully fireproofed and fully intact. Apples to oranges comparison.

Third, the "shotgun tests" are not ideal, but did use pieces of steel sized to match the truss diagonals. It also proved that SFRM loss was expected over a huge range of impact conditions. There's no better testing I'm aware of. I mention in my whitepaper, discussing this issue with Eric Douglas, ways the testing could be further improved, but there's no reason to doubt NIST's results -- it merely could be refined, and should since we will use SFRM in future construction...

Fourth, take a look at NCSTAR1-5E. You will see direct evidence for temperatures required, in the form of a scale test. Dr. Quintiere's scale test predicts even higher temperatures, enough to defeat even fully intact fireproofing in the time allotted. That's more than enough physical evidence for me.


I'll be quite interested to see that. Thus far I've asked everyone I've talked to, even charlatans like Max Photon, and gotten no answer.



:D If you're suggesting I made an argument from personal incredulity, you're sadly mistaken. It so happens that I'm working a project with NASA Dryden that involves flying a King Air in an extremely tightly controlled flight path in order to simulate Martian gravity conditions with low vibration. The best pilots in the world -- and I'm not kidding -- can mostly keep the aircraft within a tube 5 m in diameter, and within 1 degree of the prescribed pitch angle. No airliner will do better than that. Also, the margin of uncertainty in NIST's impact estimates are published, and they're larger than this.

Regarding Purdue's "not yet published" results, a preprint is available, and I link it in my whitepaper. I'm not making stuff up here. Not one bit. Purdue's results are also totally reasonable to anyone who's ever done dynamic modeling, or studied deterministic chaos.


Ah, yes, Jim Hoffman. I'm not a fan.

Hoffman is wrong on many levels. We know that the aircraft impacts did show up on the seismic records. This proves, beyond any doubt, that mechanical destruction by explosives would also show up -- the seismic coupling between column and the LDEO seismograph is confirmed. Furthermore, Brett Blanchard of Protec describes additional portable seismographs that were in the area, sensitive enough to pick up not only the impacts and collapses, but air blast events as well. No explosives on these either.

The seismic story doesn't rule out "therm?te," since that doesn't send any impulse through the columns, but this hypothesis is ruled out through other means.

Besides, all you challenged was the seismic records. The audio and video records still remain unchallenged, and also prove no explosives.



Before we even get into whether or not "normal fire" could do this, assuming the above is true (it's not), how do you disambiguate from the thermal lances used in the recovery effort? I wouldn't be surprised at all to find all of these features.

If you found "unreacted thermite," which again you haven't, then we have something interesting. I'm expecting a device. If you can produce that, well, then we can talk about alternate theories. But I know you can't.

At this point we've gotten far too hypothetical. If you produced (a) a reasonable alternate hypothesis, and (b) physical evidence supporting this, like an undetonated device, then I would take this theory seriously. In the real world, however, I'm still waiting for both.



No. Even Steven Jones says this is false. And what pulverization there is can only be described by gravity. If not, then you have to postulate an enormous additional explosive -- not therm?te -- contribution to the destruction. By "enormous," I mean > 100 tons TNT equivalent, since that's the approximate collapse energy of each tower. And, somehow, you have to also hide this fabulous amount of explosives.

Fat chance.



No dice. It's not a matter of personal incredulity if it's shared by everyone. If you can produce a valid hypothesis, then you can require me to refute it directly. But until then, it's not an issue. You're asking me to accept a theory that you can't even define. I, on the other hand, have a perfectly viable, working theory. I win.

Thanks for your reply mackey (e^n I don't have time for 2 conversations, reply to this one).

First and foremost i need to read your paper. Unfortunetely it is the busy season at work.

OP was unfair, however it has spawned an interesting topic.

Indeed the precise location of impact could not be replicated by a pilot.

Here's an idea paraphrased from another blogger:

Floors 92 through 98 were not rigged with explosive(X?). Floors 99 to 110 were rigged explosive(X?) and engineered more like a traditional CD. Floors 91 and below were rigged with explosive(X?) and engineered as a top to bottom CD.

Therm?te was used to cut a significant portion of steel support structures throughout the whole building.

Steel was cut with therm?te just prior to collapse. The top section fails due to explosive(X?) and falls in traditional pattern for a few moments until the lower section begins top down CD.

This pattern gives the effect of a natural collapse at impact point followed by progressive collapse due to falling upper section. This effect would only need to be seen for a few seconds due to the dust clouds covering the rest of the collapse.

So in said theory, the plane would only need to strike between floors 92 and 98. The precise location wthin those floors wouldn't matter.

[Jonnyclueless]

Yes we all know the plane sliced through steel beams and all, but are we to be expected to actually believe that the planes could actually dislodge the fire protection around those beams? Surely you jest!

[R.Mackey]

Indeed the precise location of impact could not be replicated by a pilot.

Here's an idea paraphrased from another blogger:

Floors 92 through 98 were not rigged with explosive(X?). Floors 99 to 110 were rigged explosive(X?) and engineered more like a traditional CD. Floors 91 and below were rigged with explosive(X?) and engineered as a top to bottom CD.

Therm?te was used to cut a significant portion of steel support structures throughout the whole building.

Steel was cut with therm?te just prior to collapse. The top section fails due to explosive(X?) and falls in traditional pattern for a few moments until the lower section begins top down CD.

This pattern gives the effect of a natural collapse at impact point followed by progressive collapse due to falling upper section. This effect would only need to be seen for a few seconds due to the dust clouds covering the rest of the collapse.

So in said theory, the plane would only need to strike between floors 92 and 98. The precise location wthin those floors wouldn't matter.

What would be the point of such a complicated arrangement?

The thermite does nothing of any value. No cutting is needed to precipitate full collapse.

Explosives on floor 92 and 98, or whatever, also do nothing that the plane and fire won't do. And they'll be detected. And they won't give us the same collapse initiation phenomenology. Pulling floor trusses, remember?

I don't see any point to doing this at all. It certainly doesn't evade the evidence against explosives I listed previously.

[Sizzler]

What would be the point of such a complicated arrangement?

The thermite does nothing of any value. No cutting is needed to precipitate full collapse.

Explosives on floor 92 and 98, or whatever, also do nothing that the plane and fire won't do. And they'll be detected. And they won't give us the same collapse initiation phenomenology. Pulling floor trusses, remember?

I don't see any point to doing this at all. It certainly doesn't evade the evidence against explosives I listed previously.

Lets consider that the therm?te cut significant amounts of steel. Explosives for the upper section caused precise moment of collapse initiation. Explosive on the lower section moved building contents (structural steel, floors, etc) out of the way so that the collapse could continue and look progressive.

Remember, the design is engineered to look like a progressive collapse.

Perimeter buckling was real and due to strain caused by cutting of steel structure instead of fire. Collapse looks like it is due to buckling because the explosions on the lower section begin a few moments after collapse initiation from above.

Essentially, there are two parts to the collapse. Traditional CD of the top down into a top down CD of bottom.

Thermite cuts pre-collapse quietly. Explosives begin when collapse initiation begins, thus sounds of explosives are dubbed, sounds of collapse.

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or has this thread gone from dumb to stupid?

[Sizzler]

Mackey.

Here's a video. go to 3:32 mark and watch. At 3:44 mark you will see numerous "puffs" of smoke in the upper block just before collapse initiation.

The upper block then falls down into the lower section.

If those puffs of smoke were explosions, it would support the theory I've presented; therm?te weakening pre-collapse-->upper block tradtional CD (collapse initiation)-->upper block falls into lower block and topdown CD (progressive collapse) brings building down.

Watch it over a few times, (3:44 mark) the puffs come just before collapse initiation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390

[beachnut]

Mackey.

Here's a video. go to 3:32 mark and watch. At 3:44 mark you will see numerous "puffs" of smoke in the upper block just before collapse initiation.

