Review of Dr. Griffin's NIST criticism now available

[R.Mackey]

I am pleased to announce that my long-awaited, long-delayed, long-promised, and simply long review of Dr. David Ray Griffin's book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, is finally ready for public consumption. My review is restricted to his chapter criticizing the NIST report and outlining his case for "controlled demolition."

I have sent copies to pomeroo, who first asked for it, and to ref who has followed its genesis too. I invite others, be they of Team JREF Ninja Wave or of conspiracist stripes, to read it as well. The file is a ~1.3 MB Microsoft Word document, just shy of 200 pages. Please send me a PM with a valid e-mail address, and I will send you a copy.

ref (among others) is invited to put this paper on his debunking website, if he finds it useful. I will not be starting my own debunking website, simply because there are several excellent efforts already thanks to diligent JREF members, and any website of my own would be, at best, a poor imitation. I would therefore rather contribute than compete, if I may.

Feedback can also be sent to me via PM, or there is an e-mail address on the cover page. Discussion is also welcome in this thread.

[kookbreaker]

Sweet! :cool:

[Gravy]

I'll devour it!

[e^n]

PM sent!

[Drudgewire]

This should be awesome. :)

[8den]

Hey Mackey, Griffin is supposed to be in my home town on Sept 11th. I'd love a copy to fling some facts his way!

[ref]

The paper is available at:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

[uk_dave]

The paper is available at:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

ahhhhhh no need to email it to me then :D

.....unless it was just a cunning ploy by mr mackey to get our email addresses...hmmmmmm? :bunpan

[Hokulele]

Awesome ref! Is there any chance you can make the Word doc a downloadable PDF? I can help with conversions if necessary.

[boloboffin]

Awesome ref! Is there any chance you can make the Word doc a downloadable PDF? I can help with conversions if necessary.

I almost did this, and now I'm at work. :(

[Drudgewire]

ahhhhhh no need to email it to me then :D

.....unless it was just a cunning ploy by mr mackey to get our email addresses...hmmmmmm? :bunpan
If I get spam mail for psychic-free viagra SO HELP ME RYAN! http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/fist4su.gif

[1337m4n]

Dangit, Ryan, why didn't you name it "Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking"? :D

[LashL]

Excellent news. I am very much looking forward to reading it, R. Mackey.

[Monza]

Thanks for the hard work you put into this, R. Mackey. I am looking forward to reading it.

[8den]

One hundred and eighty pages. Damn Mackey, my hats off to you, and there's an automatic pint with your name on it if you make it over to London.

[Gravy]

I've got a PDF for download here (1.2 mb) (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RMackey_drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf)

Just dipping into it now.

[e^n]

Awesome ref! Is there any chance you can make the Word doc a downloadable PDF? I can help with conversions if necessary.

This is exactly what I was thinking, citations can easily be hyperlinked to the actual reference which makes reading a thousand times easier.

[Quad4_72]

Mackey very well done. I applaud you.

[Apollo20]

Ryan Mackey:

Very impressive piece of work!

[Hokulele]

I've got a PDF for download here (1.2 mb) (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RMackey_drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf)

Just dipping into it now.


Thanks for the link, I have downloaded it for future enjoyment. :)

[Mangoose]

That's a serious book-length response. Wow!

[Good Lt]

Well done sir.

:clap:

I expect the Troofer's next effoer to be Debunking "Debinking Debunkin 9-11 Debunking."

Of course, it will be two pages after this massacre.

And watch out - DRG may try to sue you.

For what? I dunno, but that's the trend with these loons - sue when the debunkers cite facts at you...

[ref]

It was late night in Finland, when I got the file, so I just released it as a Word document and went to sleep :o I put it up in both Word and PDF formats for people to choose.

The link is the same:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

for both Word and PDF versions.

[Hokulele]

Thanks ref!

[ref]

I just want to thank Ryan Mackey for an excellent paper. It is very well written, and not too technical for every person to read through.

As an excellent example, I would like to point out the chapter, where Ryan tackles the South Tower Tipping And Disintegration. Awesome.

I applaud :clap:

[MG1962]

Hey R Mackey, you sure you have not done some fiction writing on the sly. The credits you list are all technical, but having read the first two chapters of this work. I am extremely impressed by the flow and style, very Deborah Cadbury in approach.

The dedication was lovely too. We sometimes forget those poor souls who had to sift through and pick up the pieces after that dreadful day.

[boloboffin]

Your first review is in from a CT advocate at DU:

I disagree, the material in your links looks more like hackwork to me
Is simplistic and feeble.

Right now, I'm trying to get a more specific critique going, as in, bring back something you consider simplistic and feeble. I'll let you know if I get an answer. We are also going to learn about pronouns.

[T.A.M.]

What, no applause from the CT crowd...I am surprised...lol

Great to have it to add to the 10 years worth of material I have to read;)

Thanks Mackey

TAM:)

[kimota]

Dangit, Ryan, why didn't you name it "Debunking Debunking 9/11 Debunking"? :D
Can YOU say "debunking" 110 times in ten seconds???? I didn't think so!!


:D

[kookbreaker]

I had no idea that Ryan M. was a UCSC graduate!

[Mercutio]

I can't wait for the youtube version to come out, so we can see the truthers' reaction.

[Mancman]

David Ray Griffin in the blue shorts...
w0R1aQckPzI

Excellent piece of work.

[Swing Dangler]

One, I applaud you on your research. But as the paper deals directly with NIST and the collapse of the buildings, I find it difficult to accept the paper at all as you are not qualified. See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party.

But since I thought I would find the same debunking nonsense, I will point out a couple of errors in your paper already.
As we can plainly see, Mr. Robertson does not support Dr. Griffin’s assertions. He suggests that the WTC Towers were designed to handle a 707 impact, but that the actual requirement stipulated a much lower speed collision, with “absolutely no comparison” between the requirement and the actual events of September 11th. Mr. Robertson also indicates that a thorough analysis would have been impossible with the tools of the time. It also bears pointing out that his firm LERA was a contributor to the NIST report, rather than disputing it, as Dr. Griffin suggests.

You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed". Oh and the source for displaying your error: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Appendix A Draft For Public Comment. Perhaps in your next revision you can correct Mr. Robertson's thinking instead of accepting this obvious error.

To my knowledge, Mr. Skilling has never claimed that the Towers would remain standing indefinitely, particularly given the fires and the impossibility of fighting them.
Impossibility? LOL. Your kidding right? If it were impossible to fight the fires, why did firefighters travel into the towers and up the stairs and mention small pockets of fire that would be attacked? As a diligent researcher, I'm surprised to hear you state that fighting the fires was an impossibility.
And lets see what Mr. Skilling stated about his buildings and their behavior after an impact with a jetliner:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. He doesn't state, the building would be there for just a couple of hours and then collapse or that the structure would eventually fail. Of course in your statement you then qualify your lack of knowledge into " Even if he has, there are no calculations given in support." This has to be the first time I've seen a debunker disagree with the head structural engineer of the Towers because of the lack of calculations, but accept NIST's work with the same lack of calculations in regards to other events in the towers.
Not only that in the segment above, you accept Mr. Robertson's statements...without calculations! ROFLMAO!
Don't you think Mr. Skilling is qualified to make that statement about his own building considering the amount of air traffic surrounding NYC?
Besides, how can you honestly state there are no calculations? What mystical powers helped you arrive at that conclusion? Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This ends all debates whether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of planes and fires on their structures.

But what relevant statements did Skilling provide about his towers?
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John Skilling Seattle Times 1993
Does this favor a controlled demolition scenario in the destruction of the towers as opposed to planes and fires? I think so.

I could repost some of your lies and bad logic that I've encountered before here at JREF, but for the sake of kindness I will not. I do look forward to reading more of this "Debunking" work, however.

[einsteen]

First of all my hat off for someone who produces 200 papers in his own time, congratulations.

I did a search in the document for a couple of words and I saw that you referred to a Finnish expert who did some wt7 calculations:

Page 119 - Dr Kutilla models the structure as a homogeneous solid, and computes... points 1. 2. en 3. and that is the reason you disagree with him.

Well, that is also what Dr Bazant does in his papers for the twin towers, a homogenous building is used with a homogeneous energy dissipation, personally I think that Greening's original discrete model is even more
physical and realistic because the forces involved in the collapse are far from homogenous, there is an elastic phase, an inelastic phase etc. Further I think it would also be nice if the results of Kenneth Kuttler are discussed. Griffin is no physicist and has no real credentials to validate mathematical models...

[Civilized Worm]

Can YOU say "debunking" 110 times in ten seconds???? I didn't think so!!


:D


Debunkity bunk!

[Apollo20]

Swing Dangler:

When you say: "See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party."

Oh irony of ironies!!!!!!

What are David Ray Griffin's credentials?

Structural engineer?

Civil engineer?

Physicist?

Chemist?

No, none of the above....

Professor of Religion and Theology?

Yup, you got it!

[Minadin]

You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed".

Not, at least, according to this article:

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245ae6cf556e33.jpg

The two towers were the first structures outside of the
military and nuclear industries designed to resist the
impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed
that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land
at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little
was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft,
and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.
Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were
available to control the effects of such fires.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245ae6cf5b1ee6.jpg

These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should
not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the
impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate
our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings,
sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants,
and other potential targets.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1253245ae6cf58a251.jpg

To date, I know of no instance in which anyone has been able to produce any original documentation of calculations on what the building was designed to withstand with regard to jet plane impacts. So, no one can say definitively. But in this instance, the lead structural engineer of the building in question contradicts your assertion. The best evidence we have to go on suggests that you are wrong.

By the way, for fun reading:

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2346&st=0

[kameelyun]

What, no applause from the CT crowd...I am surprised...lol

I've posted it at 9/11 Blogger. :)
(http://911blogger.com/node/11016)

[kameelyun]

Swing Dangler:

When you say: "See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party."

Oh irony of ironies!!!!!!

What are David Ray Griffin's credentials?

Structural engineer?

Civil engineer?

Physicist?

Chemist?

No, none of the above....

Professor of Religion and Theology?

Yup, you got it!


Look. At this point, we have a number of architects and engineers, some 'more' qualified than others (some are architects and structural engineers, for example, while others are mechanical engineers) at ae911truth.org, who have gone on the record to express serious doubts of the official explanation of the collapses, saying it violates the laws of physics and is hence pseudoscience. We also have a few highly credentialed people like Thomas Eagar who steadfastly defend the official explanation and label the alternative explanation as pseudoscience. This is why this whole discussion should be brought out into the open in public consciousness.

Let us not forget that our entire judicial system in the U.S. is based on laymen - i.e. jury members, i.e. "unqualified" people - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts.

I also thought of the irony of Mackey being "unqualified" by debunkers' standards, but I would not dismiss him out of hand, just like I wouldn't David Ray Griffin. While Griffin himself might be a professor of religion and theology, he has been in contact with people with qualifications in relevant fields, just as Gravy, a tour guide, has been in contact with people who support his position, such as Thomas Eagar, Brent Blanchard, et cetera.

Reopen the 9/11 investigation

[boloboffin]

This is why this whole discussion should be brought out into the open in public consciousness.

So the AE911Truth boards are going to be open to the public when exactly?

[pomeroo]

One, I applaud you on your research. But as the paper deals directly with NIST and the collapse of the buildings, I find it difficult to accept the paper at all as you are not qualified. See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party.

But since I thought I would find the same debunking nonsense, I will point out a couple of errors in your paper already.


You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed". Oh and the source for displaying your error: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Appendix A Draft For Public Comment. Perhaps in your next revision you can correct Mr. Robertson's thinking instead of accepting this obvious error.


Impossibility? LOL. Your kidding right? If it were impossible to fight the fires, why did firefighters travel into the towers and up the stairs and mention small pockets of fire that would be attacked? As a diligent researcher, I'm surprised to hear you state that fighting the fires was an impossibility.
And lets see what Mr. Skilling stated about his buildings and their behavior after an impact with a jetliner:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. He doesn't state, the building would be there for just a couple of hours and then collapse or that the structure would eventually fail. Of course in your statement you then qualify your lack of knowledge into " Even if he has, there are no calculations given in support." This has to be the first time I've seen a debunker disagree with the head structural engineer of the Towers because of the lack of calculations, but accept NIST's work with the same lack of calculations in regards to other events in the towers.
Not only that in the segment above, you accept Mr. Robertson's statements...without calculations! ROFLMAO!
Don't you think Mr. Skilling is qualified to make that statement about his own building considering the amount of air traffic surrounding NYC?
Besides, how can you honestly state there are no calculations? What mystical powers helped you arrive at that conclusion? Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This ends all debates whether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of planes and fires on their structures.

But what relevant statements did Skilling provide about his towers?
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John Skilling Seattle Times 1993
Does this favor a controlled demolition scenario in the destruction of the towers as opposed to planes and fires? I think so.

I could repost some of your lies and bad logic that I've encountered before here at JREF, but for the sake of kindness I will not. I do look forward to reading more of this "Debunking" work, however.


Bambi vs. Godzilla.

[pomeroo]

Look. At this point, we have a number of architects and engineers, some 'more' qualified than others (some are architects and structural engineers, for example, while others are mechanical engineers) at ae911truth.org, who have gone on the record to express serious doubts of the official explanation of the collapses, saying it violates the laws of physics and is hence pseudoscience. We also have a few highly credentialed people like Thomas Eagar who steadfastly defend the official explanation and label the alternative explanation as pseudoscience. This is why this whole discussion should be brought out into the open in public consciousness.

Let us not forget that our entire judicial system in the U.S. is based on laymen - i.e. jury members, i.e. "unqualified" people - to evaluate the testimony of competing experts.

I also thought of the irony of Mackey being "unqualified" by debunkers' standards, but I would not dismiss him out of hand, just like I wouldn't David Ray Griffin. While Griffin himself might be a professor of religion and theology, he has been in contact with people with qualifications in relevant fields, just as Gravy, a tour guide, has been in contact with people who support his position, such as Thomas Eagar, Brent Blanchard, et cetera.

Reopen the 9/11 investigation


If the best the conspiracy liars can do is claim that both a NASA engineer and a theology professor are unqualified to discuss a problem in physics, they should have the decency to acknowledge that their evil movement is dead.
Predictably, none of the morons at 911blogger would consider actually reading Mackey's crushing refutation of Griffin's farrago of nonsense. Perhaps Kevin Ryan will interrupt his headlong flight long enough to engage Mackey in a disputation?

[uk_dave]

Look. At this point, we have a number of architects and engineers, some 'more' qualified than others (some are architects and structural engineers, for example, while others are mechanical engineers) at ae911truth.org,

Who are the structural engineers?

[Pardalis]

Reopen the 9/11 investigation

Who, me???

[slyjoe]

Look. At this point, we have a number of architects and engineers, some 'more' qualified than others (some are architects and structural engineers, for example, while others are mechanical engineers) at ae911truth.org, who have gone on the record to express serious doubts of the official explanation of the collapses, saying it violates the laws of physics and is hence pseudoscience.

...snip



I have a serious question.

Which laws of physics do these guys say were violated? Wouldn't that statement in and of itself call their conclusions into question?

Wouldn't they want an all expense paid trip to Stockholm?

[R.Mackey]

Your first review is in from a CT advocate at DU:
I disagree, the material in your links looks more like hackwork to me
Is simplistic and feeble.


I freely admit that some of my sources are less than scholarly. This is for two reasons -- first, I wanted accessibility, and the overwhelming majority of citations are freely available for download. Second, there are absolutely no scholarly references on the side of the conspiracists, so why should I be held to a higher standard?

However, other sources I cite are beyond reproach. Several journals, several distinguished experts, and many papers all categorically disproving Dr. Griffin's statements.

Complaint rejected.

One, I applaud you on your research. But as the paper deals directly with NIST and the collapse of the buildings, I find it difficult to accept the paper at all as you are not qualified. See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party.

I would respect, and even cite, the calculations of a letter carrier or used car salesman, if they were correct. Argument from authority rejected.


But since I thought I would find the same debunking nonsense, I will point out a couple of errors in your paper already.


You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed". Oh and the source for displaying your error: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Appendix A Draft For Public Comment. Perhaps in your next revision you can correct Mr. Robertson's thinking instead of accepting this obvious error.

You might want to read the paper. I remark upon this in detail.


Impossibility? LOL. Your kidding right? If it were impossible to fight the fires, why did firefighters travel into the towers and up the stairs and mention small pockets of fire that would be attacked? As a diligent researcher, I'm surprised to hear you state that fighting the fires was an impossibility.

I include Chief Palmer's "two lines" comment on the 78th floor, and also discuss why it fits the NIST story to a T. Read the paper, then comment. Not before.


And lets see what Mr. Skilling stated about his buildings and their behavior after an impact with a jetliner:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. He doesn't state, the building would be there for just a couple of hours and then collapse or that the structure would eventually fail. Of course in your statement you then qualify your lack of knowledge into " Even if he has, there are no calculations given in support." This has to be the first time I've seen a debunker disagree with the head structural engineer of the Towers because of the lack of calculations, but accept NIST's work with the same lack of calculations in regards to other events in the towers.

Equivocation fallacy. NIST includes thousands of pages just reporting on the results of its calculations. Skilling includes none. Complaint rejected.


Not only that in the segment above, you accept Mr. Robertson's statements...without calculations! ROFLMAO!
Don't you think Mr. Skilling is qualified to make that statement about his own building considering the amount of air traffic surrounding NYC?
Besides, how can you honestly state there are no calculations? What mystical powers helped you arrive at that conclusion? Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Until they appear in a readable format, they don't exist. Not only do they not exist, but nobody has been able to replicate them. You've had years to do so. Complaint rejected.


This ends all debates whether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of planes and fires on their structures.

But what relevant statements did Skilling provide about his towers?
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John Skilling Seattle Times 1993
Does this favor a controlled demolition scenario in the destruction of the towers as opposed to planes and fires? I think so.

I could repost some of your lies and bad logic that I've encountered before here at JREF, but for the sake of kindness I will not. I do look forward to reading more of this "Debunking" work, however.

