The “troof” hurts…

…when it comes to “9/11 Truthers”:

i-6ff60cd2220eb0241fc1bf5a7de0d609-107.jpg

(Click on the picture for the rest of the cartoon.)

You know, the same thing could be said about creationists, HIV/AIDS denialists, and many “CAM” mavens.

Comments

  1. #1 Chris Noble
    February 12, 2008

    Hydrocarbon fires can’t melt steel.

    The last time I checked acetylene was a hydrocarbon. Now what is acetylene used for?

  2. #2 Chris Noble
    February 12, 2008

    Is there any way that I can buy you a beer? Seeing that I was wrong about the cartoon not being correct.

    Unless you live in Australia don’t worry. The laughs have been worth it. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

  3. #3 JustaTech
    February 12, 2008

    Cooler, with respect to the “explosives in WTC7”, have you spoken to anyone who worked in that building immediately prior to 9/11? I mean, I’ve never brought it up with my cousin, but I am sure that she would have said something about unusual work in the building, or miles of wire.

    Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what does OCT mean? As in, what does it stand for?

    Also, I must say that I am quite upset by your insistence on 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ because that seems to cheapen the deaths of all those people. Or do you not think that they were real either?

  4. #4 Chris Noble
    February 12, 2008

    There is only one way to settle this issue. Construct exact replicas of the World Trade Center buildings using the original blueprints and permitting full public observation from beginning to end.

    But I’ve already built a scale model using 3000 old fridges.

    Watch my reenactment. But don’t get a TABOO reaction!

    http://www.youtube.com/kjxczbk474-%$57($%723NBD

    BOW BEFORE your scientific elders. It’s agaisnt the laws of thermodynamics and quantum electrodynamics for the WTC7 to have fallen faster than gravity!

    PS you high scholl dropuats probably believe that HIV casues AIDS.

    google project day-lily reel storyu slitely ficionalised!

  5. #5 Bronze Dog
    February 12, 2008

    OCT: “Official Collapse Theory” or “Official Conspiracy Theory”. For the latter, we have the advantage of having a realistically small number of people, rather than millions, like cooler.

    Oh, and that’s a reminder of some other fun, Chris: Once went into a thread with a space laser nut said the laser was applying downward force. That’s where I coined my personal phrase “R-9 Orbital Wave Cannon” and someone gave me points for the R-Type reference.

    Controlled Demolition nut who stopped by to call the space laser nut a disinfo agent couldn’t get it into his head that the “faster than freefall” myth he kept quoting would require a downward force be applied to all the debris. Quite frankly, his repetition of the myth without realizing it refuted the CD (controlled demolition) theory was probably what triggered some nuts to move to space laser.

    Of course, if anyone in the government was competent enough to pull off either of those scenarios, you’d think that sort of administrative skill might be able to get the trains to run on time.

  6. #6 Chris Noble
    February 12, 2008

    Cooler you posted a link to a youtube video from “Mark Dice”.

    Have you visited his website?

    http://www.markdice.com

    A large number of our political world leaders and corporate global elite are part of an intricate system of Satanic secret societies. They believe Satan set Man free in the Garden of Eden, and that the God of the Bible is the evil one.

    Mock human sacrifices are done every year in the Bohemian Grove in California by our political and corporate elite. A forty foot tall idol of Moloch is used to sacrifice an effigy of a human while dozens of men wear black robes and hold torches performing a ceremony. In Leviticus 18:21 God denounces such behavior.

    VeriChip is the Pandora’s Box of the mark of the Beast. Soon implants will substitute ID and credit cards. GPS next.

    Neural Interfaces (chips and electrodes wired directly into the human brain) will soon be common ways to surf the Internet and make phone calls.

    Mechanical hybrid Terminators are being manufactured by the Department of Defense.

    The antichrist will soon rise through the political, and technological infrastructure.

    He’s stark raving mad! A complete loon!

  7. #7 Chris Noble
    February 12, 2008

    Once went into a thread with a space laser nut said the laser was applying downward force. That’s where I coined my personal phrase “R-9 Orbital Wave Cannon” and someone gave me points for the R-Type reference.

    Well it stands to reason that if they had the forethought to secretly install thermite in all of the WTC buildings to cover the possibility that flying jets full of jet-fuel wasn’t sufficient to bring the buildings down and that if they also put in explosives in case the thermite wasn’t sufficient then they would also have the foresight to equip a few satellites with the latest R-9 Orbital Wave Cannons.

    PS Are these laser cannons the ones that tap into the zero-point energy and convert it into highly focussed scalar waves? The ones the Soviets used for weather control during the Cold War?

  8. #8 EyeNoU
    February 12, 2008

    I work in in the oilfield. I have personally witnessed rig fires melt large amounts of thick steel.