The upper block then falls down into the lower section.

If those puffs of smoke were explosions, it would support the theory I've presented; therm?te weakening pre-collapse-->upper block tradtional CD (collapse initiation)-->upper block falls into lower block and topdown CD (progressive collapse) brings building down.

Watch it over a few times, (3:44 mark) the puffs come just before collapse initiation.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390
But, alas, they are not CD. It is not themite, it is air being expelled from a collapsing building. An explosion is a blast, it is high speed slowing, not slow speed to more speed. Since the puffs of smoke are just air, it makes your theory as dumb as Jones.

Thermite, not as much heat as jet fuel and fires in the WTC. How many pounds does your plan call for?

You are right, it would be so easy to prove the new idiots who say it is cd were WRONG. We could have them fired easy as every single rational engineer sees the lies! BUSTED. No sounds, no thermite, zip.

[Sizzler]

Oh my god, Beachnut made a claim!!!! hooray!

An explosion is a blast, it is high speed slowing, not slow speed to more speed.

I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?

[beachnut]

Oh my god, Beachnut made a claim!!!! hooray!



I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?
VZ1E2NPl-s8
yep, almost instant dust and smoke on real blasts, but not with pressure from falling buildings

[e^n]

I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?

Almost certainly, every explosive used in demolition has an extremely rapid speed of detonation. Regardless you have switched from the deductive to the speculative. It's all very well and good speculating about what could have caused these effects had there been explosives involved, but you have yet to seriously provide any evidence for these explosives. Indeed your theory is having to become much more complex in order to account for evidence which seems unlikely.

If you presume that explosives were involved I have no doubt you can eventually come up with a theory which does not directly disagree with any evidence (see Max Photon's theory) but this will be utterly impossible to prove and not logically supported. I hate to be so blunt but the only serious evidence we have points towards a natural collapse initiation.

You must examine your own beliefs very very carefully, at the moment you are simply grasping to try and explain the behavior of the towers including explosives. Tell me, now you know more about the collapse, which parts do not fit with a fire fuelled gravity collapse theory?

[Sizzler]

Almost certainly, every explosive used in demolition has an extremely rapid speed of detonation. Regardless you have switched from the deductive to the speculative. It's all very well and good speculating about what could have caused these effects had there been explosives involved, but you have yet to seriously provide any evidence for these explosives. Indeed your theory is having to become much more complex in order to account for evidence which seems unlikely.

If you presume that explosives were involved I have no doubt you can eventually come up with a theory which does not directly disagree with any evidence (see Max Photon's theory) but this will be utterly impossible to prove and not logically supported. I hate to be so blunt but the only serious evidence we have points towards a natural collapse initiation.

You must examine your own beliefs very very carefully, at the moment you are simply grasping to try and explain the behavior of the towers including explosives. Tell me, now you know more about the collapse, which parts do not fit with a fire fuelled gravity collapse theory?

Totally. I started the thread to see what evidence for the official story would;

1. be likely for gravity driven collapse
2. be unlikely for CD

however with a burden of proof twist.

OP is flawed however because no clear hypothesis for CD is put forth, ie what kinds of explosives, therm?te no therm?te, etc. (losely said ae911truth.org but again, CD method is not oulined)

I admitted this and chose to focus on the idea that rigging the building to know precisely where the planes would hit is impossible.

I've tried to argue that the building could be rigged so that the plane would only have to hit between a certain amount of floors, and not exactly here or there.

Lets focus on your question as this is now a free for all thread (and that is fine sometimes).

Tell me, now you know more about the collapse, which parts do not fit with a fire fuelled gravity collapse theory.

Here are a few;

1.

Free fall in vacum is 9.1 (or 9.2???)
A estimate of ~11 seconds has been given (at JREF) for the addition of air resistence.

Estimated fall times are ~15 seconds.

Thus air added ~20% more resistence and steel added ~40% more resistence.

The idea that all the steel only caused double the resistence of air seems counter-intuitive to me.

This lead me to Bazant's paper and number 2.

2.

The entire weight of the upper section would not cause crush down at the crushing front at the moment of impact. Loads would be transfered through load bearing components but would not act as a single unit of weight at the crushing front.

What damage would be caused in the lower section would also be caused in the upper section. The upper block would not be able to remain intact as Bazant puts forth.

He uses a crush down phase and then a crush up phase. Both would have occurred at the same time. Yes this is a simplified model, but it isn't realistic. As such, my counter-intuitive observation in 1. is further fueled.

3. once molten iron speres with traces of aluminum, sulfur and such, found in WTC dust.

4. unresolved sulfidation of WTC steel.

5. entire collapse squence of WTC7

there are more...but that is a start.

[Gravy]

Sizzler, please point out the minutes and seconds in this video segment when you believe the explosions occurred that brought down the south tower. You may want to use one of the slow motion segments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

Next, please do the same with the north tower, using the Etienne Sauret clip.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#6m17s

If you cannot do so, please explain why.

If you accept you will be the first 9/11 denier, out of many challenged, to do this.

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, please point out the minutes and seconds in this video segment when you believe the explosions occurred that brought down the south tower. You may want to use one of the slow motion segments.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#1m10s

Next, please do the same with the north tower, using the Etienne Sauret clip.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#6m17s

If you cannot do so, please explain why.

If you accept you will be the first 9/11 denier, out of many challenged, to do this.


I'm just a few minutes into your video and I found a false claim made by you.

First there were no such explosions BEFORE collapse began.

This is simply untrue. Perhaps you should view the video I post above.

start the video at ~3:35 mark and watch. at ~3:44 mark you will see 4 or 5 "puffs" just prior to collapse initiation. watch it a few times and you will see what I mean. there are 4-6 "puffs" that occur around the upper section just a moment prior to collapse initiation.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3e2_1195549390

I'll comment on your explosions question when I get there.

And, why just those two clips? Can't I show you other clips with explosions?

[Gravy]

I'm just a few minutes into your video and I found a false claim made by you.You're either mistaken or lying. Which is it?

Here's why those clips, Sizzler:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#11m55s

Now explain how your "puffs" relate to actual high explosives, in the quantities that would be necessary to bring down the towers, and be sure to include the sound and pressure effects on the building, windows, smoke, etc.

Proceed. You won't.

[bje]

This is simply untrue. Perhaps you should view the video I post above.




We did. Collapse initiation of WTC 1 started just before you see the puffs. Try again.

Anyway, one cannot see what was going on inside the towers.

[Sizzler]

You're either mistaken or lying. Which is it?

Um, you said ejections did not occur before collapse initiation. I just posted one video with ejections before collapse initiation.

So I throw the question back at you.

Here's why those clips, Sizzler:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926#11m55s

Now explain how your "puffs" relate to actual high explosives, in the quantities that would be necessary to bring down the towers, and be sure to include the sound and pressure effects on the building, windows, smoke, etc.

Proceed. You won't.

Well, lets assume for a moment that the C in CD means controlled. And lets assume that by saying controlled, we mean engineered. One could then call a CD an engineered event.

Thus, if engineering a CD to actually look and sound like a fire induced natural collapse, one would not want loud obvious pre-collapse explosions.

One possible way to engineer it is as follows;

1.Therm?te cut significant amount of steel structure pre-collapse quietly. Steel structure weakens and begins to buckle as observed.

2.A single detonation event causes collapse initiation in upper part. Sound is percieved as first collapse impact.

3. Top down CD ensues. Sounds are percieved as progressive collapse impacts (ie rumbling sounds as each floor impacts the next; I'm sure you've heard Hoffman describe this).

Again Gravy, CD is an ENGINEERED event, and we all know that things can be engineered to suit specific needs. The above is one example from a layman. Don't you have an imagination?