Kindness is not required. Intellectual rigor, however, is. You're welcome to post whatever criticism you think is valid, but I suggest you try much, much harder.

First of all my hat off for someone who produces 200 papers in his own time, congratulations.

I did a search in the document for a couple of words and I saw that you referred to a Finnish expert who did some wt7 calculations:

Page 119 - Dr Kutilla models the structure as a homogeneous solid, and computes... points 1. 2. en 3. and that is the reason you disagree with him.

Well, that is also what Dr Bazant does in his papers for the twin towers, a homogenous building is used with a homogeneous energy dissipation, personally I think that Greening's original discrete model is even more
physical and realistic because the forces involved in the collapse are far from homogenous, there is an elastic phase, an inelastic phase etc. Further I think it would also be nice if the results of Kenneth Kuttler are discussed. Griffin is no physicist and has no real credentials to validate mathematical models...

See my comments in Appendix B. It isn't so much that Dr. Kurttila's calculation is invalid, as that his interpretation of the results is invalid. He computes an "average resistance factor" in a dynamic situation, and then attempts to relate that to static strength. I show, in Appendix B, that the result he calculates is quite plausible for a perfectly strong structure. He simply doesn't think it through. Therefore, it isn't the homogeneity that is the problem, although I freely admit that it is a gross and somewhat inaccurate simplification.

[Fifediesel]

I've posted it at 9/11 Blogger. :)
(http://911blogger.com/node/11016)

Where we get such wonderful lines as this:

"YOU are claiming controlled demolition, so the burden of proof is on YOU, not on NIST."

Well DRG and about 120 Million of his closest friends are claiming that it is controlled demolition and we have proven it well beyond any reasonable doubt.

[R.Mackey]

Further I think it would also be nice if the results of Kenneth Kuttler are discussed. Griffin is no physicist and has no real credentials to validate mathematical models...

I had missed this comment, and also forgotten about the Kuttler whitepaper (available at teh JONES (http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/W7Kuttler.pdf)), since Dr. Griffin does not mention it in his book.

The Kuttler paper assumes a top-down, floor-by-floor collapse of WTC 7, and its delay is primarily due to momentum transfer between collapsing floors:

It was observed that the building collapsed in just 6.5 seconds.1 Could this possibly happen as a result of pancaking floors collapsing from the top down? We show here that if the collisions are inelastic, such a scenario is impossible.

The problem is that this is a bad model for WTC 7. It was not a top-down progressive collapse. Even the conspiracy believers note that it appeared to be an "implosion... that started low in the structure," and cite FEMA's words in support. The momentum-transfer that Dr. Kuttler models simply never happens.

Also, Dr. Kuttler's observation:

The other possibility is that the building fell in such a way that the falling floors encountered very little resistance until they reached the bottom. This possibility seems more likely, especially when the videos of the building are observed.

... could be explained by the suggestion of internal failures in the ten seconds previous to collapse. The penthouse collapse of WTC 7 strongly suggests that internal elements failed before the perimeter, so it is entirely natural to suppose that WTC 7 offered much less resistance than usual in its final collapse.

I don't think this needs to be added to my latest paper. It's simply a bad model. I do note, however, that Dr. Kuttler echoes my result of a rapid floor-by-floor collapse, predicting that a top-down WTC 7 collapse would take under 9 seconds. This indirectly supports our view of WTC 1 and 2.

[R.Mackey]

... allegedy from Kevin Ryan:


Another government

...employee speaks out in favor of the official conspiracy theory. And, of course, only because he is a humanitarian.

Since I'm one focus of this paper (should I be honored?), I'll help you out with it shortly.

Note: Joint Strike Fighter = "Department of Defense's focal point for defining affordable next generation strike aircraft weapon systems."

What a humanitarian.

Source (http://911blogger.com/node/11016)

For the record, I am not a government employee (I am a civilian contractor). Just a messenger, long accustomed to being shot at. :p

[~enigma~]

... allegedy from Kevin Ryan:



Source (http://911blogger.com/node/11016)

For the record, I am not a government employee (I am a civilian contractor). Just a messenger, long accustomed to being shot at. :p
I'm jealous. Kevin Ryan is aware of my Trials Of Aquaman site yet he is afraid to confront me about it but he cowardly snipes at you? Be proud Ryan :)

[einsteen]

Kuttler also created a wtc1,2 paper, there was not much promotion for it, I think it had too do with the "too fast" argument. Yeah wt7 pancaking is indeed not what happened.

[Civilized Worm]

A rather bizarre comment from "ROBBY B" at 9/11 Blogger:

The size of 707 although smaller was faster than a 767,and as one of the variables involved in working out kinetic energy is velocity,a 707 would cause more damage than a 767.


Is this guy a homeopath or something?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

One, I applaud you on your research. But as the paper deals directly with NIST and the collapse of the buildings, I find it difficult to accept the paper at all as you are not qualified. See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party.
. . .

SD, you wouldn't know an appeal to false authority if it came up and bit you on the ass. Please stfu and quite trying to point out logical fallacies, the only thing you are achieving in attempting to do so is to highlight your ignorance of formal logic.

ETA: In fact, your above post is an excellent example of argumentum ad hominem as you are attempting to discredit R. Mackey's critique based upon his person. Irony ftw. l2logic kthxdrvthru

[R.Mackey]

The Boeing 707 did have a slightly higher design cruise speed than the 767, but both birds would be Mach-limited, and both AA11 and UA175 hit their targets way, way beyond their design envelope. It isn't the design speed but the theoretical maximum speed that would matter, and that number is arguably above Mach 1 for just about any big Boeing.

Not a very impressive criticism.

Amusingly, though, you can track how fast they read through the paper from their comments (he's on about Page 7), and we should also be able to estimate when they all give up. :p

ETA: Never mind, "ROBBY B" has already thrown in the towel. Alas.

[Civilized Worm]

SD, you wouldn't know an appeal to false authority if it came up and bit you on the ass. Please stfu and quite trying to point out logical fallacies, the only thing you are achieving in attempting to do so is to highlight your ignorance of formal logic.


Oh man, you should have seen him accuse us of commiting a style over substance fallacy when we were laughing at DRG's empty bookshelves over at SLC blog.

[Par]

Oh man, you should have seen him accuse us of commiting a style over substance fallacy when we were laughing at DRG's empty bookshelves over at SLC blog.


Some people seem to do that quite a lot. That don’t seem to realise that simply laughing at someone isn’t an argument and so cannot actually be a fallacy.

[Spins]

First of all excellent work R.Mackey.

Just in case the "1993 bombing wasn't recorded on seismographs" argument is raised with regards to evidence that a lack of seismic waves prior to the collapse isn't proof that explosives were not used. I'd just like to point out that all this proves is that there wasn't a seismic signal recorded at a (Lamont-Doherty) seismograph station 16km away, in fact Won Young Kim, a seismologist at the Palisades observatory, said the 1993 truck bomb did not register on their seismographs (16km away) because the explosion was not coupled to the ground efficiently and thus didn't transfer much of it's energy into the ground. Sounds like a plausible explanation to me.

This argument also still doesn't account for the fact that Protec had portable seismographs in place at several construction sites in the Manhattan and Brooklyn area on 9/11. None of these picked up any explosions either immediately prior to or during the collapse of either tower, I've no doubt they would have if this had happened.

Recently I did some research though and found plenty of counter logic, for example seismographs recorded the Oklahoma City Bombing, an 1820kg ammonium nitrate and fuel oil bomb, up to 26km away (possibly more). Seismographs also recorded the controlled demolition that took place there just over a month after the bombing, again up to 26km away. You can read about it all here (http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eosholzer.html).

Then there is the Seattle Kingdome demolition, this received a huge amount of seismic analysis, as with all demolitions, for liability purposes etc. A good article I found about the seismic analysis of the Kingdome demolition can be found here (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/ships/pdfs/BrocherEos2000.pdf).

The recent controlled demolition at the Key Bank tower also, according to initial reports, registered on a seismograph station less than one mile from the demolition site, and this from a building much much smaller than either of the Twin Towers. You can read about it here (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695202255,00.html), by the way check out the first video, another excellent example of RDX being used to severe steel columns including the incredibly bright and numerous flashes one can see when the explosives go off.

[cloudshipsrule]

Well DRG and about 120 Million of his closest friends are claiming that it is controlled demolition and we have proven it well beyond any reasonable doubt.

Hmmm. I must have missed that memo. And I think this person is off by about six zeros.

[Swing Dangler]

SD, you wouldn't know an appeal to false authority if it came up and bit you on the ass. Please stfu and quite trying to point out logical fallacies, the only thing you are achieving in attempting to do so is to highlight your ignorance of formal logic.

ETA: In fact, your above post is an excellent example of argumentum ad hominem as you are attempting to discredit R. Mackey's critique based upon his person. Irony ftw. l2logic kthxdrvthru

Can you explain why I'm wrong on this issue when in fact debunkers have been doing this since day 1?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Can you explain why I'm wrong on this issue when in fact debunkers have been doing this since day 1?
Provide a specific example or I'm calling strawman on that claim.

[Swing Dangler]

Originally Posted by Swing Dangler View Post
And lets see what Mr. Skilling stated about his buildings and their behavior after an impact with a jetliner:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. He doesn't state, the building would be there for just a couple of hours and then collapse or that the structure would eventually fail. Of course in your statement you then qualify your lack of knowledge into " Even if he has, there are no calculations given in support." This has to be the first time I've seen a debunker disagree with the head structural engineer of the Towers because of the lack of calculations, but accept NIST's work with the same lack of calculations in regards to other events in the towers.
Equivocation fallacy. NIST includes thousands of pages just reporting on the results of its calculations. Skilling includes none. Complaint rejected.
Can you point to the calculations NIST did to determine the overpressure of the mythical fireball that caused damage in the substructure? Also please point out where they determined the necessary fuel/oxygen ratio as well.


wing Dangler:

When you say: "See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party."

Oh irony of ironies!!!!!!

What are David Ray Griffin's credentials?

Structural engineer?

Civil engineer?

Physicist?

Chemist?

No, none of the above....

Professor of Religion and Theology?

Yup, you got it!
It would only be ironic if I have relied upon DRG research. I have not. Nor have I purchased a single piece of his work surrounding 9/11.
Now remember when you accept R.Mackey's analysis then you must never ever ask or question a truther's credentials when they questions items outside of their expertise because this thread now proves, you do not have to be an expert to question the official story or question non-official stories. No longer will this line be accepted: "Are you a structural engineer or explosives expert? Then you are not qualified to critique NIST or the official story!"

[R.Mackey]

Can you point to the calculations NIST did to determine the overpressure of the mythical fireball that caused damage in the substructure? Also please point out where they determined the necessary fuel/oxygen ratio as well.

NIST did not consider the deflagration of jet fuel in terms of building damage, either at the basement or at the fire floors. If you had bothered to read my paper, you would note that I call this out myself as a legtimate criticism of the NIST report, on pp. 151-155.

However, this damage was arguably irrelevant for purposes of understanding the collapse -- since none of the collapse initiation was at all dependent on degraded performance in the basement -- and, thus, outside the scope of the NIST report.

Nice strawman you got there. Better keep him away from the goats! :goat

[John Blonn]

Fine, if you want to go that approach SD, then basically everyone in the truth movement is an invalid source.

LC, 9/11 mysteries, Kevin Ryan, DRG, Dylan, Alex Jones, Steven Jones, etc. etc. are all not qualified.

There is no one left to fight.

We win!

[DavidJames]

"Are you a structural engineer or explosives expert? Then you are not qualified to critique NIST or the official story!"I have asked many times about people's qualifications, but only to understand their background. However, I only ask those who critisize NIST but without a shred of technical detail to support their complaints.

[beachnut]

One, I applaud you on your research. But as the paper deals directly with NIST and the collapse of the buildings, I find it difficult to accept the paper at all as you are not qualified. See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party.

But since I thought I would find the same debunking nonsense, I will point out a couple of errors in your paper already.


You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed". Oh and the source for displaying your error: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Appendix A Draft For Public Comment. Perhaps in your next revision you can correct Mr. Robertson's thinking instead of accepting this obvious error.


Impossibility? LOL. Your kidding right? If it were impossible to fight the fires, why did firefighters travel into the towers and up the stairs and mention small pockets of fire that would be attacked? As a diligent researcher, I'm surprised to hear you state that fighting the fires was an impossibility.
And lets see what Mr. Skilling stated about his buildings and their behavior after an impact with a jetliner:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. He doesn't state, the building would be there for just a couple of hours and then collapse or that the structure would eventually fail. Of course in your statement you then qualify your lack of knowledge into " Even if he has, there are no calculations given in support." This has to be the first time I've seen a debunker disagree with the head structural engineer of the Towers because of the lack of calculations, but accept NIST's work with the same lack of calculations in regards to other events in the towers.
Not only that in the segment above, you accept Mr. Robertson's statements...without calculations! ROFLMAO!
Don't you think Mr. Skilling is qualified to make that statement about his own building considering the amount of air traffic surrounding NYC?
Besides, how can you honestly state there are no calculations? What mystical powers helped you arrive at that conclusion? Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This ends all debates whether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of planes and fires on their structures.

But what relevant statements did Skilling provide about his towers?
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John Skilling Seattle Times 1993
Does this favor a controlled demolition scenario in the destruction of the towers as opposed to planes and fires? I think so.

I could repost some of your lies and bad logic that I've encountered before here at JREF, but for the sake of kindness I will not. I do look forward to reading more of this "Debunking" work, however.

But since I thought I would find the same debunking nonsense, I will point out a couple of errors in your paper already.

Quote:
As we can plainly see, Mr. Robertson does not support Dr. Griffin’s assertions. He suggests that the WTC Towers were designed to handle a 707 impact, but that the actual requirement stipulated a much lower speed collision, with “absolutely no comparison” between the requirement and the actual events of September 11th. Mr. Robertson also indicates that a thorough analysis would have been impossible with the tools of the time. It also bears pointing out that his firm LERA was a contributor to the NIST report, rather than disputing it, as Dr. Griffin suggests.

You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed". Oh and the source for displaying your error: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Appendix A Draft For Public Comment. Perhaps in your next revision you can correct Mr. Robertson's thinking instead of accepting this obvious error.
The speed of the design was slow speed. You can ask Robertson. The design was for a slow speed aircraft lost in the fog.

If you were smart you would ask a pilot why this was used. You might ask can a 707 do 600 mph at 1300 feet? No a 707 max speed at 1300 feet is 355 KCAS; and by law it is limited to 250 KIAS, and by law the plane is not allowed near buildings!!! And there is no reason a plane would be at 1300 feet in NYC. So what is the speed of an aircraft to impact the WTC and why? At takeoff the jet is well past 1300 feet shortly after takeoff, oops, it is not able to hit the WTC. Darn. But if the plane was landing and lost in the fog and had lots of fuel in NYC, it would leave and go to Philadelphia and land in the clear weather. But if the plane was lost and low on fuel it could hit the WTC! Oops, slow speed, low fuel is the most likely accident, there is no regular time a plane is near the WTC. And a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet when the pilot is a rational person.

Now I will ask Robertson what he says. BTW, the NIST stuff about 600 and the other people that say 600 is hearsay, no one who built the WTC said 600 mph.

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. This is not a news story or hearsay, it is fact. Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

So you are wrong and R Mackey is correct. You could look up this stuff and do your own research and stop being a truther who clings to hearsay. You need training on seeing hearsay! The 600 mph is hearsay in NIST and they should have asked Robertson, his name is on the WTC design, the buck stops with Robertson. How did you make an error like this?

So how would a plane hit the WTC at 600 mph in an accident? What is the most likely impact design for an aircraft impact? And how could it be 600 mph since it would have shown damage to the core and the people would be trapped, Robertson would not call that building survival, and he would have designed for the 600 mph if that was the design but it was about 180 mph with flaps down low fuel.

[Swing Dangler]

Provide a specific example or I'm calling strawman on that claim.

You called me on false authority when in fact, RMackey is not an authority on the design and construction of high-rise steel structures, nor is he a structural engineer. Therefore, he is neither qualified to support or attack NIST or critiques of NIST. He is qualified to support or critique items in his field only at least that has been the standard for the debunking.
Now how am I using a false authority argument when that has been the standard of the debunking community? I will accept your fallacy, if you can accept that the debunking community has been practicing that fallacy since the inception of the so called "truth movement".

As for your specific example: please see past comments on SLC as well as various threads on JREF where truthers have brought up critiques of any aspect of the official story.

[pomeroo]

You called me on false authority when in fact, RMackey is not an authority on the design and construction of high-rise steel structures, nor is he a structural engineer. Therefore, he is neither qualified to support or attack NIST or critiques of NIST. He is qualified to support or critique items in his field only at least that has been the standard for the debunking.
Now how am I using a false authority argument when that has been the standard of the debunking community? I will accept your fallacy, if you can accept that the debunking community has been practicing that fallacy since the inception of the so called "truth movement".

As for your specific example: please see past comments on SLC as well as various threads on JREF where truthers have brought up critiques of any aspect of the official story.



So, Swingie, it would appear that you are wasting everyone's time again by demonstrating that you are incapable of reading Mackey's paper. I'm not asking you to find specific errors in it, as you are incompetent to do so. But couldn't you read at least some parts of the paper before mindlessly and reflexively criticizing it? Your "position" that a working scientist is not qualified to write a scientific paper is ludicrous, exactly what we've come to expect of your irrational movement.

[Civilized Worm]

You called me on false authority when in fact, RMackey is not an authority on the design and construction of high-rise steel structures, nor is he a structural engineer.


No, you accused HIM of an appeal to false authority! Jesus Swing, you really need to get a better understanding of logic before you embaress yourself any more.

[Alt+F4]

The speed of the design was slow speed. You can ask Robertson. The design was for a slow speed aircraft lost in the fog.

Recently I was watching an American Experience documentary, The Center of the World. It's about the building of the World Trade Center and the love/hate relationship New York City had with those buildings.