[Sizzler]

We did. Collapse initiation of WTC 1 started just before you see the puffs. Try again.

Anyway, one cannot see what was going on inside the towers.

Watch it again. Puffs occur just before the upper section moves.

Your second comment attests to the above.

Try again;)

[bje]

Watch it again. Puffs occur just before the upper section moves.

Nope, they don't.

Your second comment attests to the above.

Try again;)

Nope. It means even if you were able to demonstrate puffs coming out before, you cannot make any claim that you can see what was happening. But given all the other evidence, we know that there were no explosions.

You lose.

[CptColumbo]

During the winters here in MN, it looks like puffs are coming out of people's mouths. I'm pretty sure no explosives are involved.

[Sizzler]

Nope, they don't.

Are you saying the collapse initiates (ie, the top section moves) before the puffs?

And if you answer yes to this question, you need glasses, or a stronger pair.

Nope. It means even if you were able to demonstrate puffs coming out before, you cannot make any claim that you can see what was happening. But given all the other evidence, we know that there were no explosions.

That is fine. My claim in regards to Gravy's movie is that puffs occur before collaps initiation (cause of puffs is beyond the claim). The simple fact that you included the above shows that you have reasonable doubt in your claim, such that the inclusion of the second statement, erases any reasonable doubt. But you failed to understand my claim, and as such, shot yourself in the foot by including it.

You lose.

You are the loser. Have a good day.

[R.Mackey]

Lets consider that the therm?te cut significant amounts of steel. Explosives for the upper section caused precise moment of collapse initiation. Explosive on the lower section moved building contents (structural steel, floors, etc) out of the way so that the collapse could continue and look progressive.

But you see, this situation is the worst of both worlds. It requires damage from the aircraft in a reasonably predictable fashion, adding complexity and risk, and it also creates signatures of explosives, which we would be able to detect. All five arguments I posted on the previous page apply here. This strategy is DOA.


Remember, the design is engineered to look like a progressive collapse.

Perimeter buckling was real and due to strain caused by cutting of steel structure instead of fire. Collapse looks like it is due to buckling because the explosions on the lower section begin a few moments after collapse initiation from above.

You're going to have to explain that in detail. The perimeter buckling was an elastic phenomenon, brought on by increasing load and floor pull-in. "Cutting" cannot create or even assist this.

Collapse does not look "like it is due to buckling because the explosions on the lower section begin a few moments after collapse initiation." That's absurd. The bowing behavior started tens of minutes before collapse initiation. And even if this wasn't the case, your strategy now requires millisecond timing of these detonations after the upper block begins to move -- how are you going to sense it? When do you fire the charges? Since the top is already moving, why not just let it do its thing?

This is just plain wacky.


Essentially, there are two parts to the collapse. Traditional CD of the top down into a top down CD of bottom.

Thermite cuts pre-collapse quietly. Explosives begin when collapse initiation begins, thus sounds of explosives are dubbed, sounds of collapse.


"Sounds of explosives are dubbed?" You mean hidden in the collapse, right? Well, if you don't need explosives until after the structure starts to come down, why have them at all? I just don't get it.

Mackey.

Here's a video. go to 3:32 mark and watch. At 3:44 mark you will see numerous "puffs" of smoke in the upper block just before collapse initiation.

The upper block then falls down into the lower section.

If those puffs of smoke were explosions, it would support the theory I've presented; therm?te weakening pre-collapse-->upper block tradtional CD (collapse initiation)-->upper block falls into lower block and topdown CD (progressive collapse) brings building down.

Watch it over a few times, (3:44 mark) the puffs come just before collapse initiation.


Ah, Argumentum ad YouTubeum, my favorite. The puffs of smoke are not explosions, so your premise is false, thus everything else is false.

They have nothing in common with explosions. They're too slow, they're quiet, they leave no seismic signal and no residue. You stated these happened "before" collapse, so don't pretend they were covered up by the sounds of collapse.

These "puffs" are due to internal failure at the moment of instability. This forces a large volume of smoke, crunched wallboard, and spalled concrete out through every available opening. Recall that each floor is an acre in size. If you move a flat surface that's an acre by a foot or so, do you think it might generate a gust of wind?

Your comments on the previous page were interesting, but I'm afraid your responses are quite mad. I liked you better before.

[bje]

That is fine. My claim in regards to Gravy's movie is that puffs occur before collaps initiation (cause of puffs is beyond the claim).

But they don't.

The simple fact that you included the above shows that you have reasonable doubt in your claim,...I have absolutely no doubt.

... such that the inclusion of the second statement, erases any reasonable doubt.

The inclusion demonstrates that you must rely on other evidence IF you insist on claiming puffs came out before coallapse initiation. The other evidence, including videos, refute you.

But you failed to understand my claim, and as such, shot yourself in the foot by including it.I understand both your claim why you are upset at having been debunked. You are the loser. Have a good day.Truthers always get upset at being debunked.

[Pardalis]

From the OP:
What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

How many times are we going to have to say you can't prove a negative?

[Pardalis]

During the winters here in MN, it looks like puffs are coming out of people's mouths. I'm pretty sure no explosives are involved.

Watch out for the big explosion!

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4472916557628102396&q=baby+fart&total=1123&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[boloboffin]

Well, lets assume for a moment that the C in CD means controlled. And lets assume that by saying controlled, we mean engineered. One could then call a CD an engineered event.

Thus, if engineering a CD to actually look and sound like a fire induced natural collapse, one would not want loud obvious pre-collapse explosions.

One possible way to engineer it is as follows;

1.Therm?te cut significant amount of steel structure pre-collapse quietly. Steel structure weakens and begins to buckle as observed.

2.A single detonation event causes collapse initiation in upper part. Sound is percieved as first collapse impact.

3. Top down CD ensues. Sounds are percieved as progressive collapse impacts (ie rumbling sounds as each floor impacts the next; I'm sure you've heard Hoffman describe this).

Again Gravy, CD is an ENGINEERED event, and we all know that things can be engineered to suit specific needs. The above is one example from a layman. Don't you have an imagination?

And when Satan put the bones in the ground, he made sure to give them all the appearance of evolution.

Sizzler, you're engaged in a long, drawn-out exercise of unfalsifiability. Hoffman is a fool. Your rationalization may satisfy your imaginative need to not deal with the actual evidence (such as the seismographs that lack the distinctive spikes of "detonation events"), but we see that as the pitiful excuse that it is.

There is no such thing as Top-Down Demolition. Charlatans like Hoffman and Gage have bought into that notion to explain why 1 & 2 appear like no other controlled demolition on earth, but this is because they were not engineered. There was no control. The only human contribution to the collapse of the towers was terrorists flying large passenger jets into them.

ETA: I'm beginning to suspect that Sizzler has passed his password to Doh'P.

[pomeroo]

Oh my god, Beachnut made a claim!!!! hooray!



I've seen this argument before. What you are saying is this;

An explosion coming from, lets say a building, would come out with most force and then die out.

This correct?


By the way, the charlatan Max Photon was reduced to a quivering blob of protoplasm by a straightforward and extremely obvious question. Perhaps you'd care to take a crack at it--

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

[pomeroo]

You are the loser. Have a good day.


How's that apology coming along? Remember, there were people here who gave you the benefit of the doubt. I wasn't among them.

[Sizzler]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?

Let me demonstrate....

Your rationalization may satisfy your imaginative need to not deal with the actual evidence (such as the seismographs that lack the distinctive spikes of "detonation events"), but we see that as the pitiful excuse that it is.

That isn't true. Not all detonation events show up on local seismic records.

Here is one example,

Hoffman:
But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Apr-11-Sun-1999/news/10963838.html

There is no such thing as Top-Down Demolition.