Robertson was interviewed and in addition to what Beachnut quoted he also said, "what we didn't look at is what would happen to all that fuel and perhaps we could be faulted for that." They were much more concerned with the effect of high winds on the towers.

[John Blonn]

Swing,

By your new criteria, who then is the best qualified member of the truth movement to contest NISTs claims?

[Alt+F4]

So how would a plane hit the WTC at 600 mph in an accident?

Co-Pilot: We are approaching New York City and it's covered in the worst fog in one hundred years. What should we do captain?

Pilot: Speed up of course!

[Newtons Bit]

Co-Pilot: We are approaching New York City and it's covered in the worst fog in one hundred years. What should we do captain?

Pilot: Speed up of course!

Only if the pilot is Keauno Reeves.

[Calcas]

Where is DRG's biggest groupie, A-Train, in this thread?

You KNOW he's been reading it...

And, a big thumbs up to R. Mackey!

[Corsair 115]

Only if the pilot is Keauno Reeves.If this plane goes slower than 130 miles per hour, it'll blow up! (Because it would have stalled and crashed into the ground.)

[TerryUK]

So, Swingie, it would appear that you are wasting everyone's time again by demonstrating that you are incapable of reading Mackey's paper. I'm not asking you to find specific errors in it, as you are incompetent to do so. But couldn't you read at least some parts of the paper before mindlessly and reflexively criticizing it? Your "position" that a working scientist is not qualified to write a scientific paper is ludicrous, exactly what we've come to expect of your irrational movement.

You say:" I'm not asking you to find specific errors in it, as you are incompetent to do so."

So pomeroo, why are you posting? Why are you communicating with someone who you think is "incompetent", if you are so great?

[TerryUK]

SD, you wouldn't know an appeal to false authority if it came up and bit you on the ass. Please stfu and quite trying to point out logical fallacies, the only thing you are achieving in attempting to do so is to highlight your ignorance of formal logic.

ETA: In fact, your above post is an excellent example of argumentum ad hominem as you are attempting to discredit R. Mackey's critique based upon his person. Irony ftw.

You guy are so disingenuous :)

Well, "argumentum ad hominem" is clearly something that many JREFers are guilty of, including R.Mackey.

I notice, in his 'paper', he has a section called "Truthers Exposed" in which he describes some of the so-called "truthers". Here's the first on the list :

Dylan Avery (23) , denied admission twice by Purchase College's film school - Director of Loose Change... Ignores all criticism... We could write pages about him alone...

What's that if it's not ad hom ?

There's probably more, but I didn't read further.

[Gravy]

I don't know if you've noticed, Terry, but a large part of what we do here is demonstrating the universal incompetence of the "truth movement's" leaders and followers. People often don't recognize their own incompetence. They need to be reminded.

[ZENSMACK89]

It’s all revisionism on Robertson’s part nothing else…

A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

A previous analysis , carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

“The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.” - Leslie Robertson

However, O’Sullivan consults one of the trade centers original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is [B]little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.

Robertson’s revisionism after 9-11

“I support the general conclusions of the NIST report The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it…”

[Crungy]

What's that if it's not ad hom ?

There's probably more, but I didn't read further.

Terry, ad hom attacks have been used in a far, far worse manner by the "truth" side.

Do you have a problem when truthers, such as Kevin Ryan, continually avoid debate by incorrectly dismissing professionals and experts such as Ryan Mackey, of being government employees afraid to rock the boat?

I find it odd that you continually glaze over the disgusting tactics of the truth movement while hunting for every debunker breach of etiquette.

[TerryUK]

<<Originally Posted by Swing Dangler
Can you explain why I'm wrong on this issue when in fact debunkers have been doing this since day 1? >>

Provide a specific example or I'm calling strawman on that claim.

So ad hom, followed by straw man...

One of the big tactics used by OTers on here is based on 'straw man arguments, and in Mackey's 'paper' - to stay on topic - I noticed some topics that Mackey chose to "debunk" such as:

Claim: Larry Silverstein said Pull, meaning they decided to demolish the building."

Claim: BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed. This was a script they slipped out early and proves the conspiracy.

Claim: The fallen light poles are suspicious.

A perfert example of 'straw man' is exactly what Mackey is doing -

He's 'debunking' these (very easy) 'claims' and pretending they are representative of serious CT claims, which is a straw man
In fact, you could say an army of straw men :)

[R.Mackey]

You guy are so disingenuous :)

Well, "argumentum ad hominem" is clearly something that many JREFers are guilty of, including R.Mackey.

I notice, in his 'paper', he has a section called "Truthers Exposed" in which he describes some of the so-called "truthers". Here's the first on the list :

Dylan Avery (23) , denied admission twice by Purchase College's film school - Director of Loose Change... Ignores all criticism... We could write pages about him alone...

What's that if it's not ad hom ?

There's probably more, but I didn't read further.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it isn't my paper. It has nothing to do with Dylan Avery, nor have I ever written anything called "Truthers Exposed."

Please try to keep informed.

[WildCat]

You called me on false authority when in fact, RMackey is not an authority on the design and construction of high-rise steel structures, nor is he a structural engineer. Therefore, he is neither qualified to support or attack NIST or critiques of NIST. He is qualified to support or critique items in his field only at least that has been the standard for the debunking.
This is where you get it all wrong. Any layman can comment on anything outside his area of expertise, so long as his reasoning is sound and his facts correct. Where the truth movement goes wrong is when non-experts (such as religion professors) ignore facts and rely on lies to support a conclusion 99.999% of actual experts find ridiculous and farcical.

To put it simply, it's not that DRG is not a structural engineer, but because he's an idiot and a liar that disqualifies him from serious attention.

[TerryUK]

Terry, ad hom attacks have been used in a far, far worse manner by the "truth" side.

Do you have a problem when truthers, such as Kevin Ryan, continually avoid debate by incorrectly dismissing professionals and experts such as Ryan Mackey, of being government employees afraid to rock the boat?

I find it odd that you continually glaze over the disgusting tactics of the truth movement while hunting for every debunker breach of etiquette.

To be quite truthful, the stuff I've read, from either side, has been on this forum, so I can't comment what happens elsewhere at the moment.

But here, I see ad homs much more from the OT JREFers than CTer etc.

[Mr. Skinny]

You guy are so disingenuous :)

Well, "argumentum ad hominem" is clearly something that many JREFers are guilty of, including R.Mackey.

I notice, in his 'paper', he has a section called "Truthers Exposed" in which he describes some of the so-called "truthers". Here's the first on the list :

Dylan Avery (23) , denied admission twice by Purchase College's film school - Director of Loose Change... Ignores all criticism... We could write pages about him alone...

What's that if it's not ad hom ?

There's probably more, but I didn't read further.
Terry,

I haven't read Mackey's paper yet, but if your quote is accurate, I'll agree that this puts an unnecessary biased slant to what I assume was meant to be a scientific paper.

However, it's not an ad hom unless he's using it to counter an argument made by Avery. I could see his statement as a general dismissal of everything Dylan says, though.

Also, if the statement is factual, I wouldn't consider it an ad hom either. The only part of Mackey's statement I see that he may not be able to support is "Ignores all criticism", but I suspect he can make a case for it if taken to task.

I'd recommend to R. Mackey that he remove anything that can't be supported, obviously, since I'm sure it will be criticized in detail by those on both sides of the argument.

Again, I've not read the paper yet as I asked him to send it to me at work, so I won't see it until Tuesday.


ETA: Just saw Mackey's post at the top of this page. Dang, I'm slow. Apologies.

[WildCat]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it isn't my paper. It has nothing to do with Dylan Avery, nor have I ever written anything called "Truthers Exposed."

Please try to keep informed.
TerryUK's post shows why the truth movement cannot be counted on to accurately research anything. He can't even acurately state the author of an article, why should we assume anything else he believes is accurate?

[TerryUK]

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it isn't my paper. It has nothing to do with Dylan Avery, nor have I ever written anything called "Truthers Exposed."

Please try to keep informed.

I had a quick look at what I assumed was your collection of docs from a link in this thread.
My apologies if it's not stuff you've included -- I'll check that again later.

[TerryUK]

TerryUK's post shows why the truth movement cannot be counted on to accurately research anything. He can't even acurately state the author of an article, why should we assume anything else he believes is accurate?

Wow, don't you guys just love to ATTACK :D

[beachnut]

It’s all revisionism on Robertson’s part nothing else…

A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

A previous analysis , carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing
(Between Early 1984 and October 1985):

“The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane.” - Leslie Robertson

However, O’Sullivan consults one of the trade centers original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.

Robertson’s revisionism after 9-11

“I support the general conclusions of the NIST report The [WTC] was designed for the impact of a low flying slow flying Boeing 707. We envisioned it [to be like] the aircraft that struck the Empire State building [during] WW II. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jets that actually hit it…”Prove the design, done by Robertson was for high speed!

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. Not a news story or hearsay, it is fact. Leslie E. Robertson, , said: on being hit by a commercial jet - " The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design [B](a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed."
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
Oops he said slow speed. Darn you are wrong before you posted. Why even try? Stop posting hearsay, bring facts. I do.

[R.Mackey]

Wow, don't you guys just love to ATTACK :D

The irony of this statement, given your inability to distinguish what I actually wrote before accusing me of ad hominem attacks, is almost unparalleled.

Please be more careful in the future.

[Mr. Skinny]

I had a quick look at what I assumed was your collection of docs from a link in this thread.
My apologies if it's not stuff you've included -- I'll check that again later.
Crap, Terry. Here, I tried to stick up for you assuming you were accurately quoting Mackey and it turns out you were wrong?

I was feeling kinda skeptical and stuff by agreeing with you on some of your points, only to be disappointed.

Bummer.

[TerryUK]

Crap, Terry. Here, I tried to stick up for you assuming you were accurately quoting Mackey and it turns out you were wrong?

I was feeling kinda skeptical and stuff by agreeing with you on some of your points, only to be disappointed.

Bummer.

My mistake, but thanks anyway !

However, I didn't make that stuff up, so it's still a valid argument of the type of stuff used by some JREFers, is it not?

[Gravy]

I had a quick look at what I assumed was your collection of docs from a link in this thread.
My apologies if it's not stuff you've included -- I'll check that again later.You are quoting Ref's 9/11 Guide (http://911guide.googlepages.com/truthersexposed). Splendid research, Terry.

[TerryUK]

You are quoting Ref's 9/11 Guide (http://911guide.googlepages.com/truthersexposed). Splendid research, Terry.

Thank you, Gravy :)

Hmmm..

[Mr. Skinny]

My mistake, but thanks anyway !

However, I didn't make that stuff up, so it's still a valid argument of the type of stuff used by some JREFers, is it not?
Sure. If it's Ref's writing, as I see a couple of posts above, I'd recommend he remove those statements he can't support.

I'm hesitant to paint all JREF'ers with the same brush, however. Do you think the Citizens Investegation Team represents all Truthers? :)

Seriously, the debate is contentious enough without letting it get personal. Sometimes though, I think we all need to step back and try to maintain cooler heads. But that's just me.

[TerryUK]

Seriously, the debate is contentious enough without letting it get personal. Sometimes though, I think we all need to step back and try to maintain cooler heads. But that's just me.

You are right, IMO.

Personally, I would prefer orderly debate, but there you go...
BTW, regarding the CT, I would love to be proven wrong in my 'suspicions'
And all I'm looking for is credible evidence, unfortunately there's always the attacks, so I guess sometimes I have to chime in...

[Slayhamlet]

My mistake, but thanks anyway !

However, I didn't make that stuff up, so it's still a valid argument of the type of stuff used by some JREFers, is it not?

No, it's not. Just because you think those specific examples are so silly as to be strawmen does not abrogate the fact that many, many people in your own movement still believe them to be valid arguments for an inside job. When I kindly suggested that you make some effort to disabuse your fellow conspiracists of these false notions in order to strengthen your own movement's case, I was repaid the favor by being accused of employing an ad hominem fallacy. Go figure.

[Mr. Skinny]

You are right, IMO.

Personally, I would prefer orderly debate, but there you go...
BTW, regarding the CT, I would love to be proven wrong in my 'suspicions'
And all I'm looking for is credible evidence, unfortunately there's always the attacks, so I guess sometimes I have to chime in...
Cool,

You've admitted you made a mistake.

Let's re-rail this thread to a discussion of Mackey's paper. (which I still haven't read :( ).

[Gravy]

Turns out, in my haste, I was scanning through a JREF guide to 9/11

JREF not Mackey, JREF... But the criticism remains no less relevant.False. That document was written by an individual who, as far as I know, does not in any way speak for the James Randi Educational Foundation.

Feel free to discuss the content of R. Mackey's paper, though.

[Crungy]

He's 'debunking' these (very easy) 'claims' and pretending they are representative of serious CT claims, which is a straw man
In fact, you could say an army of straw men :)

Serious CT claims such as, WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition, therefore it can't possibley be anything but CD and please don't mind me putting my fingers in my ear while experts in building failure anaylsis explain otherwise....

[MarkyX]

Many JREFers are only too pleased to address these very poor theories, and extract as much advantage from them as possible.


"These very poor theories" are the pillars of your movement.

[Par]

Many JREFers are only too pleased to address these very poor theories, and extract as much advantage from them as possible.


The only thing that follows from this is that the conspiracy theorists should stop using them. (Incidentally, I take no pleasure in addressing these arguments time after time after time. In fact, I find it marginally depressing. I suspect that many JREFers can sympathise.)

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm going to ask a mod to move a good deal of this thread to AAH, unless someone sees it as necessary to the discussion of RMackey's paper.

[pomeroo]

You say:" I'm not asking you to find specific errors in it, as you are incompetent to do so."

So pomeroo, why are you posting?



I am posting to complain that one of the most dishonest and scientifically-illiterate fantasists is presuming to offer substance-free criticisms of a paper he doesn't intend to read.





Why are you communicating with someone who you think is "incompetent", if you are so great?


How do you infer my "greatness" from my annoyance at Swing Dumpster's presumptuousness? Are you saying that rationalists should not communicate with conspiracy liars because the former tend to be bright and the latter are stupid and ignorant?

[rwguinn]

You called me on false authority when in fact, RMackey is not an authority on the design and construction of high-rise steel structures, nor is he a structural engineer. Therefore, he is neither qualified to support or attack NIST or critiques of NIST. He is qualified to support or critique items in his field only at least that has been the standard for the debunking.
Now how am I using a false authority argument when that has been the standard of the debunking community? I will accept your fallacy, if you can accept that the debunking community has been practicing that fallacy since the inception of the so called "truth movement".

As for your specific example: please see past comments on SLC as well as various threads on JREF where truthers have brought up critiques of any aspect of the official story.
:dl: :dl:

RMackey , and myself, to name 2, are engineers who design and analyze structures--of all types. We are required to know materials, fastening, and load paths. We are the type of engineers that STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS come to for consultation on things that are different from what has been done before.
I dare say that a Structural Engineer is better versed on Building Codes, specific construction methods (bolted, riveted, welded, Rebar, Remesh, etc) than he or I ever will be (or care to be, for that matter)
Engineering tends to be pretty specialized when it gets down to the nuts and bolts. Structural Engineers (By NSPE standards) , HVAC engineers, Nuclear Engineers, Industrial Engineers, Process Engineers (to name a few) have to be so full of their particular requirements and needs that they get the people who specialize in other things to give their advice.
Next time you see a Greyhound Bus ( a million miles is just getting broken in), or an F-16 (with the fuselage intact), or the Space Shuttle lift-off, or read about Viking's Mission to Mars, or the tethered satellite system, you can say "I have exchanged messages with a guy who worked that, and he don't know diddly"
See how many people believe you...

[pomeroo]

At the risk of changing the tone of this thread, let me ask our resident and visiting fantasists to comment on R. Mackey's refutation of the free-fall myth. Starting on page 34, Mackey dissects the often-repeated falsehood that the towers fell too quickly for a purely gravity-driven collapse, unassisted by explosives. Tell us what he gets wrong.

C'mon, now, here's your chance: tell us why Griffin's parroting of the errors of Jim Hoffman and Judy Wood has greater explanatory value than Mackey's exposition. Be specific.

[1337m4n]

One of the big tactics used by OTers on here is based on 'straw man arguments, and in Mackey's 'paper' - to stay on topic - I noticed some topics that Mackey chose to "debunk" such as:

Claim: Larry Silverstein said Pull, meaning they decided to demolish the building."

Claim: BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed. This was a script they slipped out early and proves the conspiracy.

Claim: The fallen light poles are suspicious.

A perfert example of 'straw man' is exactly what Mackey is doing -

He's 'debunking' these (very easy) 'claims' and pretending they are representative of serious CT claims, which is a straw man
In fact, you could say an army of straw men :)

This would be more believable if CTists didn't use this defense EVERY TIME A THEORY GOT DEBUNKED.

You see, each time an argument used by a CTist is proven flat-out wrong, he simply says that the argument wasn't a "serious CT claim" and accuses his opponent of "strawman" (which is a false positive anyway). Then he can safely ignore his opponents rebuttal long enough for him to pretend it was never refuted, then he can just bring it up all over again.

It seems that EVERY CT claim isn't a "serious CT claim" once it gets proven wrong. But until then, it gets parroted like the gospel truth as if it alone refutes the entire official story.

Mind you, these allegedly non-"serious" CT claims are considered VERY serious by other members of the Truth Movement. "Seriousness" is in the eye of the beholder. Why are YOU speaking on behalf of your ENTIRE MOVEMENT with regards to the "seriousness" of these claims?

You have two options: Either accept that these arguments have been thoroughly refuted, or provide reasons as to why they have not. None of this "But they weren't SERIOUS arguments lolololololol" cop-out junk. That's just a way to hide from a debate that you're afraid you can't win.

[ZENSMACK89]

Prove the design, done by Robertson was for high speed!

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. Not a news story or hearsay, it is fact.
Oops he said slow speed. Darn you are wrong before you posted. Why even try? Stop posting hearsay, bring facts. I do.
Oops just looks like more revisionism after the fact to me. Cherry picking? Just words from the horse’s mouth. Go ahead and cherry pick something he said years before the collapse that even comes close to the revisionism you cherry picked.