No such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538

[beachnut]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?
Let me demonstrate....
That isn't true. Not all detonation events show up on local seismic records.
Here is one example,
Hoffman:
o such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538
Hoffman? A software engineer for your information? Hoffman; he never stops to check what he posts? Open loop wrong man. I think he still lists the terrorists alive, yet even in the same logic, he is dead (look it up, he died; just like the terrorist are alive; name game). Sorry, you must choose some real stuff, not the errors from Hoffman to display the fact you are still nowhere, it the train of stupid and false information, still in the station at a place we call in the TZ, nowhere. Hoffman makes major errors, you have made an error and not checked your source; poor research methods yield poor results exposing ignorance.

Oops, you posted proof, with that video, that CD did not happen at the WTC complex. Wow. You are either a truther, and like most truthers you post your own debunking without knowing it. Or you fell for my post so you could use this again to prove my point. The dust and smoke was expelled by falling building not blast effect from explosives. You just proved a few points. Good job (got u 2 post the video I planted; neat)

Wait, you say you are not a 9/11 truth movement no fact guy, but you post their lies. Why? Are you a 9/11 truth guy with no evidence, just hearsay false information and lies? You sure do post a lot of their false stuff.

[Sizzler]

Hoffman? A software engineer for your information? Hoffman; he never stops to check what he posts? Open loop wrong man. I think he still has the terrorist alive, yet even in the same logic, he is dead already. Sorry, you must choose some real stuff, not the errors from Hoffman to display the fact you are still nowhere, it the train of stupid and false information, still in the station at a place we call in the TZ, nowhere. Hoffman makes major errors, you have made an error and not checked your source; poor research methods yield poor results exposing ignorance.

Oops, you posted proof, with that video, that CD did not happen at the WTC complex. Wow. You are either a truther, and like most truthers you post your own debunking without knowing it. Or you fell for my post so you could use this again to prove my point. The dust and smoke was expelled by falling building not blast effect from explosives. You just proved a few points. Good job

Huh?

Claim #1 made by debunker-->no such thing as top down CD.

Fact-->Untrue proof-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2...com/node/11538

Claim #2 made by debunker-->detonation events always show up on seismic recordings

Fact-->untrue proof-->http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html


Care to attack my argument, instead of me?

[stateofgrace]

No such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538


Can you provide an example where a large commercial aircraft was flown, at high speed into the building prior to the top down demolition?

Thanks in advance.

[Hokulele]

Claim #2 made by debunker-->detonation events always show up on seismic recordings

Fact-->untrue proof-->http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html


Care to attack my argument, instead of me?


Too bad you had to find an extreme example to make your point.

When the Aladdin came crashing down last April from the force of 233 pounds of explosives, the demolition company's president observed, "It is not a building I'd want to be in, in an earthquake."

The 32-year-old landmark was so easy to drop that Controlled Demolition Inc. President Mark Loizeaux reduced the amount of explosives by 137 pounds from what he initially thought it would take.

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.


Care to find an example more on the scale of the events in NYC that do not register?

[beachnut]

Huh?
Claim #1 made by debunker-->no such thing as top down CD.
Fact-->Untrue proof-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2...com/node/11538
Claim #2 made by debunker-->detonation events always show up on seismic recordings
Fact-->untrue proof-->http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html

Care to attack my argument, instead of me?
LOL, the Las Vegas Review Journal! Wowzer! good job ignoring the air pressure vs. blast pressure wave! super

I think you are the best super researcher I have seen, I (am) (am not) going to use the Las Vegas Super Review Journal for all my engineering scientific needs. Super!

Breaking nues ---- UNLV 68, Colorado State 51 Cuelll
Huckabee Wins Kansas caucuses
Wow, Now I have the fact packed LVRJ! super (broken link, super duper) are you sure you are not a truther?
Care to attack my argument, instead of me?I can just let you post, you do both all on your own. Watch the posts discover your new super source of... lol...

[Gravy]

I just discovered that my Google Video clips that I've posted in this thread aren't jumping to the minute and second placeholders as they're supposed to. The video starts from the beginning each time. I don't know why that's changed. My apologies for any confusion that's caused.

[boloboffin]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?

Who in FSM's name said that controlled demolition wasn't an engineered event?

That isn't true. Not all detonation events show up on local seismic records.

Here is one example,

Hoffman:

But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust ... the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho.../10963838.html

How about the seismographs set up at the site to document the collapse, as is required of all controlled demolition?

Some more fantastic quotes from the article that you tiptoed around:

When the Aladdin came crashing down last April from the force of 233 pounds of explosives, the demolition company's president observed, "It is not a building I'd want to be in, in an earthquake."

The 32-year-old landmark was so easy to drop that Controlled Demolition Inc. President Mark Loizeaux reduced the amount of explosives by 137 pounds from what he initially thought it would take.

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.

But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust -- where the release of strain results in powerful earthquakes -- the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.

Hoffman fails you again. When the quote is put into context, you find out that the charges were drastically reduced from what's normally expected from a building that size, 37% less.

Now how many pounds of explosives do you think were necessary to have brought down either of the towers or the 47-story 7 World Trade? Enough to have left a characteristic spike on seismographs. That's why seismographs are used to document collapses. Blanchard says they would have shown up and he's been documenting CDs all his life. I'm taking his word over yours.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Aladdin7.jpg

There's the two buildings, Sizzler. The Aladdin is 100 m shorter than 7 World Trade. The Towers dwarfed 7. You're pointing to a flimsy hotel and trying to use the miniscule charges needed to take that building down to the Towers?

Really?

No such thing as a top down CD? That is simply untrue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.com/node/11538

Jiminy Christmas. A three-story barn you're comparing to the Towers. Hey, I had cousins who blew up ant hills with firecrackers? Would you or Hoffman like to subpoena them?

Could you point out any, ANY, detonation events in the Towers the way I can in that three story barn, Sizzler? Would you care to listen to the only demo expert the CTers have ever gotten close to their side? Jowenko is adamant that 1 and 2 were simple collapses. And man, does that interviewer try to get him to browbeat him into saying it was a CD too. But why is Jowenko so firm in his opinion? Because it started from the top.

[Gravy]

CD is an engineered event. Why don't you guys understand this?I don't understand how your scenario was accomplished. I suggest you take a few weeks, start at the beginning, and explain step by step how this operation could have been engineered, how the workers and work remained unseen, how the work could have possibly survived the impacts and fires, what types of explosives/incendiaries/timers/detonating equipment, etc. would work reliably in those conditions, How much was needed and where it would need to be placed, why there were no explosions, why the work left no sign on any piece of steel or elsewhere, and how it corresponds to the observed events: buildings disintegrating, walls bowing inward, etc.

I've been asking people to tell us how it could be done since April, 2006. Not a single person has attempted it.

You say it's an engineered event, Sizzler.

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?

[Sizzler]

Who in FSM's name said that controlled demolition wasn't an engineered event?



How about the seismographs set up at the site to document the collapse, as is required of all controlled demolition?

Some more fantastic quotes from the article that you tiptoed around:



Hoffman fails you again. When the quote is put into context, you find out that the charges were drastically reduced from what's normally expected from a building that size, 37% less.

Now how many pounds of explosives do you think were necessary to have brought down either of the towers or the 47-story 7 World Trade? Enough to have left a characteristic spike on seismographs. That's why seismographs are used to document collapses. Blanchard says they would have shown up and he's been documenting CDs all his life. I'm taking his word over yours.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/Aladdin7.jpg

There's the two buildings, Sizzler. The Aladdin is 100 m shorter than 7 World Trade. The Towers dwarfed 7. You're pointing to a flimsy hotel and trying to use the miniscule charges needed to take that building down to the Towers?

Really?



Jiminy Christmas. A three-story barn you're comparing to the Towers. Hey, I had cousins who blew up ant hills with firecrackers? Would you or Hoffman like to subpoena them?