[beachnut]

Oops just looks like more revisionism after the fact to me. Cherry picking? Just words from the horse’s mouth. Go ahead and cherry pick something he said years before the collapse that even comes close to the revisionism you cherry picked.
You have hearsay, please produce some facts. I have facts, you have talk, you have lost.

Show me on first hand 600 mph impact study. There is only one chief engineer, it is Robertson. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349)

[Swing Dangler]

adfsadfdsafdsafdsafdsa


The speed of the design was slow speed. You can ask Robertson. The design was for a slow speed aircraft lost in the fog.

If you were smart you would ask a pilot why this was used. You might ask can a 707 do 600 mph at 1300 feet? No a 707 max speed at 1300 feet is 355 KCAS; and by law it is limited to 250 KIAS, and by law the plane is not allowed near buildings!!! And there is no reason a plane would be at 1300 feet in NYC. So what is the speed of an aircraft to impact the WTC and why? At takeoff the jet is well past 1300 feet shortly after takeoff, oops, it is not able to hit the WTC. Darn. But if the plane was landing and lost in the fog and had lots of fuel in NYC, it would leave and go to Philadelphia and land in the clear weather. But if the plane was lost and low on fuel it could hit the WTC! Oops, slow speed, low fuel is the most likely accident, there is no regular time a plane is near the WTC. And a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet when the pilot is a rational person.

Now I will ask Robertson what he says. BTW, the NIST stuff about 600 and the other people that say 600 is hearsay, no one who built the WTC said 600 mph.

Here is what the chief structural engineer said – he wrote this first hand. This is not a news story or hearsay, it is fact. [/FONT][/SIZE]

So you are wrong and R Mackey is correct. You could look up this stuff and do your own research and stop being a truther who clings to hearsay. You need training on seeing hearsay!

I should ask a pilot? Why? You aren't a structural engineer.
And there is no reason a plane would be at 1300 feet in NYC.
LOL. Ok. Tell the terrorists that. You've never had a mechanical malfunction to cause to you to fly that low? So the law now determines the altitude of planes? Check.

Your telling me I rely on hearsay, correct? Please do explain that and make sure you mention NIST as part of the hearsay.


Please see NIST. Also, I'm also relying on the comments of the head structural engineer after the 1993 attack. This of course at a time when the design parameters of the building would be at the beck and call of the designers and engineers. We would expect them to be pouring over all aspects of the design of the building as well. And the fact of the matter is who would know the parameters of the building better than the head structural engineer after an attack on his building.
I'm also relying on this fact as originally sourced from the document that was used as part of the buildings critique when confronted by lawsuit questioning the integrity of the building. This of course contradicts Mr. Robertson statements.
I'm curious if accepting Mr. Robertson's statement here, will the reader also accept Mr. Robertson's comments on the condition of molten steel 21 days after the attacks?

Oh, and one other thing, did Mr. Robertson give the calculations to NIST?

[bje]

You say:" I'm not asking you to find specific errors in it, as you are incompetent to do so."

So pomeroo, why are you posting? Why are you communicating with someone who you think is "incompetent", if you are so great?


Actually, if you want to be respectful to everyone here, TerryUK, you'll want to head back to the thread you abandoned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91897) and try to support your position.

That would be the courteous thing to do for those who have given their time to helping you out.

[Swing Dangler]

At the risk of changing the tone of this thread, let me ask our resident and visiting fantasists to comment on R. Mackey's refutation of the free-fall myth. Starting on page 34, Mackey dissects the often-repeated falsehood that the towers fell too quickly for a purely gravity-driven collapse, unassisted by explosives. Tell us what he gets wrong.

C'mon, now, here's your chance: tell us why Griffin's parroting of the errors of Jim Hoffman and Judy Wood has greater explanatory value than Mackey's exposition. Be specific.

Actually, Mr. Mackey should take it upon himself to confront structural engineers who find fault with NIST instead of a theology professor.

Will that happen, R. Mackey?

[A W Smith]

The speed of the design was slow speed. You can ask Robertson. The design was for a slow speed aircraft lost in the fog.
So how would a plane hit the WTC at 600 mph in an accident? What is the most likely impact design for an aircraft impact? And how could it be 600 mph since it would have shown damage to the core and the people would be trapped, Robertson would not call that building survival, and he would have designed for the 600 mph if that was the design but it was about 180 mph with flaps down low fuel.

Leslie Robertson / steven Jones interview

809yUTtygto

part two

s5yYGfZY5rw

part three

wCE-TCtShqM

[Swing Dangler]

:dl: :dl:

RMackey , and myself, to name 2, are engineers who design and analyze structures--of all types. We are required to know materials, fastening, and load paths. We are the type of engineers that STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS come to for consultation on things that are different from what has been done before.
I dare say that a Structural Engineer is better versed on Building Codes, specific construction methods (bolted, riveted, welded, Rebar, Remesh, etc) than he or I ever will be (or care to be, for that matter)
Engineering tends to be pretty specialized when it gets down to the nuts and bolts. Structural Engineers (By NSPE standards) , HVAC engineers, Nuclear Engineers, Industrial Engineers, Process Engineers (to name a few) have to be so full of their particular requirements and needs that they get the people who specialize in other things to give their advice.
Next time you see a Greyhound Bus ( a million miles is just getting broken in), or an F-16 (with the fuselage intact), or the Space Shuttle lift-off, or read about Viking's Mission to Mars, or the tethered satellite system, you can say "I have exchanged messages with a guy who worked that, and he don't know diddly"
See how many people believe you...

I missed the part where you were a structural engineer who is responsible for the design of buildings. It sounds to me like you are a mechanical engineer, correct?

If I want to discuss satellite systems, cell phone satellites for the entire continent of South America or some of the inner workings of the International Space Station and its systems, I will talk to my brother-in-law Ron an employee of a private contractor. I suspect you can narrow it down and perhaps you share the same Employer.
If I want to discuss weapon's sales to foreign countries I will contact his wife. Frankly, I'm not impressed by the resume.

Now if you can trace the route of the mythical fireball to the basement of WTC: North Tower, I would be happy to discuss that with you. Because I have yet to see that happen from a tour guide, a rocket scientist, or NIST for that matter.

[R.Mackey]

Actually, Mr. Mackey should take it upon himself to confront structural engineers who find fault with NIST instead of a theology professor.

Will that happen, R. Mackey?

:D You really need to stop confusing arguments and qualifications.

I also see you still haven't read my paper. I too find "fault" with NIST, and I outline three such faults in detail. Stop contaminating my thread until you know what you're talking about.

Many structural engineers have comments on NIST. We all know it's imperfect. I discuss them in depth.

Now, if you mean "structural engineers who support the Truth Movement," then please, send them my way. If you can find any, that is. ;)

[R.Mackey]

Now if you can trace the route of the mythical fireball to the basement of WTC: North Tower, I would be happy to discuss that with you. Because I have yet to see that happen from a tour guide, a rocket scientist, or NIST for that matter.


"Mythical fireball?" Are you suggesting that Willliam Rodriguez's story of a fireball -- backed by real burn victims -- was a myth? He's not 100% accurate, but I'm quite confident that there was such a fireball.

Elevator shaft 50A, that's the path. Real easy. It's been told to you before, so go find out where.

[ZENSMACK89]

You have hearsay, please produce some facts. I have facts, you have talk, you have lost.

Show me on first hand 600 mph impact study. There is only one chief engineer, it is Robertson. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349)
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.” - Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” - City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131

[R.Mackey]

... and all three accounts fit, to the letter, what was seen in WTC 1 and WTC 2.

NIST agrees that, had the fires been extinguished, neither structure would have collapsed, nor would occupants outside the immediate impact area have been imperiled.

How, exactly, anyone was supposed to put out those fires, on the other hand, remains an open question.

There is no dispute here, except among the most fervent cherry-pickers. This has been explained here at the JREF Forum hundreds of times. Let's not derail any further.

[beachnut]

I should ask a pilot? Why? You aren't a structural engineer.

LOL. Ok. Tell the terrorists that. You've never had a mechanical malfunction to cause to you to fly that low? So the law now determines the altitude of planes? Check.

Your telling me I rely on hearsay, correct? Please do explain that and make sure you mention NIST as part of the hearsay.


Please see NIST. Also, I'm also relying on the comments of the head structural engineer after the 1993 attack. This of course at a time when the design parameters of the building would be at the beck and call of the designers and engineers. We would expect them to be pouring over all aspects of the design of the building as well. And the fact of the matter is who would know the parameters of the building better than the head structural engineer after an attack on his building.
I'm also relying on this fact as originally sourced from the document that was used as part of the buildings critique when confronted by lawsuit questioning the integrity of the building. This of course contradicts Mr. Robertson statements.
I'm curious if accepting Mr. Robertson's statement here, will the reader also accept Mr. Robertson's comments on the condition of molten steel 21 days after the attacks?

Oh, and one other thing, did Mr. Robertson give the calculations to NIST?
I am an engineer and a pilot. But better yet, I have Robertson who did the design for a slow speed aircraft, you and NIST have just hearsay, you have failed to produce first hand facts, I have. You have lost again.

FACTS Leslie E. Robertson,- "...our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). … "
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) FACTS, like first hand stuff. Not your error of hearsay junk.

Point match game

[TerryUK]

"Mythical fireball?" Are you suggesting that Willliam Rodriguez's story of a fireball -- backed by real burn victims -- was a myth?

Do I detect the tactic of using the part of Rodriguez's story that suit you whilst, at other times discrediting him?

[A W Smith]

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.” - Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” - City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131

You have failed to connect Skillings quote with the assertion of high speed in the white paper. Dismissed

[ZENSMACK89]

:D You really need to stop confusing arguments and qualifications.

I also see you still haven't read my paper. I too find "fault" with NIST, and I outline three such faults in detail. Stop contaminating my thread until you know what you're talking about.

Many structural engineers have comments on NIST. We all know it's imperfect. I discuss them in depth.

Now, if you mean "structural engineers who support the Truth Movement," then please, send them my way. If you can find any, that is. ;)
http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/9

Jun 04, 2007
Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11

http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA

Mike Swenson, PhD., Structural Engineer *
Structural Engineering - Florida A&M Uni
Tampa, Florida

Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer
West Bend, WI

Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural /
San Diego, California

[R.Mackey]

Do I detect the tactic of using the part of Rodriguez's story that suit you whilst, at other times discrediting him?

Not in the least. You detect the logic of using the parts of Rodriguez's story that can be verified, whilst, at other times, ignoring those parts that are contradicted by physical evidence or physical law.

Read my paper, then comment on my paper, or please find somewhere else to be snide. I will report you for derailing if you persist any further.

[Gravy]

"Mythical fireball?" Are you suggesting that Willliam Rodriguez's story of a fireball -- backed by real burn victims -- was a myth? He's not 100% accurate, but I'm quite confident that there was such a fireball.

Elevator shaft 50A, that's the path. Real easy. It's been told to you before, so go find out where.Holy cow. Could Swing Dangler be any more in denial?

[TerryUK]

Actually, if you want to be respectful to everyone here, TerryUK, you'll want to head back to the thread you abandoned (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91897) and try to support your position.

That would be the courteous thing to do for those who have given their time to helping you out.
I don't think most there were helping me out so much as just criticising, but nevertheless, I will have a look later.

[R.Mackey]

[List deleted]



Now, for a good laugh, present their reasoning. I can't debate a name, I need a position. Let's see it.

[ZENSMACK89]

You have failed to connect Skillings quote with the assertion of high speed in the white paper. Dismissed
I'm sorry I thought this was asked...

"Show me on first hand 600 mph impact study. There is only one chief engineer, it is Robertson."

[TerryUK]

Read my paper, then comment on my paper, or please find somewhere else to be snide. I will report you for derailing if you persist any further.

OK, it's your thread. If you want to "report" me, that's your choice.
You'd better report all the guys I'm replying to as well, no? That won't happen though. :)

[ZENSMACK89]

Now, for a good laugh, present their reasoning. I can't debate a name, I need a position. Let's see it.
I gave you the source and I gave you more then one.

I thought your contention was there weren't any to be found?

[Alt+F4]

It’s all revisionism on Robertson’s part nothing else…

A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.”

The paper you to refer to is "Salient points with regard to the structural design of the World Trade Center towers" and it was written by Malcolm P. Levy a Port Authority Engineer, not Leslie Robertson.

No where in that report is there a discussion regarding what effect jet fuel would have in a 707 crashing into the World Trade Center. Since a 707 is smaller than a 767 perhaps a 707 low on fuel would not have brought down the tower. However we'll never know because the effect of a fully fueled 707 crashing into the towers (at any speed) was never analyzed, just as Leslie Robertson said.

[beachnut]

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or McDonald Douglas DC-8. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there.” - Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision, The Seattle Times, 2/27/93

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

“The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” - City in the Sky, Times Books, Henry Hold and Company, LLC, 2003, page 131
You need to read! Robertson was the chief, the lead, the man. His name is on the stuff! You should have looked it up you are fact less looking now.

Robertson is the chief engineer of the WTC Towers. http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349 (http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1349) Robertson is it.

Please produce the white paper for me. BTW, they only have the speed wrong because people have inserted the speed after looking up the top speed of a 707. Oops, a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet; you have made an error of not researching and understanding flight. You should have asked a pilot, like me.

If you notice you have produced hearsay, I present facts! Sorry you have been beat with facts.

Leslie E. Robertson,- "...our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). … "
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)

The speed is wrong, what you hear about localized damage and the building would be due to a low speed impact. Sorry as an engineer is it clear to see a high speed impact would destory the WTC; if they had designed for a high speed impact the towers would be standing today. The impact energy is an order of magnitude greater on 9/11 than the design, you have hearsay, I have the facts from the source.

[R.Mackey]

I gave you the source and I gave you more then one.

I thought your contention was there weren't any to be found?

No, I merely suggested it would be difficult. You had to dip into non-practicing BS SE's and folks so old that they were grandfathered into their PE certificates just in order to find six. Obviously they're not common.

Now, then, you didn't give me the "Source," you gave me names.

I'll tell you what: Contact them. Get whatever published papers they have on the subject. What? None? Well, then, get whatever conference papers they have. None of those either? Gosh. Well, in that case, get whatever whitepapers, or even just an e-mail description of why they believe what they do.

And I'll destroy it for you. That's a promise.

But do it in a new thread. This one is to discuss my whitepaper. If those six want to look it over and attempt to find errors, they are welcome too.

[A W Smith]

I'm sorry I thought this was asked...

"Show me on first hand 600 mph impact study. There is only one chief engineer, it is Robertson."

listen to what Robertson has to say about the speed in the above youtube links i posted

[ZENSMACK89]

You need to read! Robertson was the chief, the lead, the man. His name is on the stuff! You should have looked it up you are fact less looking now.



Please produce the white paper for me. BTW, they only have the speed wrong because people have inserted the speed after looking up the top speed of a 707. Oops, a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet; you have made an error of not researching and understanding flight. You should have asked a pilot, like me.

If you notice you have produced hearsay, I present facts! Sorry you have been beat with facts.



The speed is wrong, what you hear about localized damage and the building would be due to a low speed impact. Sorry as an engineer is it clear to see a high speed impact would destory the WTC; if they had designed for a high speed impact the towers would be standing today. The impact energy is an order of magnitude greater on 9/11 than the design, you have hearsay, I have the facts from the source.
"people have inserted the speed after looking up the top speed of a 707. Oops, a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet;"

What people? The fairies of disinformation and their evil time machine?

http://books.google.com/books?id=yE1Pyui4GpkC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=skilling+february+3+1964+wtc&source=web&ots=He2N57N9oT&sig=ufoV_8FBvqjWoLVMUU13WniIsz4

[ZENSMACK89]

No, I merely suggested it would be difficult. You had to dip into non-practicing BS SE's and folks so old that they were grandfathered into their PE certificates just in order to find six. Obviously they're not common.

Now, then, you didn't give me the "Source," you gave me names.

I'll tell you what: Contact them. Get whatever published papers they have on the subject. What? None? Well, then, get whatever conference papers they have. None of those either? Gosh. Well, in that case, get whatever whitepapers, or even just an e-mail description of why they believe what they do.

And I'll destroy it for you. That's a promise.

But do it in a new thread. This one is to discuss my whitepaper. If those six want to look it over and attempt to find errors, they are welcome too.
I gave you three links. Two of the links are articles. Now that you've re-qualified your original assertion under what age is acceptable?

Maybe you should have saved your original request for another thread if you didn’t really want anyone to answer it.

[boloboffin]

One of the big tactics used by OTers on here is based on 'straw man arguments, and in Mackey's 'paper' - to stay on topic - I noticed some topics that Mackey chose to "debunk" such as:

Claim: Larry Silverstein said Pull, meaning they decided to demolish the building."

Claim: BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed. This was a script they slipped out early and proves the conspiracy.

Claim: The fallen light poles are suspicious.

A perfert example of 'straw man' is exactly what Mackey is doing -

He's 'debunking' these (very easy) 'claims' and pretending they are representative of serious CT claims, which is a straw man
In fact, you could say an army of straw men :)

I'd also point out, Mackey is not choosing what to debunk. He's going virtually line by line through David Ray Griffin's chapter on NIST. If you have an issue with the claims Mackey is debunking, take it up with Griffin.

However, I will gladly accept this as your admission that David Ray Griffin is not a "representative of serious CT claims." Would you mind if I quote you on that? A lot of people around DU jumped up and down with joy when DRG released his book.

[beachnut]

"people have inserted the speed after looking up the top speed of a 707. Oops, a 707 does not do 600 mph at 1300 feet;"

What people? The fairies of disinformation and their evil time machine?

http://books.google.com/books?id=yE1Pyui4GpkC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=skilling+february+3+1964+wtc&source=web&ots=He2N57N9oT&sig=ufoV_8FBvqjWoLVMUU13WniIsz4
The speed should be 180 mph. You lost again.