Could you point out any, ANY, detonation events in the Towers the way I can in that three story barn, Sizzler? Would you care to listen to the only demo expert the CTers have ever gotten close to their side? Jowenko is adamant that 1 and 2 were simple collapses. And man, does that interviewer try to get him to browbeat him into saying it was a CD too. But why is Jowenko so firm in his opinion? Because it started from the top.

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......

[Hokulele]

Well, after this latest post, I am going to agree with pomeroo and state that Sizzler really isn't here to learn anything, and isn't worth wasting the time used to compose responses. Maybe Chris Iz will come back and demonstrate once again that there are people who post here to ask legitimate questions . . .

[stateofgrace]

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......

Why don't you show me an example of a top down demolition of a building after a commercial aircraft had slammed in to it at high speed?

Oh wait, you can't.........

[beachnut]

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event) outside of a terrorist attack?

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......
One dumb post. There are examples of progressive collapse, you have failed to find them. Are you not able to do your own research? By the look of your posts, you are not. You used the video I showed you to prove the air rushing out of the WTC was not from explosives blast effects. Wow. You have now asked a silly question! Do you watch lawyer shows? You know, do not ask the question if you do not know the answer.

[Calcas]

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?

I think it's sooper sekret military shiate. It's done with stuff that nobody else knows about yet. (Not even the military...LOL)

It's pretty much the same argument that the UFO folks claim. It's simply too advanced for us to understand it.

You see, "it was done with technology that hasn't been publicized yet" is an airtight escape clause. Nuttier than hell but what do they claim that isn't?

[pomeroo]

You made 2 claims. Very simple ones. (1. no such thing as top down demolition 2. detonation events will show up on local seismic records) And they aren't true. I demonstrated such with two quick examples.

Now you claim my examples don't compare to WTC event.

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

If you can do that, I will call it a day and retract all of my above critiques of your so called debunking.

oh wait, you can't......


Please understand that I may be a bit obtuse. When you claim to have proved that detonation events don't necessarily show up on local seismic records, you cited a story in a Las Vegas newspaper that described the demolition of the Aladdin as "a small blip on a seismograph." Now, we can all agree that this means IT WOULD SHOW UP. Words still have meanings, right?
Are you hoping nobody will notice? Did you fail to notice this minor detail yourself?

[Gravy]

I think it's sooper sekret military shiate. It's done with stuff that nobody else knows about yet. (Not even the military...LOL)

It's pretty much the same argument that the UFO folks claim. It's simply too advanced for us to understand it.

You see, "it was done with technology that hasn't been publicized yet" is an airtight escape clause. Nuttier than hell but what do they claim that isn't?Well, the entire "truth" movement is based on the concept that it's enough to simply spew claims. Hey, they've been successful at spreading idiocy by doing just that: why change?

That's why I started the "refusing to act" thread. Dishonest Jihadist apologists like Sizzler will finally, after being asked over and over and over, agree to do something. And then they invariably fail to do it. And when confronted about that they'll make an excuse and be off posting more nonsense in another thread on an internet forum. They just don't give a damn.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg
I would love to be the fly on the wall at Jihadist Apologist Fantasy Camp when one of these truthers sits down to try to figure out how their imagined plan was actually carried out, and tries to make all that fit with the observed events and post-collapse evidence and investigations.

[Sizzler]

Please understand that I may be a bit obtuse. When you claim to have proved that detonation events don't necessarily show up on local seismic records, you cited a story in a Las Vegas newspaper that described the demolition of the Aladdin as "a small blip on a seismograph." Now, we can all agree that this means IT WOULD SHOW UP. Words still have meanings, right?
Are you hoping nobody will notice? Did you fail to notice this minor detail yourself?

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.
But with the charges positioned above ground instead of within the crust -- where the release of strain results in powerful earthquakes -- the Aladdin implosion didn't even register on the nearby seismograph at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, according to geology professor Dave Weide.

Is that clear enough for you?

[pomeroo]

Is that clear enough for you?


We'll see. Stay tuned.

[Sizzler]

We'll see. Stay tuned.

Is this a retraction of your previous false statement which was based soley on your poor comprehension of the link I provided?

I'll take it as such. Thanks;)

[pomeroo]

Is this a retraction of your previous false statement which was based soley on your poor comprehension of the link I provided?

I'll take it as such. Thanks;)


Not quite. It means something closer to

"A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring..."

Remember how rationalists are always advising fantasists to try actually contacting experts?

[beachnut]

Is this a retraction of your previous false statement which was based soley on your poor comprehension of the link I provided?
I'll take it as such. Thanks;)You have a long history of false statements, or is it wrong statements.
[
quote=Sizzler;3350919]...a wood burning furnace/heater. ...Less oxygen may cause a fire to burn slower, but certainly not hotter.[/quote]Wrong; I just thought I would point out your history of errors. You lack of understanding on fire may hinder your ability to form rational conclusions.

Your pattern of past post that are wrong, could be your problem. Comprehension is important; without it you will fall for lies of 9/11 truth and make serious logical errors sorting out rational conclusions.

Steel does not always fail in office fires. In fact there are more examples of it not failing than failing.
Also, fire does not cause steel to fail in the manner explosives or thermite cutters do.
Those are facts that you fail to address.

http://www.beachymon.com/photo/woodsteelfire.jpg
Thermite cutters; where are all those thermite cutters? Un-fought fires do destroy steels strength. Show me some major office fires not fought that did not! This is making your "fake" plot look bad. Do you have any posts based on real facts? So me some steel on 9/11 damaged by thermite cutters, or explosives. Got some photos from the Major Tom radio controlled explosive guy?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/12447454a26a355ab6.jpg
Oops, the whole top would fail, but the core is concrete. Alas, the building was too weak from a fire fought, to stand. Do not look at the progressive collaspe of the steel only sectoins, it could ruin your imaginary ideas on fire. The lower sections did better, I think it has to do with physics of water and energy you can send it up in the air. But simple fire destorys steel. Note; there was not 10,000 gallons of fuel to set this building on fire; no 2200 pounds of TNT aircraft impact. But the building was TOTALED. Look at that steel; all done with fire, no thermite cutters. Do you have a thermit cutter. Before you say thermite cutters did it, remember no thermite cuts were found, and no thermite cutters were found. Did you make up thermite cutters by yourself or did you use the lies of Jones? How does this fit in the TZ world?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474550e45019258.jpg
I think there was a little water shot at WTC5 direction. But we have floors that failed in fire. Oops, I have yet to find a fire that burned for a while that did not destroy the strength of steel. And looks like falling steel. I will find some steel not bent soon, right? You said...

But on the OP topic, this is the kind of evidence which would prove the bad guys doing the TZ report would be in big trouble saying the stupid things that only the dummies at 9/11 truth are saying in the real world. What a bunch of nut case ideas, all at 9/11 truth, one stop stupid shopping for woo.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/onemeridiansag.jpg
Oops, one meridian plaza in my home town, philly. Darn, the fire bent the steel. Wait, the fire weakened the steel, and the loaded floor sagged. Where is one meridian plaza in downtown philly steakville? In the dump! Fire destroys the strength of steel faster than wood. Why is this? Do you have that chart of steel strength? This does not look good for you TZ crew of woo reports on 9/11 TZ caper. So it looks bad for your ideas of super steel. They got out of one meridian plaza, they thought it could fall. Building totaled by fire like the WTC. WTC totaled by fire; many other steel buildings destroyed by fire.

[Gravy]

A reminder for Sizzler, regarding your demolition hypothesis:

I've been asking people to tell us how it could be done since April, 2006. Not a single person has attempted it.

You say it's an engineered event, Sizzler.

Then show us the engineering. Fair enough? Or do you expect us to take your word for it?When can we expect your rational, scientific explanation of how this "engineered event" was accomplished, that fits the facts?