I will try again to show you what the Chief Engineer of the WTC said so you will see.
Leslie E. Robertson,- "...our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). … "
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument)
Which part of slow do you have a problem with?

BTW, a 707 top speed at 1300 feet is 355 KCAS. Do you understand? Please acknowledge.

The book you cited does not source the 600 mph, it is not a quote it is an error. You now have passed on hearsay bs and you have lost again. Produce a fact, not hearsay stuff.

If you would read you own source you would see he made up the 600 mph, the weight, and more about the study; he never saw the study! You have made up stuff about the WTC and you believed a book that was not sourced on the very subject you think you have something. You have failed to find a fact, but you have hearsay. you lost - please read you sources and stop presenting hearsay!

[ZENSMACK89]

The speed should be 180 mph. You lost again.

I will try again to show you what the Chief Engineer of the WTC said so you will see.

Which part of slow do you have a problem with?

BTW, a 707 top speed at 1300 feet is 355 KCAS. Do you understand? Please acknowledge.

The book you cited does not source the 600 mph, it is not a quote it is an error. You now have passed on hearsay bs and you have lost again. Produce a fact, not hearsay stuff.

If you would read you own source you would see he made up the 600 mph, the weight, and more about the study; he never saw the study! You have made up stuff about the WTC and you believed a book that was not sourced on the very subject you think you have something. You have failed to find a fact, but you have hearsay. you lost - please read you sources and stop presenting hearsay!
What don't you understand about the difference between what was said before and what was said after?

Revisionism. Nothing else.

[beachnut]

listen to what Robertson has to say about the speed in the above youtube links i postedAnother source; thanks, he repeats the slow speed and tells the differences. No hearsay, just facts. Jones is nuts!

Leslie Robertson / steven Jones interview

809yUTtygto

part two

s5yYGfZY5rw

part three

wCE-TCtShqM

The first audio is good;
Audio 1 has the Chief Engineer on the WTC, Robertson. Slow flying 707! An accident, not designed for high speed impact!

Now I have another source, written, audio, thanks.

[ref]

Well, that was a good laugh.

First Terry was browsing through my entire website and thought it was all part of Mackey's paper :D For the record. The "Truthers Exposed" is not even meant to be a scientific paper. It is just me showing the true nature of truthers in my own way.

Then he quoted parts of my Guide to 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, and thought it was JREF guide. Terry, my nickname is 'ref' this place is called JREF. I have nothing to do with JREF other than posting on this forum.

And for the record again, everything on my site I produce by myself, unless stated or credited otherwise. So, for example, Mackey has written only his papers on the ryanmackey subpage :D I thought this was clear, but it always isn't. :p

[beachnut]

What don't you understand about the difference between what was said before and what was said after?

Revisionism. Nothing else.
Any one with some physics and real reseach abilities can see the impacts on 9/11 were not what was talked about in the so called white paper. The speed of impact, the weight of the 707, were all added by other people, not the engineers who built the WTC towers. I can see it, ordinary people can see it, but truther can not;;; hot tub time

R Mackey - Outstanding job!!!

[Alt+F4]

What don't you understand about the difference between what was said before and what was said after?

Revisionism. Nothing else.

What don't you understand about the fact that the 1964 "white paper" you quote says nothing about the effect to the WTC of a fully fueled 707 crashing into it?

[ZENSMACK89]

In 1993 Skilling did claim to have considered the fuel.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Eric Nalder
Saturday, February 27, 1993
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

[Alt+F4]

In 1993 Skilling did claim to have considered the fuel.

Revisionism. Nothing else.

[ZENSMACK89]

Revisionism. Nothing else.
Maybe but it's still way before 9-11.

BTW which plane on 9-11 was fully fueled when it hit the towers?

[R.Mackey]

BTW which plane on 9-11 was fully fueled when it hit the towers?

[RE-RAIL] The answer to that is in my paper. Would you like a copy? [/RE-RAIL]

hint hint Rule 11 hint hint

[Alt+F4]

Maybe but it's still way before 9-11.

BTW which plane on 9-11 was fully fueled when it hit the towers?

Are you saying that UA175 and AA11 were not flying from Boston to Los Angeles?

[Alt+F4]

Sorry, I'm responsible for the derail as well, will stop.

I'm only half way done with the article, but thank you Mackey.

[CHF]

In 1993 Skilling did claim to have considered the fuel.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227

Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
Eric Nalder
Saturday, February 27, 1993
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So what has Skilling said about 9/11? Oh right - he died in 1998. So let's go with him instead of Robertson, shall we?

[A W Smith]

Maybe but it's still way before 9-11.

BTW which plane on 9-11 was fully fueled when it hit the towers?


page 152

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/RMackey_drg_nist_review_1_0.pdf

[Corsair 115]

Are you saying that UA175 and AA11 were not flying from Boston to Los Angeles?I suspect Zen is about to launch an objection involving the definition of the word "fully."

[Hokulele]

Hi R.Mackey (if you are still reading this thread), I did have one question on your paper. On page 148 (real page numbers, not PDF numbers), you are discussing the Arup review and its conclusions. In this section, you have two bullet points right next to each other.

Arup models predict that had there been no structural member damage from impact - only fireproofing damage - the fires alone would have been sufficient to destroy the Towers, whereas NIST predicts column damage is an essential element for collapse.

As a result, the NIST recommendations for future construction are too focused on fireproofing, and diminish the value of carefully planned structural redundancy that could help eliminate the particular fire failure mode of the WTC Towers.

My question is, did Arup take into account the cost factors of fireproofing vs. structural redundancy? As an admitted layperson in most of this, it would seem to me that NIST recommendations to the building code are somewhat constrained by real-world building practices.

Sorry, I am reading your paper kind of inside-out, in that I read the intro and conclusion first, and this section on NIST criticisms kind of caught my eye in passing.

[Gravy]

I suspect Zen is about to launch an objection involving the definition of the word "fully."We'll nip that in the bud. Neither plane was fully loaded with fuel. Both had more than adequate fuel to fly from Boston to California: over 30 tons of fuel aboard each plane at impact. In technical parlance that's know as a "crapload of fuel."

[Gravy]

My question is, did Arup take into account the cost factors of fireproofing vs. structural redundancy? As an admitted layperson in most of this, it would seem to me that NIST recommendations to the building code are somewhat constrained by real-world building practices.Ryan will no doubt weigh in, but I'll throw in my two cents. ARUP (and Usmani/Chung/Torero at U. Edinburgh) claim that the towers' construction made them susceptible to instability due to thermal expansion in the unusual case of a severe, multi-floor fire: a factor that NIST gave little or no consideration to. The 1990's (and some of the more recent) Cardington, England tests had found that the 8-story fire test facility, which was built to represent a typical composite steel framed office building, showed greater than expected structural redundancy in a severe fire.

The Twin Towers weren't of typical construction, then or today. However, many modern office buildings do share one or more features with the towers, such as narrow stairwells closely-spaced within lightly-protected cores, an abundance of lightweight passive fire protection, floor plans with limited partitions to resist fire spread, active fire suppression systems that may be inadequate for a large fire, etc.

AFAIK, ARUP didn't make building code recommendations based on their WTC studies (although engineers and owners of buildings built like the Twin Towers no doubt paid attention). They were simply pointing out that NIST may have missed an important alternate reason that the towers could have collapsed due to fire.

[Hokulele]

AFAIK, ARUP didn't make building code recommendations based on their WTC studies (although engineers and owners of buildings built like the Twin Towers no doubt paid attention). They were simply pointing out that NIST may have missed an important alternate reason that the towers could have collapsed due to fire.


Ah, the quotes make sense to me now. Having them follow directly, as they did in the paper, made it seem as if Arup was making the recommendation, as opposed to it being simply a general critcism of the recommendations NIST did make.

I need to stop reading technical papers in the middle of a long weekend.

[Hokulele]

Nitpick, is Arup/ARUP all caps, or initial caps? All the references I have seen so far in the paper are initial cap.

[Gravy]

Nitpick, is Arup/ARUP all caps, or initial caps? All the references I have seen so far in the paper are initial cap.RM is of course correct: it's Arup. I picked up the all caps from a document of theirs long ago (their logo is also all caps), and never shook the habit. Some recent topics of discussion from their fire protection engineers: http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=8787

[Hokulele]

RM is of course correct: it's Arup. I picked up the all caps from a document of theirs long ago (their logo is also all caps), and never shook the habit.


Heh, the NASA scientist corrects the English major.



(Sorry, couldn't resist. You were an English major, yes? I think I remember a reference made at one point.)


ETA: Dammit, now you've given me links to more technical works I want to read! Bah, enough fire/structural/building engineering for one evening. Off to do something less brain-sweaty.

[leftysergeant]

If I want to discuss satellite systems, cell phone satellites for the entire continent of South America or some of the inner workings of the International Space Station and its systems, I will talk to my brother-in-law Ron an employee of a private contractor. I suspect you can narrow it down and perhaps you share the same Employer.
If I want to discuss weapon's sales to foreign countries I will contact his wife. Frankly, I'm not impressed by the resume.

And yet you expect us to take the word of a theologian, or the word of a half-baked architect stupid enough to believe that he has pictures of thermite-cut core columns from the towers? Why? And what did you say your credentials are? So far, I have seen no indication that you have any more credentials than say Killtown or his idiot friend Rumpl4skin who cooked up the hatchet job on Val McClatchey. Your next question shows that you have not been paying attention to much else that is posted on this forum, because you missed the link to the video of a backdraft that would go far to explaining the explosion that William Rodriguez experienced in the basement.

Now if you can trace the route of the mythical fireball to the basement of WTC: North Tower, I would be happy to discuss that with you. Because I have yet to see that happen from a tour guide, a rocket scientist, or NIST for that matter.

The express elevator was the route by which the fireball entered the basement. It's that simple.

[Gravy]

Heh, the NASA scientist corrects the English major.

(Sorry, couldn't resist. You were an English major, yes? I think I remember a reference made at one point.)Yes, but you see, unlike engineering credentials, my artistic (or is it autistic?) license is valid everywhere. :)

ETA: Dammit, now you've given me links to more technical works I want to read! Bah, enough fire/structural/building engineering for one evening. Off to do something less brain-sweaty.The peoples of the barbaric lands northwest of France have a surprising amount of fire protection engineering material online.

When I was in business I had a standing policy that I would attend no meeting that would include a PowerPoint presentation. This freed up a tremendous amount of time for actual work, although alienating every client, vendor, and co-worker with that policy gave me less to do in the long run. I've learned that I wasn't as repulsed by bad PowerPoint design as I was by the presenters themselves, and by having to pretend that I cared about the developments in some salesperson's home life. "Hey! Is the little one walking yet? No!–she's four? Four? C'mon, how can she be getting older when you get younger every time I see you?"

Now I can enjoy PowerPoint slides while filling in the details myself and eating no crullers, as I did with this Arup presentation today (http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/WS_2005-11/PPT/Lamont_ppt.pdf) (it's a pdf).

Foolmewunz's thread (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2928440&postcount=10) with photos of the new Airbus A380 in front of Hong Kong's Two International Finance Centre reminded me of an Arup publication (http://www.jcss.ethz.ch/events/WS_2005-11/PPT/Lamont_ppt.pdf) that I had taken notes on a while back:

At the time of the 9/11 attacks in New York, the 2IFC building had been constructed up to the 30th floor. Perhaps not surprisingly, 2IFC was subjected to intense re-analysis and verification to assess the safety of the design and potential implications for re-design.

The studies and their findings revealed that the design was inherently sound, requiring no changes, and provided direct feedback to world practice on the design of tall buildings post 9/11. Dynamic robustness concepts have taken an elevated importance on the world stage following 2IFC studies – specifically, the need for codified ductility requirements at floor plate connections to avoid disproportionate collapse.

Towering at 420m (1378 ft) and 88 storeys, 2IFC is one of the tallest buildings in East Asia, and just a part of the multi-phase US$3 billion IFC Development. In all, it provides a total floor area of 180 000 square meters (1.94 million square feet, about half that of one WTC tower) of grade A office accommodation. From that snippet it appears that the re-analysis focused on the floor-column connections, which at the time were the primary areas of interest in the Twin Tower collapses and which NIST eventually determined were not the culprits. 2IFC did have another factor in its favor: a concrete core.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046dbd97a32f3d.jpg

[pomeroo]

Actually, Mr. Mackey should take it upon himself to confront structural engineers who find fault with NIST instead of a theology professor.

Will that happen, R. Mackey?


You are living down to your reputation for dishonesty. Where are the "structural engineers who find fault with NIST"? Do they exist? Start by naming ONE.

An ignorant, deliberately deceptive theologian has published a book that uses lies and misinformation to counter the fact-based arguments advanced by rationalists. Mackey has chosen to cut off this particular head of the fantasist Hydra.

As you refuse to confront Mackey's methods and conclusions, you should abandon this discussion.

[pomeroo]

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/9

Jun 04, 2007
Charles Pegelow, BS CE – Civil Engineer with more than 25 years experience in structural design questions the official account of the events of 9/11

http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php

Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA

Mike Swenson, PhD., Structural Engineer *
Structural Engineering - Florida A&M Uni
Tampa, Florida

Dennis J. Kollar, P.E., Structural Engineer
West Bend, WI

Rich Reed, B.S. Structural Engineering, UC San, Structural /
San Diego, California



Rice is an old man in his eighties, long retired from teaching, who has apparently read nothing on the collapse of the towers. Pegelow works on oil rigs.

Nobody ever heard of the others. Are you sure they're not more conspiracy liars masquerading as engineers?

[pomeroo]

What don't you understand about the difference between what was said before and what was said after?

Revisionism. Nothing else.


What don't you understand about the difference between what was roughly estimated--more precisely, guessed at--forty years ago and what can now be simulated on computers with abilities undreamed of back then?

Willful ignorance. Nothing else.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
The 1990's (and some of the more recent) Cardington, England tests had found that the 8-story fire test facility, which was built to represent a typical composite steel framed office building, showed greater than expected structural redundancy in a severe fire.

<snip>

Just a note (and I'm sure I've said this before). Although there was no collapse of the Cardington steel building, there was severe damage. The damage was so bad after one test, (if I remember correctly it involved a fire over about half of one floor) NO personnel were allowed on that part of the building after the fire. This fire was so large that ALL pesonnel had to witness the test from outside the laboratory. It was very crowded around the doorways!

Dave

[jmercer]

Although I see it's calmed down a bit, I just split off multiple posts to AAH due to their content. I did leave certain posts concerning comments about quality of research and so forth; however, I ask that all participants keep things focused on the primary topic and not on the people involved in the discussion going forward.

If necessary, I will make this a moderated thread - but I'd rather not.

Thanks for your cooperation, all.

[pomeroo]

Rice is an old man in his eighties, long retired from teaching, who has apparently read nothing on the collapse of the towers. Pegelow works on oil rigs.

Nobody ever heard of the others. Are you sure they're not more conspiracy liars masquerading as engineers?


As a follow-up, I invite anyone, rationalist or fantasist, to read Rice's article and tell me that it doesn't sound exactly like the threadbare rubbish trotted out by every fifteen-year-old "revolutionary." I mean, this guy's an engineer?

[e^n]

Mackey, would it be ok with you if I converted your current version to LaTeX and cleaned it up a bit? Word documents are so horrendously ugly.

[Brainster]

Mike Swenson, PhD., Structural Engineer *
Structural Engineering - Florida A&M Uni
Tampa, Florida

The * indicates that his credentials have not been verified by Gage's group. Here's the real Mike Swenson (http://9-11.meetup.com/260/members/3051660/) in Tampa:

"My name is Michael Swenson. I'm a 26 year old FT. student, screenwriter, web designer, and activist in St. Petersburg. I'm married with two beautiful daughters. I am anxious to share my feelings and thoughts with this group. Visit: www.truthorlie.org"

Somehow forgot to mention his PhD in Structural Engineering?

[Gravy]

Just a note (and I'm sure I've said this before). Although there was no collapse of the Cardington steel building, there was severe damage. The damage was so bad after one test, (if I remember correctly it involved a fire over about half of one floor) NO personnel were allowed on that part of the building after the fire. This fire was so large that ALL pesonnel had to witness the test from outside the laboratory. It was very crowded around the doorways!

DaveYes, my comments were too brief and may be misleading. For those who don't know, Dave_46 was in the fire protection business and as you can tell, he was present at at least one of the major Cardington tests. The Cardington tests were done on portions of the model building they constructed inside an old dirigible hangar. They created very large fires, but nothing of the scale of the WTC blazes. They were testing undamaged construction, primarily with thermally protected columns and unprotected beams. The unprotected steel in particular was sometimes severely damaged, but no floor collapses occurred.

One of the intriguing results of these important tests is the idea that the catenary action of the heated beams and tensile membrane action of the sagging floors can be used to resist, rather than to cause, progressive collapse – as long as the columns can stand the inward pulling force. Additionally, local buckling of beams can relieve stresses that might threaten the structure's stability. The result can be a building that looks like a mess and may not be able to be occupied again (think One Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia) but that doesn't collapse on occupants or emergency personnel.

There have been buildings that incorporate these results by having a percentage of their floor beams thermally unprotected, although AFAIK none of these have had a serious fire.

None of this should be construed by conspiracists to represent the structures or conditions of the WTC buildings that collapsed.

[R.Mackey]

Just a note (and I'm sure I've said this before). Although there was no collapse of the Cardington steel building, there was severe damage. The damage was so bad after one test, (if I remember correctly it involved a fire over about half of one floor) NO personnel were allowed on that part of the building after the fire. This fire was so large that ALL pesonnel had to witness the test from outside the laboratory. It was very crowded around the doorways!

Dave

Welcome back, Dave_46, I remembered you were present at the tests.

One of the factors in Cardington that I found in my research was that, while the floor trusses were not protected from the fires, the columns were. This explains why there was no total collapse, even though it looks awfully bad. There's at least one photograph in my references showing huge deformation of all the floors, but the columns are still standing straight and true. This is also verified by the raw temperature data -- yes, folks, even that is available for download. I discuss it in the text.

Bottom line, fireproofing makes all the difference in the world.


Mackey, would it be ok with you if I converted your current version to LaTeX and cleaned it up a bit? Word documents are so horrendously ugly.

Go right ahead. You will find that my licensing terms are extremely generous, although I of course appreciate your asking first.

[Kent1]

I'm curious if accepting Mr. Robertson's statement here, will the reader also accept Mr. Robertson's comments on the condition of molten steel 21 days after the attacks?


Considering Mr. Robertson never said he saw molten steel 21 days later and it was an error in James Williams article, I have no problem in stating that I do not accept this claim. I e-mailed both of them myself.

http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

However I'm not saying there wasn't any molten/melted steel either.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
The Cardington tests were done on portions of the model building they constructed inside an old dirigible hangar.
<snip>

Just to make it absolutely clear, so that conspiracy fantacists don't start nibbleing at a supposed discrepancy, the "model building" was at twelve inches to the foot scale, i.e. full size.

Welcome back, Dave_46, I remembered you were present at the tests.

One of the factors in Cardington that I found in my research was that, while the floor trusses were not protected from the fires, the columns were.
snip>

I didn't go away, I tend to lurk rather than post these days, as the fantacists haven't been posting much in my area of knowledge.

Again, to make it clear, there were not "trusses" in the Cardington steel building. The horizontal members were steel beams, not fabricated trusses.

Dave

[R.Mackey]

Again, to make it clear, there were not "trusses" in the Cardington steel building. The horizontal members were steel beams, not fabricated trusses.

Dave

You are correct, of course. The photographs show them clearly to be beams. Mea culpa, and thanks.

[leftysergeant]

You are living down to your reputation for dishonesty. Where are the "structural engineers who find fault with NIST"? Do they exist? Start by naming ONE.

Does it count that a fire engineer takes issue with one aspect?

Quinteire takes issue with the idea that the towers fell because the insulation was torn away.

The twoofers, of course, take that to mean that he is on their side.

In actuality, he said that the towers were doomed anyway because the insulation was inadequate in the first place.

His issue seems to be with the idea that the commission may not have performed a vitally needed function of government, i.e., to make recommendations that would have prevented a future disaster based on things that should have come out of their investigation.

(This may be the only political aspect to their findings. It would have caused an imposition on private industry to place more regulations on how they can put buildings together. Not very Republican, is it?)

[Civilized Worm]

You guy are so disingenuous :)

Well, "argumentum ad hominem" is clearly something that many JREFers are guilty of, including R.Mackey.


Examples please.


I notice, in his 'paper', he has a section called "Truthers Exposed" in which he describes some of the so-called "truthers". Here's the first on the list :

Dylan Avery (23) , denied admission twice by Purchase College's film school - Director of Loose Change... Ignores all criticism... We could write pages about him alone...

What's that if it's not ad hom ?


Well it's definately not an ad hom. You could try agruing that it was a case of poisoning the well, but I doubt you'd get very far.


One of the big tactics used by OTers on here is based on 'straw man arguments, and in Mackey's 'paper' - to stay on topic - I noticed some topics that Mackey chose to "debunk" such as:

Claim: Larry Silverstein said Pull, meaning they decided to demolish the building."

Claim: BBC reported WTC 7 had collapsed before it actually collapsed. This was a script they slipped out early and proves the conspiracy.

Claim: The fallen light poles are suspicious.

A perfert example of 'straw man' is exactly what Mackey is doing -

He's 'debunking' these (very easy) 'claims' and pretending they are representative of serious CT claims, which is a straw man
In fact, you could say an army of straw men :)


He's debunking claims that were made by David Ray Griffin in his latest book, these are not fringe claims or strawmen.

[Gravy]

Does it count that a fire engineer takes issue with one aspect?

Quinteire takes issue with the idea that the towers fell because the insulation was torn away.

The twoofers, of course, take that to mean that he is on their side.

In actuality, he said that the towers were doomed anyway because the insulation was inadequate in the first place.

His issue seems to be with the idea that the commission may not have performed a vitally needed function of government, i.e., to make recommendations that would have prevented a future disaster based on things that should have come out of their investigation.

(This may be the only political aspect to their findings. It would have caused an imposition on private industry to place more regulations on how they can put buildings together. Not very Republican, is it?)NIST did make such recommendations about the fireproofing, and those recommendations were approved by the International Code Council and incorporated in the International Building Code. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062007.html

[ref]

Griffin is reading this paper now. From 9/11 Blogger:


I alerted DRG about this. He told me that the 10 pages he had read were "not promising". David complained that the author didn't even get his school right. :)
- Vesa @ 9/11 Blogger

BTW, that Vesa is a Finnish 9/11 truther.

Very good reaction Griffin. You read 10 pages, and you complain about a school but none of the other stuff.

[Zlaya]

Griffin is reading this paper now. From 9/11 Blogger:


I alerted DRG about this. He told me that the 10 pages he had read were "not promising". David complained that the author didn't even get his school right. :)
- Vesa @ 9/11 Blogger

BTW, that Vesa is a Finnish 9/11 truther.

Very good reaction Griffin. You read 10 pages, and you complain about a school but none of the other stuff.

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.

That right there is pinnacle of JREF research.

Good job guys, this kind of stuff is great for laughs.

[boloboffin]

Griffin is reading this paper now. From 9/11 Blogger:


I alerted DRG about this. He told me that the 10 pages he had read were "not promising". David complained that the author didn't even get his school right. :)
- Vesa @ 9/11 Blogger

BTW, that Vesa is a Finnish 9/11 truther.

Very good reaction Griffin. You read 10 pages, and you complain about a school but none of the other stuff.

Ah, DRG taught at the Claremont School of Theology (http://www.cst.edu/about_claremont/index.php), an institution which is only affiliated with the Claremont Colleges (http://www.claremont.edu/)--not actually a part of the consortium. He's listed here on the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_School_of_Theology) as a faculty member.

That seems to be an easy fix.

[Brainache]

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.

That right there is pinnacle of JREF research.

Good job guys, this kind of stuff is great for laughs.

I haven't read Mr Mackey's, by all accounts, excellent paper because I haven't read Dr Griffin's book, but does he really talk about an asphalt bridge?

Where do they make bridges out of asphalt? They'd get a bit... um... bendy during the summer months wouldn't they? Even in Finland I would think...

[ref]

I haven't read Mr Mackey's, by all accounts, excellent paper because I haven't read Dr Griffin's book, but does he really talk about an asphalt bridge?

Where do they make bridges out of asphalt? They'd get a bit... um... bendy during the summer months wouldn't they? Even in Finland I would think...

Hottest temperature here this summer was about 30 Celsius (86 Fahrenheit). Is Zlaya Finnish, or why did you bring up our marvellous nation? :D

[ref]

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.



What are you talking about? Could you quote the author, or specify the page numbers, that you are referring to.

[Brainache]

Hottest temperature here this summer was about 30 Celsius (86 Fahrenheit). Is Zlaya Finnish, or why did you bring up our marvellous nation? :D

I think so. I might be thinking of someone else though...
[tiny derail]
I once worked with a couple of Finns named Juhani Makela and Hari Pakkela. Makela and Pakkela, they were fun Finns![/tiny derail]

[ref]

I think so. I might be thinking of someone else though...
[tiny derail]
I once worked with a couple of Finns named Juhani Makela and Hari Pakkela. Makela and Pakkela, they were fun Finns![/tiny derail]

The guy that asked a few questions, but disappeared fast was Finnish. I don't remember his name anymore, but it wasn't Zlaya. That doesn't mean Zlaya couldn't be Finnish.

I have to correct you. Hari is not a Finnish first name, Harri is :D Don't worry, it's a common mistake. Our language is one of the most diffucult there is..

Back on topic.. Waiting for a Zlaya response. And futher response from Griffin :rolleyes:

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.

That right there is pinnacle of JREF research.

Good job guys, this kind of stuff is great for laughs.
Your personal incredulity is not a valid criticism of the paper. If you feel there are logical fallacies or errors of fact in it, present them.

[pomeroo]

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.

That right there is pinnacle of JREF research.

Good job guys, this kind of stuff is great for laughs.


At the risk of being accused of nastiness, I must ask you why you feel qualified to condescend to a NASA engineer. What is your technical background?

Conspiracy liars never, ever get to around to explaining why they know more than demolition experts, avionics techs, physicists, chemists, and engineers. What is the source of your knowledge? Why do fantasists know more than people who have actually studied the relevant subjects?

Shed some light on this mystery for us.

[Hyperviolet]

An impressive paper, indeed.

It's inspiring to see a man devote so much of his personal time reading, reviewing, and refuting so many claims, so comprehensively.

Admittedly, i would not have the patience, and certainly not the skill, to construct a rebuttal so exhaustively precise, as you have done, R. Mackey.

That only speaks to your work's value.

[DavidJames]

Conspiracy liars never, ever get to around to explaining why they know more than demolition experts, avionics techs, physicists, chemists, and engineers. What is the source of your knowledge? Why do fantasists know more than people who have actually studied the relevant subjects?It's the deceitful combination of Ignorance and Arrogance (the IA of CT). The ignorance is based on their lack of knowledge and experience in a given discipline. Their arrogance allows them to draw conclusions, without providing any supporting evidence, in that discipline despite their ignorance and despite knowing that experts in that discipline have, after research and published analysis, reached completely different conclusions

[R.Mackey]

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.

That right there is pinnacle of JREF research.

Good job guys, this kind of stuff is great for laughs.

The bridge I refer to in my paper (very early on) is the Interstate 580 overpass collapse earlier this year near San Francisco. All steel construction, heated to total collapse in only 18 minutes by a "diffuse hydrocarbon fire." Read about it here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL).

The joke is on you, friend.


Ah, DRG taught at the Claremont School of Theology (http://www.cst.edu/about_claremont/index.php), an institution which is only affiliated with the Claremont Colleges (http://www.claremont.edu/)--not actually a part of the consortium. He's listed here on the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claremont_School_of_Theology) as a faculty member.

That seems to be an easy fix.

Dr. Griffin claims to being a professor at both the School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate University. The latter is not merely an affiliate. Since I didn't want to go into the man's background extensively -- I despise arguments from authority -- I saw fit to merely summarize, and I believe I did so adequately.

Having said that, any feedback is welcome, especially including that from Dr. Griffin himself. If I've committed a faux pas I will certainly correct it.

The Claremont Colleges are just down the road from me. I may give them a call to see how they refer to themselves. I have a feeling this is similar to the "Caltech" vs. "Cal Tech" debate (the former is correct, but even local newspapers still use the latter).

If that's the biggest error I made in the paper, then I'll be pleased...

An impressive paper, indeed.

It's inspiring to see a man devote so much of his personal time reading, reviewing, and refuting so many claims, so comprehensively.

Admittedly, i would not have the patience, and certainly not the skill, to construct a rebuttal so exhaustively precise, as you have done, R. Mackey.

That only speaks to your work's value.

It actually took much less time than you might have thought. Anyone who looks should have been able to find the mistakes. No lengthy research was needed anywhere, except perhaps for reading the NIST Report itself. All I did was organize them into a coherent narrative.

In any case, thanks for the feedback so far, and please keep them coming. Criticism is good, because it leads to a higher quality of research. Don't be shy.

[Swing Dangler]

Rice is an old man in his eighties, long retired from teaching, who has apparently read nothing on the collapse of the towers. Pegelow works on oil rigs.



Style over substance of course.

re you sure they're not more conspiracy liars masquerading as engineers?
The burden of proof is on you to prove they are not structural engineers.
You are living down to your reputation for dishonesty.
Please put me on ignore, Pom, because you continually disappoint me with your failure to provide proof of my dishonesty. Tell me again where I'm lying Pom? That is the only retort you have but fail to provide proof now for over a year.

Here are a few more specialists:

Doyle Winterton-B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer.
Dennis J. Kollar-P.E., Structural Engineer
Jason Griffin-BS Civil Engineering ASCE
Richard Garrison-Architecture, Civil Engineering, Construction Management
Tom Kost-BS engineering-physics, MS physics
Ronald Larsen Ph.D. - Applied Physics, Materials Science
David Liguori-BS Physics; MEng EE; MS Physics
Jose Molina-Mechanical Engineer
Mark Robinson Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
Rob Steinhofer-MS Mechanical Engineer
Vic Nott-Construction Engineering
Enzo Valenzetti -Ph.D. Civil Engineering
Kenneth Wrenn-BS Civil Engineering
J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer with over 55 years experience. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems.

Mr. Ayres is a former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. He also served on the State of California Department of Health Building Safety Board, where he was Chairman of the Mechanical/Electrical Subcommittee. Mr. Ayres has also served as a member of the Building Code Advisory committees for the City of Los Angeles, the California Building Standards Committee, and the International Conference of Building Officials.
Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities.
Former engineering officer, U.S. Navy. Also formerly Research Assistant, Purdue University. Teaching Assistant, Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Guest Lecturer, University of Southern California School of Architecture. Guest Lecturer, UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning. Author of over 40 technical papers and contributing author to three books on building design.

Rich Reed, BS Structural Engineering
San Diego, CA

Of course you can find more here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.

[R.Mackey]

Style over substance of course.

Quite the opposite.

What you've done is argued from authority, and badly at that. That's the "style."

The "substance" would be what these people have said, and their reasoning, not who they are. You've presented none of that.


Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.

Feel free to present their publications on the subject in another thread.

Oops, they have none, don't they? Well, you can present their whitepapers and e-mails in another thread, too, and I'll be glad to "confront" them.

However, I suspect you'll find that their claims -- if they have any at all -- are a subset of the topics I refuted in my review of Dr. Griffin. You may, therefore, discover that I have actually done both.

That's substance. Read and learn.

[kookbreaker]

Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.

Becuase your troof movement is so inept that the only ones producing works to be discussed are the Theologians.

You claim to have so many engineers and even if there weren't questions about their authenticity (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/scholar-scorecard.html), there's still the fact that they haven't produced anything to be refuted. Even Reed, the 'hero' founder of aetruth has only produced a video where he makes the same mistakes as Dylan Avery.

Now will you actually discuss Mackay's paper instead of whining about it?

[pomeroo]

Style over substance of course.


Yes, "of course." Pay no attention to my subsequent post where I invite readers to examine Rice's paper and judge my claim that he appears to have read nothing of value on the collapse of the towers. A man announces that he is a retired professor of engineering and he can't do better than parroting utter tripe fabricated by morons? A little evidence of knowledge of, uh, engineering would have been nice.




The burden of proof is on you to prove they are not structural engineers.



But of course, Swingie! A guy wants to charge big bucks for his ability to communicate with the dead. The burden of proof is on the rationalists to prove that he doesn't really possess such powers--powers that are, according to science, impossible. The funny thing is, you may not be lying (for a change). Sadly, you probably do believe that wildly improbable claims require no extraordinary proofs.



Please put me on ignore, Pom, because you continually disappoint me with your failure to provide proof of my dishonesty. Tell me again where I'm lying Pom? That is the only retort you have but fail to provide proof now for over a year.


I don't put anybody on ignore. Why bother? Whenever I catalogue your lies, you vanish for a while, only to reappear and demand that I show your lies.



Here are a few more specialists:

Doyle Winterton-B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer.
Dennis J. Kollar-P.E., Structural Engineer
Jason Griffin-BS Civil Engineering ASCE
Richard Garrison-Architecture, Civil Engineering, Construction Management
Tom Kost-BS engineering-physics, MS physics
Ronald Larsen Ph.D. - Applied Physics, Materials Science
David Liguori-BS Physics; MEng EE; MS Physics
Jose Molina-Mechanical Engineer
Mark Robinson Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
Rob Steinhofer-MS Mechanical Engineer
Vic Nott-Construction Engineering
Enzo Valenzetti -Ph.D. Civil Engineering
Kenneth Wrenn-BS Civil Engineering
J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer with over 55 years experience. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems.

Mr. Ayres is a former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. He also served on the State of California Department of Health Building Safety Board, where he was Chairman of the Mechanical/Electrical Subcommittee. Mr. Ayres has also served as a member of the Building Code Advisory committees for the City of Los Angeles, the California Building Standards Committee, and the International Conference of Building Officials.
Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities.
Former engineering officer, U.S. Navy. Also formerly Research Assistant, Purdue University. Teaching Assistant, Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Guest Lecturer, University of Southern California School of Architecture. Guest Lecturer, UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning. Author of over 40 technical papers and contributing author to three books on building design.

Rich Reed, BS Structural Engineering
San Diego, CA

Of course you can find more here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.


Yes, we all get the point. Nobody has ever heard of any of these people. Nobody knows how many are outright fakes. Most importantly, nobody knows exactly what they're saying.

SHOW US WHAT YOUR "EXPERTS" SAY ABOUT THE COLLAPSES OF THE TOWERS.

< SPECIFIC > STATEMENTS ARE EITHER RIGHT OR WRONG. VAGUE, MYSTICAL CLAIMS WASTE EVERYONE'S TIME.



Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.


Bring on your imaginary "experts." Why are they so shy? As I wrote to Gage, the fantasy movement can't keep sneaking the medicine wagon out of town whenever the sheriff shows up. Someone has to take a stand. Mackey has laid his cards on the table. He is either right or wrong (hint: I'm betting he's right). But, SOMEONE HAS TO SHOW THE ERRORS HE MAKES!

The days of "pull it!" and "free fall" and "impossible physics" are over.

SHOW US SOMETHING!

[beachnut]

I started reading it, but i had to stop for a day or two, just to stop laughing when the author started comparing giant steel core structures to a giant shed, and an asphalt bridge.

That right there is pinnacle of JREF research.

Good job guys, this kind of stuff is great for laughs.
Did you forget to read DRG book of junk? Griffin does not say anything, he repeats what other people have made up out of the blue. Griffin repeats junk made up.

If you find one fact to support Griffins paper, please post it. You can't.