[Pardalis]

Yes, that is true. BUT what example does compare to WTC event? Why don't you show me an example of a complete progressive collapse of a steel framed building (comparable to WTC event).

WTC 2.

[Sizzler]

Not quite. It means something closer to

"A little learning is a dangerous thing.
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring..."

Remember how rationalists are always advising fantasists to try actually contacting experts?

So you don't retract your statement?

Even when it has been proven to be wrong?

YOUR error is simply because you failed to read the next paragraph, or lack the ability to comprehend conditional clauses in the English language.

By the way, a conditional clause is one that starts with the word, if.

There are two kinds of conditional clauses; real and unreal. If the conditional is unreal, would is used in the main clause.

Lets look at the example:

If the strategically placed charges had been detonated below ground, they would have delivered about the same amount of energy as a magnitude-1.1 earthquake, a small blip on a seismograph probably not strong enough to be felt by people.

You see. This is an example of an UNREAL CONDITIONAL CLAUSE.

In layman's terms, an unreal conditional clause DID NOT HAPPEN....hence, the use of IF.

[Sizzler]

A reminder for Sizzler, regarding your demolition hypothesis:
When can we expect your rational, scientific explanation of how this "engineered event" was accomplished, that fits the facts?

edit: quote taken out of context.

sorry

Gravy: I'll try to have something posted soon.

[Pardalis]

Gravy: I'll try to have something posted soon.

*reaches in far up his [rule9]*

[Sizzler]

BeachNut wrote:

Un-fought fires do destroy steels strength. Show me some major office fires not fought that did not!

Well lets look at my claims:

Steel does not always fail in office fires. In fact there are more examples of it not failing than failing.

My claim is worded poorly, i will retract it.

Revised claim: Individaul steel members may fail, but that doesn't mean the whole steel structure of the building will fail.

here are a few examples:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

Also, fire does not cause steel to fail in the manner explosives or thermite cutters do.

Key word here is the "manner".

[beachnut]

BeachNut wrote:
Well lets look at my claims:
My claim is worded poorly, i will retract it.
Revised claim: Individaul steel members may fail, but that doesn't mean the whole steel structure of the building will fail.
here are a few examples:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
Key word here is the "manner".
Move those goal posts.
WTC7 was not an unusual fire.
I've seen other steel framed highrise fires that actually looked hotter estimated to be 800C.
Oh, a fire not fought, a building damage by tons of debris, a building with 20,000 gallons of fuel in it, a building very unique design, is not an unusual fire case? I have to say, with thinking like this there is a problem with research, knowledge, and rational thinking. This is the kind of trouble your TZ team of 9/11 fake report authors face. They would be caught and found to be liars.

Your overall problem is one of knowledge. As you try to catch up on 9/11 you are repeating all the errors of 9/11 truth for the past 6 years. 6 years of wrong. At least you missed peak stupid (as in quantity; you may be competing for top quality stupid ideas).

[Sizzler]

Move those goal posts.

It is a learning process. Everyone has the right to do it.

You brought up a badly worded claim, and I retracted and replaced it with a more accurate claim.

Thanks for helping me learn.:)

Moving goal posts is not exclusive to the truth movement.

A couple of examples from the official hypothesis;

Truss failure caused collapse---->strong trusses caused perimeter bowing and subsequent collapse

Military sent up planes---->military sent up planes when it was too late

Molten Aluminum was pooring out of building--->Molten aluminum mixed with debris was pooring out of building


You see....this is perfectly normal.

But what isn't normal is when people like Pomeroo or other (previously mentioned) do not retract false claims.

[Pardalis]

Moving goal posts is not exclusive to the truth movement.

A couple of examples from the official hypothesis;

Truss failure caused collapse---->strong trusses caused perimeter bowing and subsequent collapse

Military sent up planes---->military sent up planes when it was too late

Molten Aluminum was pooring out of building--->Molten aluminum mixed with debris was pooring out of building


You see....this is perfectly normal.

That's not moving the goalposts, that's being more specific.

You just can't learn can't you?

[beachnut]

It is a learning process. Everyone has the right to do it.
You brought up a badly worded claim, and I retracted and replaced it with a more accurate claim.
Thanks for helping me learn.:)
Moving goal posts is not exclusive to the truth movement.
A couple of examples from the official hypothesis;
Truss failure caused collapse---->strong trusses caused perimeter bowing and subsequent collapse
Military sent up planes---->military sent up planes when it was too late
Molten Aluminum was pooring out of building--->Molten aluminum mixed with debris was pooring out of building
You see....this is perfectly normal.
But what isn't normal is when people like Pomeroo or other (previously mentioned) do not retract false claims.
No, do not see it. Truss, you failed to read NIST
NORAD, not one thing about NORAD on 9/11 that means anything for 9/11 truth. (goalposts not moved)
Molten Aluminum?
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1244745b6c300ddac7.jpg
Moten Al, or thermite? Notice the telltale white flame, it is proof of thermite - my name is ThermiteJones, believe me I am too nice to tell a lie but I hate Bush and the war in Iraq, I am not insane (best dick Nixon impression)

I do not see anything in the so called official story that is close to the lies of 9/11 truth. Fact is, 9/11 truth makes up those idea you post.

[pomeroo]

Right about now would be a really good time to plow through the thread "New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis," our introduction to Sizzler. As a display of disingenuousness, I think it outdoes Gregory Urich's best effort. I'm proud of the contribution I made on page 9:

"I must have dozed off. Did he get to his conclusion that explosives brought down the Towers yet?"

[pomeroo]

So you don't retract your statement?

Even when it has been proven to be wrong?

YOUR error is simply because you failed to read the next paragraph, or lack the ability to comprehend conditional clauses in the English language.

By the way, a conditional clause is one that starts with the word, if.

There are two kinds of conditional clauses; real and unreal. If the conditional is unreal, would is used in the main clause.

Lets look at the example:



You see. This is an example of an UNREAL CONDITIONAL CLAUSE.

In layman's terms, an unreal conditional clause DID NOT HAPPEN....hence, the use of IF.


Obviously, I didn't read the entire article. I couldn't read it--I got an error message stating that the page wasn't available. When you posted the relevant part, I tried again and managed to access the whole article. But, I must repeat that you've entered dangerous waters. As a twoofer, you refuse to consult experts. I don't. I try to find any who will talk with me. I suspect that you won't appreciate what I believe they will tell me.

[Sizzler]

Obviously, I didn't read the entire article. I couldn't read it--I got an error message stating that the page wasn't available. When you posted the relevant part, I tried again and managed to access the whole article. But, I must repeat that you've entered dangerous waters. As a twoofer, you refuse to consult experts. I don't. I try to find any who will talk with me. I suspect that you won't appreciate what I believe they will tell me.

You made the mistake. I did not post the "blip" part. You must have gotten that from the article I linked to. Thus you had a chance to read the whole thing and didn't. You misquoted it.

Then you wrote this:

Please understand that I may be a bit obtuse. When you claim to have proved that detonation events don't necessarily show up on local seismic records, you cited a story in a Las Vegas newspaper that described the demolition of the Aladdin as "a small blip on a seismograph." Now, we can all agree that this means IT WOULD SHOW UP. Words still have meanings, right?
Are you hoping nobody will notice? Did you fail to notice this minor detail yourself?

You imply that I was misleading people.

I have called you out on your mistake. I was not misleading anyone.

Please be a man and retract the satement. You are obviously completely wrong about this.