Steel is steel, you failed to notice it fails in fire. The big laugh is on you for thinking Griffin has a fact. Maybe it takes an engineer to understand the facts; I hope you are not an engineer. (actually any rational person can see the fact less Griffin is a hearsay king trying to make money)

[Firestone]

I've finally managed to finish reading R.Mackey's text.

Like many others before in this thread I can only commend him on a job well done! :clap:

Having read Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor, and parts of his The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions, I didn't expect much of his latest book.

But what I read in R.Mackey's paper was even beyond my low expectations.

Many mistakes Griffin makes are due to his lack of understanding of even basic physics. That's not an excuse, though. After all, there is a reason why I don't try to make a living writing books about organic chemistry or Sanskrit grammar.
Griffin could have contacted real experts in the relevant fields, instead of relying on, for example, Jim Hoffman, who has no more credentials than yours truly in the relevant fields of knowledge.

Griffin could have avoided many other mistakes by ... actually reading the NIST-report.
And of course, he could have tried to avoid cherry-picking quotes, deleting part of quotes, ...

While reading the paper, I gradually lost interest in it's actual purpose: the debunking of Griffin's "analysis" of the NIST-report. After so many mistakes, who cares that even more are coming?
Yet I continued reading and enjoyed it, as a clear explanation of the NIST-methodology and the more technical aspects (at least technical for me) of the report.
I also liked the chapter with critical remarks on the NIST-report, as well as the more generic chapter on the scientific method and pseudo-science, and how it applies to Griffin.

There are so many stupid things quoted from the book, that the book seems to deserve one big Stundie!

This one I found almost unbelievable, Griffin explaining how a full-scale test of the collapse could be conducted (page 51):

It might be thought, to be sure, that performing the needed experiments would be too expensive to be practicable. But this is not so. The experimenters could simply choose some steel-frame high-rises with similar designs (having both core and perimeter columns) that are already scheduled for demolition. Then some old Boeing 767s that need to be replaced could be flown by remote control into the buildings.

And R.Mackey understated response was quite funny:

For Dr. Griffin to propose this at all, let alone to contend that it could be done easily, stretches his credibility thinner still.Credibility indeed! :)

Griffin's book is so weak that it makes me wonder if it even deserves such a treatment. Maybe R.Mackey should write a book "The NIST-report for Dummies", without wasting time on the lies, distortions, etc of Griffin and other "Truth Movement"-authors.
After all, it is almost a year ago now that R.Mackey started a thread here titled Okay, I'm about ready to declare victory... (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66969). Griffin's reviewed book, and the other nonsense the "Truth Movement" produced recently clearly show he was right.

Anyway, it is a great paper, with all the necessary qualities the papers and the books produced by the "Truth Movement" so obviously lack.



By the way, I think I spotted a typo on page 20. In truther's logic, I hereby have debunked R.Mackey's paper! ;)

[Dave Rogers]

Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.

Having just read R. Mackey's paper through to the end, rather than just nitpicking the introduction, I couldn't help noticing that he devotes a major part of it to discussion of how and why experts in various relevant fields find fault with the NIST report, and on the implications of this dissent to the conclusions of the truth movement. But I assume you knew that, because you wouldn't be so intellectually dishonest as to attempt to criticise a paper you haven't read, would you?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

While reading the paper, I gradually lost interest in it's actual purpose: the debunking of Griffin's "analysis" of the NIST-report. After so many mistakes, who cares that even more are coming?
Yet I continued reading and enjoyed it, as a clear explanation of the NIST-methodology and the more technical aspects (at least technical for me) of the report.
I also liked the section with critical remarks on the NIST-report, as well as the more generic chapter on the scientific method and pseudo-science.


Seconded - I found the paper to be highly informative and educational, quite independently of its debunking value. As for the author's comments about it taking less time than we might have thought - it took me two days, at a pace conducive to full understanding, just to read it. Simply typing in the words was a major undertaking, never mind determining the content. Sadly, I think it will be unlikely to convince anyone in the truth movement, because it deals with subjects that can't be simply summarised in a provocative ten-second soundbite, but instead require careful and informed consideration. However, it might be a good idea to refuse to debate CD theories with anyone who hasn't read through it, just to improve the signal-to-noise ratio in any such discussion.

An excellent piece of work, R. Mackey, and one that adheres to a rigorous standard of proof.

Dave

[Lurker]

Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.

SD,

Perhaps some people from that list of experts coudl actually write something for Mackey to critique? Surely you do not intend for him to merely attack their names and qualifications, right? As of yet, that is all you or they have provided.

Lurker

[Swing Dangler]

SD,

Perhaps some people from that list of experts coudl actually write something for Mackey to critique? Surely you do not intend for him to merely attack their names and qualifications, right? As of yet, that is all you or they have provided.

Lurker

Excellent point.

[beachnut]

Style over substance of course.

The burden of proof is on you to prove they are not structural engineers.

Please put me on ignore, Pom, because you continually disappoint me with your failure to provide proof of my dishonesty. Tell me again where I'm lying Pom? That is the only retort you have but fail to provide proof now for over a year.

Here are a few more specialists:

Doyle Winterton-B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer.
Dennis J. Kollar-P.E., Structural Engineer
Jason Griffin-BS Civil Engineering ASCE
Richard Garrison-Architecture, Civil Engineering, Construction Management
Tom Kost-BS engineering-physics, MS physics
Ronald Larsen Ph.D. - Applied Physics, Materials Science
David Liguori-BS Physics; MEng EE; MS Physics
Jose Molina-Mechanical Engineer
Mark Robinson Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
Rob Steinhofer-MS Mechanical Engineer
Vic Nott-Construction Engineering
Enzo Valenzetti -Ph.D. Civil Engineering
Kenneth Wrenn-BS Civil Engineering
J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer with over 55 years experience. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems.

Mr. Ayres is a former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council. He also served on the State of California Department of Health Building Safety Board, where he was Chairman of the Mechanical/Electrical Subcommittee. Mr. Ayres has also served as a member of the Building Code Advisory committees for the City of Los Angeles, the California Building Standards Committee, and the International Conference of Building Officials.
Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers, hospitals and laboratories, hotels and residential buildings, universities and colleges, schools, theaters and entertainment centers, jails and correctional facilities, TV and sound studios, governmental buildings and industrial facilities.
Former engineering officer, U.S. Navy. Also formerly Research Assistant, Purdue University. Teaching Assistant, Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley. Guest Lecturer, University of Southern California School of Architecture. Guest Lecturer, UCLA School of Architecture and Urban Planning. Author of over 40 technical papers and contributing author to three books on building design.

Rich Reed, BS Structural Engineering
San Diego, CA

Of course you can find more here: http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html
I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

Perhaps Mr. Mackey and his fan club should confront experts in the appropriate fields as to why they find fault with NIST, instead of a Theologian.
This entire list of engineers and such are dolts when it comes to 9/11. To support these guys idiot ideas on 9/11, and take them off of the Dolts of 9/11 information list, please list some facts they have to support the idiotic ideas they have on 9/11 as stated on their doltish web site.

You can't even find a fact to support their ideas on 9/11. Good job. This is like your 600 mph design error. Bad research!

[Crungy]

SD,

Perhaps some people from that list of experts coudl actually write something for Mackey to critique? Surely you do not intend for him to merely attack their names and qualifications, right? As of yet, that is all you or they have provided.

Lurker

Yes, I would love to read their thoughts on the collapses.

It always amuses me, when some of the architects and engineers from "Architects for Truth "are trotted out as proof that the manner in which the WTC building collapsed are held in deep suspicion. Those listed are, but the proverbial drops in the lake. My E/A firm has probably over 150 liscenced professional architects and engineers. I've discussed this with architects and engineers from my previous companies, not to mention contractors and those in the construction industry and I've never heard anything, but sheer laughter at these nutbar claims. Don't be fooled by that list. I'm bet my next paycheck that if the professional architectural and engineering societies would poll their members, asking whether the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, those voting "yes" wouldn't make up more than .00001 %. A handful in a profession numbering tens of thousands doesn't mean jack.

Don't let sham sites like "Architects for Truth" fool you. It's as legitimate as a "Africian Americans for the KKK" organization.

[Swing Dangler]

Quite the opposite.

What you've done is argued from authority, and badly at that. That's the "style."

Wrong. This was presented to counter the ignored Pomero's comment about Rice, not your work.

[~enigma~]

Ryan your paper was a MAJOR slam dunk destruction of DRG's really dumb claims. Personally i find it hard to belive that a supposed intelligent man such as DRG would use such idiotic ideas as black smoke means oxygen starved fires and Capt. Palmer's 2 pockets of fire quote to claim there were small fires. You did an EXCELLENT job of exposing that stupidity. Now I wonder how he bs his way into becoming the fact checker for LC:FC. That man couldn't check facts in a chilrdens science book.

[uk_dave]

That man couldn't check facts in a chilrdens science book.

But I wouldn't mind betting that he'd love to give it a go.

[Swing Dangler]

Ryan your paper was a MAJOR slam dunk destruction of DRG's really dumb claims. Personally i find it hard to belive that a supposed intelligent man such as DRG would use such idiotic ideas as black smoke means oxygen starved fires and Capt. Palmer's 2 pockets of fire quote to claim there were small fires. You did an EXCELLENT job of exposing that stupidity. Now I wonder how he bs his way into becoming the fact checker for LC:FC. That man couldn't check facts in a chilrdens science book.

Could it be that DRG came to the conclusion that there were oxygen starved fires because NIST came to that conclusion?

[~enigma~]

Could it be that DRG came to the conclusion that there were oxygen starved fires because NIST came to that conclusion?
Read NIST and show me why they say anything like that and read DRG's book and tell me why he says that. I have no time for your stupidity which would have been avoided had you actually read for once in your miserable life.

[~enigma~]

But I wouldn't mind betting that he'd love to give it a go.
Yeah...there would be a chance that he could get something right but I wouldn't bet on it.

[R.Mackey]

Wrong. This was presented to counter the ignored Pomero's comment about Rice, not your work.

Then you're off topic. Review Rule 11 of your Membership Agreement, please.

Regardless of who your post was addressing, simply posting a bunch of names isn't much of an argument. I invite you to present the positions of such individuals... in their own thread.

[R.Mackey]

Could it be that DRG came to the conclusion that there were oxygen starved fires because NIST came to that conclusion?

NIST did not come to that conclusion. NIST found that the fires in WTC 1 were oxygen limited, but that's not the same thing as oxygen starved. About WTC 2, NIST found that the fires were not even oxygen limited, instead limited by fuel and distribution.

Please read my paper before commenting any further in this thread. I'll be glad to send you a copy if you can't get it through any other means.

[Swing Dangler]

Then you're off topic. Review Rule 11 of your Membership Agreement, please.

Regardless of who your post was addressing, simply posting a bunch of names isn't much of an argument. I invite you to present the positions of such individuals... in their own thread.

Please re-read the context in which this was posted. There is no need to rehash the issue.

Read NIST and show me why they say anything like that and read DRG's book and tell me why he says that. I have no time for your stupidity which would have been avoided had you actually read for once in your miserable life.

Well here is NIST's explanation: NIST NCSTAR -1
2.5 8:47 A.M. TO 9:02 A.M. EDT
The burning of the jet fuel cloud had consumed much of the oxygen within the 94th and 96th floors, although photographs showing survivors indicated there were some zones with breathable air. The oxygen-starved fires died down, but didn’t quite go out.

Now is it plausible this is why DRG considered them oxygen starved?
Why do you think NIST called them oxygen-starved?

Stupid? I think not. Please attack the argument and not the person. Remember those membership rules...;)

[Swing Dangler]

NIST did not come to that conclusion. NIST found that the fires in WTC 1 were oxygen limited, but that's not the same thing as oxygen starved. About WTC 2, NIST found that the fires were not even oxygen limited, instead limited by fuel and distribution.

Please read my paper before commenting any further in this thread. I'll be glad to send you a copy if you can't get it through any other means.

NIST NCSTAR -1 Ch. 2 Page 24
2.5 8:47 A.M. TO 9:02 A.M. EDT
The burning of the jet fuel cloud had consumed much of the oxygen within the 94th and 96th floors,
although photographs showing survivors indicated there were some zones with breathable air. The
oxygen-starved fires died down, but didn’t quite go out.

Who is correct, R Mackey? NIST or you?

[~enigma~]

Please re-read the context in which this was posted. There is no need to rehash the issue.



Well here is NIST's explanation: NIST NCSTAR -1
2.5 8:47 A.M. TO 9:02 A.M. EDT
The burning of the jet fuel cloud had consumed much of the oxygen within the 94th and 96th floors, although photographs showing survivors indicated there were some zones with breathable air. The oxygen-starved fires died down, but didn’t quite go out.

Now is it plausible this is why DRG considered them oxygen starved?
Why do you think NIST called them oxygen-starved?

Stupid? I think not. Please attack the argument and not the person. Remember those membership rules...;)
As long as you don't read the context of the entire subsection you are being dishonest. If you object to my calling DRG stupid that is too bad, he isn't a member and isn't protected by the MA. If you take offense to me saying I don't have time for your stupidity, how is that arguing against the person or even calling you stupid? It didn't so again I will say I don't have time for your stupidity. One more response from you to me on this matter is telling me that you want me to put you on ignore.

BTW, no it isn't plausible because if you read DRG's nonsense you would understand he used the black smoke and Capt. Palmer's statement. So do yourself a favor and read before you make yourself look like a dishonest liar...oh, too late :)

[R.Mackey]

Who is correct, R Mackey? NIST or you?

I am. Except I agree with NIST, so what you've done is set up a false choice fallacy by cherry-picking the NIST report. Unlike you, I didn't simply punch "oxygen starved" into the PDF Search engine, but instead actually read the report and understand its logic. If you do this, you will no doubt find that "oxygen starved" appears in the report, but it hardly tells the full story.

You're only referring to certain fires at certain times, not the overall fires. Obviously there will be some regions that are oxygen "starved" in any oxygen-limited fire.

For NIST's impressions of the overall fire behavior, please see NCSTAR1-5F, especially pages 78 and 100 for WTC 1 and WTC 2 respectively. Try to read the report rather than skim through it looking for keywords, or you'll never get it.

And, for the last time, stop derailing.

[~enigma~]

I am. Except I agree with NIST, so what you've done is set up a false choice fallacy by cherry-picking the NIST report. Unlike you, I didn't simply punch "oxygen starved" into the PDF Search engine, but instead actually read the report and understand its logic. If you do this, you will no doubt find that "oxygen starved" appears in the report, but it hardly tells the full story.

You're only referring to certain fires at certain times, not the overall fires. Obviously there will be some regions that are oxygen "starved" in any oxygen-limited fire.

For NIST's impressions of the overall fire behavior, please see NCSTAR1-5F, especially pages 78 and 100 for WTC 1 and WTC 2 respectively. Try to read the report rather than skim through it looking for keywords, or you'll never get it.

And, for the last time, stop derailing.
He isn't reading context nor is he understanding. He is parroting words but a dumb animal can be trained to do the same.

[cmcaulif]

Please re-read the context in which this was posted. There is no need to rehash the issue.



Well here is NIST's explanation: NIST NCSTAR -1
2.5 8:47 A.M. TO 9:02 A.M. EDT
The burning of the jet fuel cloud had consumed much of the oxygen within the 94th and 96th floors, although photographs showing survivors indicated there were some zones with breathable air. The oxygen-starved fires died down, but didn’t quite go out.

Now is it plausible this is why DRG considered them oxygen starved?
Why do you think NIST called them oxygen-starved?

Stupid? I think not. Please attack the argument and not the person. Remember those membership rules...;)

The jet fuel rapidly consumed oxygen, and there was more jet fuel than there oxygen contained in the volume of the fire zone as they calculate in NCSTAR1-5A, pg 79. This caused the effect that your quotation is describing. However, in rushing air through broken windows and the gash from the plane provided oxygen for the fires, over the course of their entire evolution. DRG attempts to represent the fires as having been oxygen starved for the entire times that the buildings were standing, this is incorrect, and, at best, a misinterpretation of the NIST's comments.

[beachnut]

Who is correct, R Mackey? NIST or you?
You have not read and understood NIST. Do you want to look like you lack comprehension to understand NIST? Griffin does not use science, he used what other people say.

Why not comment on Griffin's lack of facts?

[Mince]

One, I applaud you on your research. But as the paper deals directly with NIST and the collapse of the buildings, I find it difficult to accept the paper at all as you are not qualified. See, Ryan, you are not a structural engineer. And according to debunking standards, unless you are a structural engineer you are unqualified to support or to critique NIST itself or any critique by another party.

But since I thought I would find the same debunking nonsense, I will point out a couple of errors in your paper already.


You may want to update your research in order revise this first error. The speed of that 707 was 600mph not a "lower speed". Oh and the source for displaying your error: NIST NCSTAR 1-2, WTC Investigation Appendix A Draft For Public Comment. Perhaps in your next revision you can correct Mr. Robertson's thinking instead of accepting this obvious error.


Impossibility? LOL. Your kidding right? If it were impossible to fight the fires, why did firefighters travel into the towers and up the stairs and mention small pockets of fire that would be attacked? As a diligent researcher, I'm surprised to hear you state that fighting the fires was an impossibility.
And lets see what Mr. Skilling stated about his buildings and their behavior after an impact with a jetliner:
"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

So even after a crash, and the fire, the designer states the building would still be there. Let me repeat, the building would still be there. He doesn't state, the building would be there for just a couple of hours and then collapse or that the structure would eventually fail. Of course in your statement you then qualify your lack of knowledge into " Even if he has, there are no calculations given in support." This has to be the first time I've seen a debunker disagree with the head structural engineer of the Towers because of the lack of calculations, but accept NIST's work with the same lack of calculations in regards to other events in the towers.
Not only that in the segment above, you accept Mr. Robertson's statements...without calculations! ROFLMAO!
Don't you think Mr. Skilling is qualified to make that statement about his own building considering the amount of air traffic surrounding NYC?
Besides, how can you honestly state there are no calculations? What mystical powers helped you arrive at that conclusion? Just because you haven't seen them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This ends all debates whether or not the designers took into consideration the impact of planes and fires on their structures.