[beachnut]

Right about now would be a really good time to plow through the thread "New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis," our introduction to Sizzler. As a display of disingenuousness, I think it outdoes Gregory Urich's best effort. I'm proud of the contribution I made on page 9:

"I must have dozed off. Did he get to his conclusion that explosives brought down the Towers yet?"
Ironic, this is like the TZ. You meet posters who have zero clue. They lie about what they believe and what they have signed up for. Sizzler could be a top p4t member, or a a&e member, or one of the not so scholars member. Life is hard enough for some people without these idiots making up more lies. Ironic that so many join these groups and claim the high ground of open minded outside the box independent thinking as they repeat the claims of others they failed to check for themselves. Top researchers everyone (google 9/11, I found it! … it says, he says, they said,…)

[bje]

I have called you out on your mistake. I was not misleading anyone.

Please be a man and retract the satement. You are obviously completely wrong about this.


I'll make it easy for you, Sizzler, but you only get one chance:

I hereby retract all of Sizzler's statements for him to allow him to start over on the right foot.

There. Done.

Start again from the beginning, Sizzler.

[R.Mackey]

Is Sizzler ignoring my responses, or is he unable to respond?

It is possible to set off charges so small a seismograph won't register them, true.

But such small charges won't accomplish anything. The size of columns in the WTC places a mininum value on the amount of explosive, and it's much higher than the example here.

And such charges won't give us the inward bowing behavior seen.

And they'll make noise. Lots of noise.

And they require coordination with the aircraft. I'll settle for +/- one floor and hitting the right quadrant of the building to make this easy.

I haven't seen a single rebuttal to any of these problems, and there's still more where these came from.

[Sizzler]

Is Sizzler ignoring my responses, or is he unable to respond?.

Sorry, I got distracted.

It is possible to set off charges so small a seismograph won't register them, true.

But such small charges won't accomplish anything. The size of columns in the WTC places a mininum value on the amount of explosive, and it's much higher than the example here.

Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure. Charges go off to initiate collapse-initiation.

And such charges won't give us the inward bowing behavior seen.

Bowing before collapse initiation is due to weakening of the steel structure as a whole. Top section is "traditional" CD and falls into lower section. Bowing then looks like the buckling. Moments later the lower section begin top down CD (resembling progressive collapse) and expulsions can be seen coming out of the building.

And they'll make noise. Lots of noise.

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

And they require coordination with the aircraft. I'll settle for +/- one floor and hitting the right quadrant of the building to make this easy.

North Tower--->plane must hit between floors 92 and 98 and on the right side.

[Spins]

You are all wasting your time with Sizzler, he won't accept anything you say unless it supports his theory that the Twin Towers were brought down by some sort of controlled demolition.

[Spins]

Thanks for your reply mackey (e^n I don't have time for 2 conversations, reply to this one).

First and foremost i need to read your paper. Unfortunetely it is the busy season at work.
Not that you had any intention of doing so anyway but ... don't bother, you've already made your mind up on the subject so you'd be wasting your time.

By all means point any fence sitters you come across to his paper though, and also this forum.

[Spins]

Totally. I started the thread to see what evidence for the official story would;

1. be likely for gravity driven collapse
2. be unlikely for CD
Our view of the collapse is not an official story but bound in reality and science, yours on the other hand is nothing more than a fantasy.

[R.Mackey]

Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure. Charges go off to initiate collapse-initiation.

How many times do I have to tell you there were no charges? No bang, no flash, no shrapnel, no leftovers, no shock, no pressure pulses in the smoke, nothing on the seismograph, no way to have them survive the impact and fire, no way to coordinate with aircraft impact, no way to plant them ahead of time...


Bowing before collapse initiation is due to weakening of the steel structure as a whole. Top section is "traditional" CD and falls into lower section. Bowing then looks like the buckling. Moments later the lower section begin top down CD (resembling progressive collapse) and expulsions can be seen coming out of the building.

Not good enough! HOW do you weaken to create bowing, many minutes before collapse initiation? What do you weaken? What do you cut?

Once again, the bowing requires intact connections, not cutting or weakening. The weakening that leads to bowing affects a huge area, due to widespread fires. Nobody has even proposed a way to replicate this with destructive devices of any stripe, including you.

I can't respond to a hypothesis that does not exist. You are still in the starting gate.


Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

Oh, no they don't. And besides, we have audio of the collapses. Even small charges, typical in normal demolitions, would have been heard on the audio before the structure started to move.

This has been explained to you before.


North Tower--->plane must hit between floors 92 and 98 and on the right side.

Non sequitur.

Even if everything you just wrote was correct, you've still only challenged a fraction of the case against explosives. But everything you just wrote is nonsense. You're getting skunked.

[Gravy]

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.Is there any lie the Jihadist Anti-Defamation League won't tell?

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected (http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)

Did eyewitnesses report hearing or seeing bombs and demolitions explosives in and around the towers? (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard)

[stateofgrace]

Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure.

Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.


I can never get my head around this, maybe you can explain how silence suddenly gets heard by lots of people.

[pomeroo]

You made the mistake. I did not post the "blip" part. You must have gotten that from the article I linked to. Thus you had a chance to read the whole thing and didn't. You misquoted it.

Then you wrote this:



You imply that I was misleading people.

I have called you out on your mistake. I was not misleading anyone.

Please be a man and retract the satement. You are obviously completely wrong about this.


First, misleading people is a specialty of yours. You presented yourself to this forum as an "agnostic" on the events of 9/11. Some of us pegged you for a full-blown twoofer right away. Let's drop the sanctimonious posturing, shall we? You certainly have no intention of ever "being a man" and apologizing for your transparent deception.

Second, I acknowledged my error in failing to realize that I hadn't seen the entire article. It was careless of me and demonstrates--redundantly--that I am far from perfect.

Third, before anything is "retracted," let's establish exactly what your position is, a process that your characteristic slipperiness tends to complicate:
The demolition of the Aladdin proved quite easy. Mark Loizeaux commented that he didn't require as much explosives as he originally estimated. A seismologist who hasn't been contacted (yet!) by either rationalists or conspiracy liars commented that charges placed above ground wouldn't show up on a seismograph. It appears, then, that you are committed to arguing that the Towers were brought down by explosives placed sufficiently high up that they didn't register on the Lamont-Doherty labs' seismographs. This is, unusual for you, a concrete statement that can be verified with Lamont-Doherty seismologists.

I quoted Pope regarding "a little learning." We shall see.

[pomeroo]

Sorry, I got distracted.



Therm?te silently cuts a significant portion of the steel and weakens the buildings steel structure. Charges go off to initiate collapse-initiation.


Why doesn't anyone who works in the demolition industry agree with Max Photon's silly lie? Thermite is useless for controlled demolition, and therefore IT IS NOT USED. From pretending to be an "agnostic" you have been reduced to parroting a nonsensical theory promoted by a complete know-nothing. You have observed your fantasies get systematically taken apart by the scientists and engineers here. As a self-styled Socrates, you turned out to be a bust.



Bowing before collapse initiation is due to weakening of the steel structure as a whole. Top section is "traditional" CD and falls into lower section. Bowing then looks like the buckling. Moments later the lower section begin top down CD (resembling progressive collapse) and expulsions can be seen coming out of the building.


What a silly fraud you have revealed yourself to be! You are peddling ancient, thoroughly debunked rubbish to a NASA engineer.



Many witnesses report explosions, AND THEN, collapse. Oral histories supports explosions, and then collapse.

Stop lying.



North Tower--->plane must hit between floors 92 and 98 and on the right side.



It "must"? Well, then,

WHO FLEW THE PLANES???

[pomeroo]

I can never get my head around this, maybe you can explain how silence suddenly gets heard by lots of people.


It's mind-blowing! These frauds attempt to peddle blatantly self-contradictory claptrap without a hint of self-consciousness. No explosions were recorded on the seismographs because the steel was merely " heat-weakened" by magic thermite. But, everyone heard massive explosions--which weren't heard because they were silent.