But what relevant statements did Skilling provide about his towers?
"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
"I would imagine that if you took the top expert in that type of work and gave him the assignment of bringing these buildings down with explosives, I would bet that he could do it."-John Skilling Seattle Times 1993
Does this favor a controlled demolition scenario in the destruction of the towers as opposed to planes and fires? I think so.

I could repost some of your lies and bad logic that I've encountered before here at JREF, but for the sake of kindness I will not. I do look forward to reading more of this "Debunking" work, however.


Ladies and gentleman;


I present to you, in full, substantive proof that most CTs will not accept any conclusion of any investigation that does not state, in so many words, 9/11 was an inside job. Swing Dangler is unwittingly making his own argument against a new investigation. Him and his ilk are the very reason why no more time, manpower and money should be used on another official, professional 9/11 investigation. I say to them; get out there and investigate it yourselves, if you are so eager; and do let us know what you find.

[~enigma~]

The more I read of Ryan's paper the more I was shocked by DRG's obvious lack of scientific, logical and common knowledge. I mean he pulled out the "virtually freefall" agrument...Is that the best the truth movement has???? Seriously, I have spoken to 11 year olds with more sense.

[Civilized Worm]

Style over substance of course.


You NEVER learn do you!?


The burden of proof is on you to prove they are not structural engineers.


Of course it does, Swing. And maybe while he's doing that you could get to work on proving that I'm not an astronaut.



Oh, and
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_16445466026aad260d.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=6100)

[TerryUK]

I would respect, and even cite, the calculations of a letter carrier or used car salesman, if they were correct. Argument from authority rejected.




Mackey - I've not had the time to read all your paper, but I had a look to see if you mentioned Gordon Ross, (which you did on pages 40 and 41 of the pdf doc )

Ross is not a "used car saleman", but I was interested to see what you said about his theory, as I've previously read what he has to say about the WTC1 collapse. ( he also mentions you, by the way...)

Anyhow, I was disappointed because it appears you just want to brush him off.
You wrote: " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response"

So how is this consistent with what you claim - you know, that you would " cite the calculations of a letter-carrier or car saleman" ?

Is this how you "debunk" the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

I hope the rest of your paper is more convincing.

Anyway, as I've previously said, it's easy to 'debunk' junk.

[Civilized Worm]

Anyway, as I've previously said, it's easy to 'debunk' junk.


It is indeed. Maybe you should try giving us a challenge some time?

[TerryUK]

NIST didn't look further than collapse initiation, instead relying on Bazant's idea that collapse was inevitable
Ross shows obvious errors made by Bazant, e.g. the way Bazant claimed all the energy in the upper section would be available to act upon the uppermost floor of the lower section, which is wrong.
His theory is not junk

[~enigma~]

So how is this consistent with what you claim - you know, that you would " cite the calculations of a letter-carrier or car saleman" ?

I'm sure he would cite them if they were peer-reviewed. Considering he did say that was why he dismissed Ross' piece of junk, unless you are just trying to start trouble you didn't read what he said.

[Par]

Anyway, as I've previously said, it's easy to 'debunk' junk.


You appear to be marginally angry with R. Mackey because he has refuted a number of arguments that you claim not to subscribe to. This seems very odd. Surely, if it is really the truth that you care about, then you should welcome his efforts.

[~enigma~]

You appear to be marginally angry with R. Mackey because he has refuted a number of arguments that you claim not to subscribe to. This seems very odd. Surely, if it is really the truth that you care about, then you should welcome his efforts.
Alot of truthers are not seeking truth. Most think they already know the truth so why they lie and claim to be seeking truth I can't understand.

[TerryUK]

Surely, if it is really the truth that you care about, then you should welcome his efforts.

I think any honest person should be looking for the truth regarding 9/11

If Mackey is looking for the truth, then I obviously support that.

Different people are motivated by different things - a desire to be moral, a desire to be truthful etc. Or, on the other side, a desire to 'win'

What is 'debunking' ? It isn't a search for truth, it's a desire to 'stamp out' the opposite side -- to defeat anything against your position - a position dictated by your own particular psychology - truth has to be sometimes adapted to fit

[boloboffin]

Dr. Griffin claims to being a professor at both the School of Theology and the Claremont Graduate University. The latter is not merely an affiliate. Since I didn't want to go into the man's background extensively -- I despise arguments from authority -- I saw fit to merely summarize, and I believe I did so adequately.

Having said that, any feedback is welcome, especially including that from Dr. Griffin himself. If I've committed a faux pas I will certainly correct it.

The Claremont Colleges are just down the road from me. I may give them a call to see how they refer to themselves. I have a feeling this is similar to the "Caltech" vs. "Cal Tech" debate (the former is correct, but even local newspapers still use the latter).

If that's the biggest error I made in the paper, then I'll be pleased...

Right, the Claremont Graduate University is a part of that consortium. The Wiki page says that the affiliation allows a sharing of faculty members. He probably has taught at the CGU.

Which makes it seem that he's happy to claim the CGU to boost his rep, but disavow it as a way to slam your paper. Wow, I hope that's not the case. That would be [rule10].

So far at DU, I've started a general thread on your paper, and then pulled the four paragraphs on horizontal ejecta for a detailed discussion (that was a random choice). No one will attack the substance of your article. They generally attack your credentials or mine (me much more than you--we've got history). As far as the debunkers in my little pond go, you've got them stumped.

[Minadin]

I think any honest person should be looking for the truth regarding 9/11

If Mackey is looking for the truth, then I obviously support that.

Different people are motivated by different things - a desire to be moral, a desire to be truthful etc. Or, on the other side, a desire to 'win'

What is 'debunking' ? It isn't a search for truth, it's a desire to 'stamp out' the opposite side -- to defeat anything against your position - a position dictated by your own particular psychology - truth has to be sometimes adapted to fit

Actually, debunking is the removal of the 'bunk' portions of a claim, series of claims, an urban legend, or a belief system. (It's quite similar to taking the garbage out.) If the Truth Movement seems to be "stamped out" after the bunk is taken away, perhaps they should reconsider their position.

[kookbreaker]

Anyhow, I was disappointed because it appears you just want to brush him off.
You wrote: " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response"

So how is this consistent with what you claim - you know, that you would " cite the calculations of a letter-carrier or car saleman" ?


You conveniently ignore that the article lists several reasons that Ross' paper is faulty, and notes that if they had any accuracy to them they could be easily published in a proper journal.

The Paper is on Griffin's claims, and cites where Ross & Hoffman's work has been already countered. A multi-page tangent on Ross' faulty work is not needed.

[TerryUK]

Actually, debunking is the removal of the 'bunk' portions of a claim, series of claims, an urban legend, or a belief system. (It's quite similar to taking the garbage out.) If the Truth Movement seems to be "stamped out" after the bunk is taken away, perhaps they should reconsider ytheir position.

Yes, that would be OK - just taking out the 'bunk'.
But unfortunately it's not just that - often, debunkers aren't satisfied with that.
For lots of people here, it's a great opportunity to bash a few people and then pat each other on the back etc.

[Gravy]

Mackey - I've not had the time to read all your paper, but I had a look to see if you mentioned Gordon Ross, (which you did on pages 40 and 41 of the pdf doc )

Ross is not a "used car saleman", but I was interested to see what you said about his theory, as I've previously read what he has to say about the WTC1 collapse. ( he also mentions you, by the way...)

Anyhow, I was disappointed because it appears you just want to brush him off.
You wrote: " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response"

So how is this consistent with what you claim - you know, that you would " cite the calculations of a letter-carrier or car saleman" ?

Is this how you "debunk" the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

I hope the rest of your paper is more convincing.

Anyway, as I've previously said, it's easy to 'debunk' junk.Ryan has discussed Ross' arguments and calculations extensively here. One example (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576). and another (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911440&postcount=4236).

Use the forum search feature to find more. And while you're at it, I highly recommend Newton's Bit on Gordon Ross. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86422)

[Par]

You appear to be marginally angry with R. Mackey because he has refuted a number of arguments that you claim not to subscribe to. This seems very odd. Surely, if it is really the truth that you care about, then you should welcome his efforts.
What is 'debunking' ? It isn't a search for truth, it's a desire to 'stamp out' the opposite side -- to defeat anything against your position - a position dictated by your own particular psychology - truth has to be sometimes adapted to fit


Unless you’re claiming that the paper is full of falsehoods (which seems unlikely as you’ve already said that you haven’t read it), this doesn’t seem to have any bearing on my point. Surely, if it is really the truth that you care about, then you should welcome his efforts.

[TerryUK]

You conveniently ignore that the article lists several reasons that Ross' paper is faulty, and notes that if they had any accuracy to them they could be easily published in a proper journal.

The Paper is on Griffin's claims, and cites where Ross & Hoffman's work has been already countered. A multi-page tangent on Ross' faulty work is not needed.

Yes, I would accept that - if Mackey's list of Ross' errors was true.
However, this is not the case - Mackey's claims are not true. ( notice I don't use the description evil lies like some OT JREFers do :) )

However, R.Mackey is free to put what he wants in his paper, so if he's happy to publish stuff that's wrong, so what? I was under the impression that he was asking people to find faults...

[Drudgewire]

Yes, I would accept that - if I didn't block out any facts that go against my worldview.
Fixed that for ya. ;)

[Gravy]

Yes, I would accept that - if Mackey's list of Ross' errors was true.
However, this is not the case - Mackey's claims are not true.Have at it. Attentive readers await your analysis.

[TerryUK]

Ryan has discussed Ross' arguments and calculations extensively here. One example (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576). and another (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1911440&postcount=4236).

Use the forum search feature to find more. And while you're at it, I highly recommend Newton's Bit on Gordon Ross. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86422)

Yes, I've seen the one by Newton'sBit, I will have a look at the other links you have given

[TerryUK]

Fixed that for ya. ;)

Oh yes, you're the guy who likes to alter other peoples posts and quote them back - children also do that, don't they?

[Drudgewire]

Oh yes, you're the guy who likes to alter other peoples posts and quote them back - children also do that, don't they?
Hardly. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif


*goes back to watching Spongebob*

[rwguinn]

Mackey - I've not had the time to read all your paper, but I had a look to see if you mentioned Gordon Ross, (which you did on pages 40 and 41 of the pdf doc )

Ross is not a "used car saleman", but I was interested to see what you said about his theory, as I've previously read what he has to say about the WTC1 collapse. ( he also mentions you, by the way...)

Anyhow, I was disappointed because it appears you just want to brush him off.
You wrote: " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response"

So how is this consistent with what you claim - you know, that you would " cite the calculations of a letter-carrier or car saleman" ?

Is this how you "debunk" the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

I hope the rest of your paper is more convincing.

Anyway, as I've previously said, it's easy to 'debunk' junk.

You truly have comprehension problems, don't you?
Did you stop reading at " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response" and like your hero, cherry-pick and edit the paragraph, leaving out the sentence immediately following--"There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning" That, my dear person, is intellectual dishonesty of the penultimate variety. It is called "Lying through your teeth".
Did you notice where Mackey makes a response Ross?
A "Published Response" in this case means a published response in a peer-reviewed journal. You twoo-woo-fers really cannot read in context, can you?

[TerryUK]

Have at it. Attentive readers await your analysis.

No analysis. As I read what R.Mackey wrote about Ross, I was thinking how easy it is for people to misrepresent things to look like something else.
I just saw a couple of thing that I knew are wrong, and I thought: if he does that to Ross, will he do the same to the others, if and when necessary?

I'm not saying Ross' theory is 100% correct, however enough of it is correct to make a difference, and it's worth bearing in mind

[HyJinX]

You truly have comprehension problems, don't you?
Did you stop reading at " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response" and like your hero, cherry-pick and edit the paragraph, leaving out the sentence immediately following--"There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning" That, my dear person, is intellectual dishonesty of the penultimate variety. It is called "Lying through your teeth".
Did you notice where Mackey makes a response Ross?
A "Published Response" in this case means a published response in a peer-reviewed journal. You twoo-woo-fers really cannot read in context, can you?

You're sooooo correct rwquinn. Terry has shown us time and time again of how the "truth" has no place in the "truth movement". "Truth" is not their objective nor is it of any value to their disposition, beliefs or objectives. How a group of people can so easily dismiss that which they claim to be on a relentless scavenger hunt for boggles the mind.

It so sad that they sling the word "truth" around as if it has any meaning to them or what they seek. Truth, itself, became the very first casualty of the Truth Movement.

[T.A.M.]

Doyle Winterton-B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer.
Dennis J. Kollar-P.E., Structural Engineer
Jason Griffin-BS Civil Engineering ASCE
Richard Garrison-Architecture, Civil Engineering, Construction Management
Tom Kost-BS engineering-physics, MS physics
Ronald Larsen Ph.D. - Applied Physics, Materials Science
David Liguori-BS Physics; MEng EE; MS Physics
Jose Molina-Mechanical Engineer
Mark Robinson Bachelor of Science Mechanical Engineering
Rob Steinhofer-MS Mechanical Engineer
Vic Nott-Construction Engineering
Enzo Valenzetti -Ph.D. Civil Engineering
Kenneth Wrenn-BS Civil Engineering
J. Marx Ayres, BS ME, MS ME, PE – Mechanical Engineer with over 55 years experience. Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems.

As others have pointed out Swing, these are merely names, and from the list, i see not one who has created a paper, whether it be a position paper or investigative in nature, on any aspect of the 9/11 attacks that is in keeping with their respective credentials.

...missed a whole page...seems you have relented with this list....DoH!!!!

TAM:)

[Drudgewire]

No analysis. As I read what R.Mackey wrote about Ross, I was thinking how easy it is for people to misrepresent things to look like something else.

*head asplodes*

[rwguinn]

*head asplodes*

Mind if I join you?

That is the source of all those "Puffs"

[TerryUK]

You truly have comprehension problems, don't you?
Did you stop reading at " Since Ross’s whitepaper has not been peer-reviewed, it does not warrant a published response" and like your hero, cherry-pick and edit the paragraph, leaving out the sentence immediately following--"There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning" That, my dear person, is intellectual dishonesty of the penultimate variety. It is called "Lying through your teeth".
Did you notice where Mackey makes a response Ross?
A "Published Response" in this case means a published response in a peer-reviewed journal. You twoo-woo-fers really cannot read in context, can you?


Yes I did notice where he says "There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning"

And I'm not your "dear person" or "lying through my teeth" OK?

I alredy pointed out that Mackey lists Ross' points which he, Mackey, says are wrong.

Mackey wrote:
<< Ross assumes the concrete in each floor must be completely crumbled to dust before collapse can proceed, rather than allowing concrete to remain largely intact and crumbling as part of its fall.

This is just not true.

Ross says: "Concrete pulverisation was immaterial to the initial argument of whether the collapse would be arrested or continue. It was included as indicative of the energies required and showed the early arrest of the collapse, but if considered as zero the collapse would have been arrested
within the next few tenths of a second as the strain energy requirements instead drained the energy supply of the impacting mass."

Mackey wrote:
" Ross assumes the upper and lower floors absorb energy equally on impact, which while possible, is highly optimistic."

Why does Mackey say this is highly optomistic? If he's talking about the floors of the upper section vs. the lower section - similar structures impacting each other - they both will come under similar loads. If anything, the upper section will absorb more, as the columns are made from slightly lighter sections.

There are others...
If Mackey want to brush off Ross, he should do it honestly, or at least , accurately.

[slyjoe]

RMackey:

Thanks for putting this together. If not already addressed (I have forgotten most of this thread), just a few nitpicks:

1. Sometimes using "we", sometimes "I" when talking about the author.
2. Forget where, but probably around page 20, temperatures without scale. Most of the paper was consistent (degree symbol followed by C). I prefer this, unless quoting other people. Maybe bracket their deg F numbers with the corresponding deg C.
3. Table 3 - I would summarize the totals for each of the four categories of references, maybe with the heading for each column.

Again, just nits. :)

[Viper Daimao]

Yes I did notice where he says "There have, however, been several informal responses [65] [66] revealing the flaws in his reasoning"

And I'm not your "dear person" or "lying through my teeth" OK?

I alredy pointed out that Mackey lists Ross' points which he, Mackey, says are wrong.

Mackey wrote:
<< Ross assumes the concrete in each floor must be completely crumbled to dust before collapse can proceed, rather than allowing concrete to remain largely intact and crumbling as part of its fall.

This is just not true.

Ross says: "Concrete pulverisation was immaterial to the initial argument of whether the collapse would be arrested or continue. It was included as indicative of the energies required and showed the early arrest of the collapse, but if considered as zero the collapse would have been arrested
within the next few tenths of a second as the strain energy requirements instead drained the energy supply of the impacting mass."

Mackey wrote:
" Ross assumes the upper and lower floors absorb energy equally on impact, which while possible, is highly optimistic."

Why does Mackey say this is highly optomistic? If he's talking about the floors of the upper section vs. the lower section - similar structures impacting each other - they both will come under similar loads. If anything, the upper section will absorb more, as the columns are made from slightly lighter sections.

There are others...
If Mackey want to brush off Ross, he should do it honestly, or at least , accurately.

these points sound like a start of a good separate thread. Why don't you start it so you can learn of Mackey's responses.

[rwguinn]

these points sound like a start of a good separate thread. Why don't you start it so you can learn of Mackey's responses.
The Ross tyhing has been done, ad infinitim...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86422&highlight=gordon+ross

[TerryUK]

these points sound like a start of a good separate thread. Why don't you start it so you can learn of Mackey's responses.
I realise going into all that would be off topic, which is why I'm not going to.

I was merely responding to accusations of lying, although I don't know why I should care what some here think.

[twinstead]

I realise going into all that would be off topic, which is why I'm not going to.

I was merely responding to accusations of lying, although I don't know why I should care what some here think.

So you don't care what his responses to your allegations would be?

[TerryUK]

So you don't care what his responses to your allegations would be?

Please clarify. Are you refering to R.Mackey?