[pomeroo]

From Sizzler's first thread--his disguise was unraveling and he had just petulantly branded something a rationalist wrote as "a lie." I responded:

"Now, that's more like it!

I realize that we're still on page 9, but I was wondering if we could jump to page 14 and discuss how such large buildings could be wired with tons of explosives without anyone noticing?"


He kept up the masquerade through all fifteen pages of the single most disingenuous performance ever attempted on this forum.

[R.Mackey]

I can never get my head around this, maybe you can explain how silence suddenly gets heard by lots of people.

It's mind-blowing! These frauds attempt to peddle blatantly self-contradictory claptrap without a hint of self-consciousness. No explosions were recorded on the seismographs because the steel was merely " heat-weakened" by magic thermite. But, everyone heard massive explosions--which weren't heard because they were silent.

I believe it's gradualism, or a feeble attempt at Special Pleading, namely "I can concoct a ridiculous story that makes the bombs quiet enough that they wouldn't be heard."

But this is unfinished. How quiet? What was the threshold used by the conspirators? Did they only consider rabble with camcorders on the ground, or did they also anticipate police helicopters right next to the event?

How small were the bombs?

How were they placed or prepared to avoid sending an audio signal?

These are not simple questions, they are deeply complicated, provided one actually thinks about them rather than just hand-waving them off. Even if done perfectly well, the conspirators needed to anticipate every single way they might be discovered, and fabricate countermeasures.

Not bloody likely. Even if this was possible, let alone practical, we've still created a radically complex scenario that is, again, the worst of both worlds. And there is no evidence to suggest that it is possible.

Let us also not forget that no self-respecting conspirator would attempt something so complicated, as I've explained before (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2446470#post2446470).

Sizzler, the time has come for you to present a hypothesis, or give up. Your arguments are nothing more than evasions, and hardly new or valid.

[Sizzler]

Sizzler, the time has come for you to present a hypothesis, or give up. Your arguments are nothing more than evasions, and hardly new or valid.

Great idea. I will post it later.

Just one thing though.

The oral histories support both the official hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. People reported hearing and seeing explosions.

They could have been; 1. floors crashing into each other
2. detonations

The oral histories do not serve as direct evidence but they do fit both hypotheses.

[beachnut]

Great idea. I will post it later.

Just one thing though.

The oral histories support both the official hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. People reported hearing and seeing explosions.

They could have been; 1. floors crashing into each other
2. detonations

The oral histories do not serve as direct evidence but they do fit both hypotheses.
Oh. Post the sound likes and suffer the dumbness of another truther post. Sorry, no sounds of RDX on 9/11. We cheated, we talked to people on the street during 9/11, right there who saw WTC7 on fire out of control, leaning. No sounds of explosives; you know why? Are you really this knowledge challenged? You are in a movement of lies. You are repeating the false information and coming very close to being a liar by repeating false information. Why are you unable to get much right on 9/11?

You think Dan Rather would pass up a Pulitzer Prize. You have to get some better ideas on 9/11.

[R.Mackey]

Great idea. I will post it later.

Terrific! Few conspiracy theorists do this, and that is largely to blame for the unrealism of their ideas, as I explore in my whitepaper. If you can escape this cycle with a real hypothesis, then you will start making progress.


Just one thing though.

The oral histories support both the official hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. People reported hearing and seeing explosions.

They could have been; 1. floors crashing into each other
2. detonations

The oral histories do not serve as direct evidence but they do fit both hypotheses.

Horsefeathers! The same evidence cannot support two mutually exclusive theories. Above you claimed the "oral histories" supported explosions before collapse, but they do not. I've looked.

At best, this evidence is neutral to both theories -- if it does not bias one in either direction, then it supports neither.

[Sizzler]

You wrote:

Horsefeathers! The same evidence cannot support two mutually exclusive theories.



“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

“t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera

So if this can't support both theories, which one does it support?

And,

You wrote:
Above you claimed the "oral histories" supported explosions before collapse, but they do not. I've looked.

How hard did you look?

This point is made even more clearly by Chief Frank Cruthers, who said: ?There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary [I]delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."23

But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.

[beachnut]

So if this can't support both theories, which one does it support?
And,
How hard did you look?
But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.
You must of talked to them? Not going to the news to expose the bad guys and get a Pulitzer Prize? You have this person telling your there were explosives; right? Tell me you have first hand information not some hearsay crap you made up? Right...

[R.Mackey]

So if this can't support both theories, which one does it support?

How hard did you look?

Oh, if you only knew what you were talking about.

I spend sixteen pages treating the cream of the eyewitness accounts -- as hand-selected and cherry picked by Dr. Griffin -- in my whitepaper. That includes the "flash flash flash" one you picked here. All of them, without exception, match perfectly normal phenomena vis-a-vis the NIST hypothesis, and make absolutely no sense to any conspiracist claim.

To pick at random, the "flash flash flash" one you describe was at the base of WTC 2, stated by Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory. Despite seeing "flashes," he didn't even see glass break... and he himself states that he doesn't think it was caused by explosives.

If that's all you've got, then you've brought a rusty spoon to a gunfight.

ETA: I treat Chief Cruthers too. You don't need to deal with his recollection, since he's describing something that's on video. And what's on video is consistent with NIST.


But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.

I look forward to it. Very, very few hypotheses have been presented, and the majority are totally screwy, i.e. Max Photon's.

[Dr Adequate]

Just wanted to check ....

In Sizzler's (hypothetical) "Twilight Zone" the "New Commission" is still executing people for being part of an Inside Job and still refusing to divulge any evidence against their victims?

Then I am still (hypothetically) dedicated to overthrowing the "New Commission" and restoring justice and democracy.

[Gravy]

How hard did you look?I looked thoroughly, with the goal of putting the witness accounts in context, unlike abject intellectual cowards like you. My evidence:

Did eyewitnesses report hearing or seeing bombs and demolitions explosives in and around the towers? (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/whattheyheard)

Accounts of structural instability in the Twin Towers, Bowing of columns, Collapse expected (http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)

Got it, "truther?"
.
Or do you have objections? If so, raise them now or forever hold your peace. Clear enough?

[Gravy]

Just wanted to check ....

In Sizzler's (hypothetical) "Twilight Zone" the "New Commission" is still executing people for being part of an Inside Job and still refusing to divulge any evidence against their victims?

Then I am still (hypothetically) dedicated to overthrowing the "New Commission" and restoring justice and democracy.Here's the entire "New Commission" in action. She shouldn't be hard to hit with a paintball drive-by.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6357)

[Sizzler]

SPAM? again???

How many times are you going to post that picture Gravy?

Got any movies for me (that don't have errors in them within the first 2 minutes)?

Keep spamming away Gravy.....

[beachnut]

Here's the entire "New Commission" in action. She shouldn't be hard to hit with a paintball drive-by.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_87904670cd1dc0fcb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6357)
Looks like a group ready for action. Fact less and sitting around. Why is 9/11 truth filled with dirt dumb ideas?

If that's all you've got, then you've brought a rusty spoon to a gunfight.

[R.Mackey]

Sizzler, the time has come for you to present a hypothesis, or give up. Your arguments are nothing more than evasions, and hardly new or valid.

Great idea. I will post it later.

But, lets leave this for later. I will post my hypothesis.

I look forward to it. Very, very few hypotheses have been presented, and the majority are totally screwy, i.e. Max Photon's.

:bump2 for Sizzler. I've been reminding you in other threads you've posted in. It's been five days. Have you given up yet?

[Sizzler]

:bump2 for Sizzler. I've been reminding you in other threads you've posted in. It's been five days. Have you given up yet?

Hey Mackey. Thanks for the "kind" words of encouragement.

I've began an outline of my hypothesis. I'm in the middle of making a transition back to NA so my time is precious.

In honor of Gravy's departure I said I would write it so I will. Be patient though.