  9. #9 Laser Potato
    February 12, 2008

    And as cooler and his twoofer budddies continue to avoid the hobo-induced melted steel beams…

  10. #10 cooler
    February 12, 2008

    Justatech,
    wireless explosives are a reality, watch the videos I posted above, 9/11 mysteries and loose change final cut. OCT means official conspiracy theory. About half the family members think that 9/11 was an inside job according to Bill Doyle who leads the largest 9/11 victims group, what’s really disrespectful is Cheney trying to block the investigation.

    Here is a demolitions expert who didnt even know building 7 collapsed on 9/11 giving his unbiased opinion that explosives brought down the towers.

    Mr. Noble,
    Mark Dice is a funny guy, and he can get a little kooky at times, funny thing is they do do mock human sacrifices at the bohemian grove, And I find it very weird that powerful people meet there, no one denies this, the poeple who defend it just say its all fun, the “nuts” think its part of the illuminati plot, I don’t really know, just that it’s really weird for powerful people do engage in these bizzarre rituals, I would not want people like that babysitting my kids, let alone running the country.

  11. #11 cooler
    February 12, 2008

    Noble is a troll, he’s so stupid he cant even explain the world trade center 7’s collapse Idiot, give a sequential model of how world trade center collapsed, waiting, also the evidence that al queda carried out the attacks.
    Please don’t respond with your pathetic impersonations of me, that just means you can’t debate the evidence. Don’t take it out on me that you teach at a university nobody’s heard of, have not one award in your career and, are a professional blogger.

  12. #12 Leni
    February 12, 2008

    cooler wrote:

    The next time constructers build a stage or a building, they should forget about steel supports, just use people to use their arms to give the structure support, for they are both equally sturdy!

    You could not have missed the point more. What you just said was so stupid that I actually feel embarrassed for you.

    Nomen was explaining the relative difference between two systems experiencing two different kinds of forces by using an analogy. S/he could have just said “F=ma” but since that so far has been fruitless…

    Anyway, I don’t want to complicate this any more for you, but it’s like saying that the difference between the size of an ant and a human is the same as the difference between a human and 2 T-Rexes ( or whatever-I just made that up. Example, not important).

    And your response was, essentially, “Pshaw! You just said an ant was the same size as a human! That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!”

    This is the kind of response we would expect from a grade schooler.

    Which leads me to my second point: I’m beginning to suspect that you are like 13 years old and have Asperger’s syndrome. And not a lot of parental supervision. That would explain the immaturity, the inability to grasp simple metaphors and analogies (and basic physics) and the large quantities of nearly content-less posts.

  13. #13 cooler
    February 12, 2008

    Sequential model of how building 7 collapsed, waiting idiots. Cant wait for your chain reaction theories on how one kink led to another kink that than caused all 81 columns to fail at the same time at several different levels throughout the building. Waiting.

    Also I’m waiting for the evidence that AL queda carried the attacks, you guys can start with the passports found on the streets of Manhattan and in the empty ditch Shankesville.

  14. #14 cooler
    February 12, 2008

    Leni are you stupid? you cant compare a human body and solid steel pillars, even if you add Dynamic energy, its a joke, you autistic retard.

    If a hundered people jumped up and down on a stage with metal supports it would not collapse, it would if it was supported by human beings. How retarded are you people? Leni, what junior college did you flunk out of? just wondering.

  15. #15 cooler
    February 12, 2008

    Mark dice is a baller! His videos are hilarious!

  16. #16 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Leni are you stupid? you cant compare a human body and solid steel pillars, even if you add Dynamic energy, its a joke, you autistic retard.

    You don’t even know what we’re comparing. It’s the difference between laying a hammer on a nail and dropping a hammer on a nail. You have the reading comprehension of a remedial student. Is your stupidity deliberate?

    If a hundered people jumped up and down on a stage with metal supports it would not collapse, it would if it was supported by human beings.

    I think it is deliberate. Do you have no concept of fixed variables? Do you have no ability to think analogously? It’s like you think only in direct comparisons.

    You also seem to act as if metal has unassailable magic and will never react to anything except even more magical explosives.

    I hope a bunch of twoofers come in here and declare you silly to the point that they call you a government disinfo agent. You are, by far, the silliest person I have ever met, and I’ve dealt with trolls that laughed at me explaining that truth is objective.

  17. #17 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Thanks for giving us a sequential model on how building 7 collapsed, waiting, dumb trailer park troll.

  18. #18 Sean
    February 13, 2008

    If a hundered people jumped up and down on a stage with metal supports it would not collapse

    Just found this thread thanks to ScienceBlogs ‘most active’ sidebar. My brain now hurts.

    Can you clarify the bounds of this claim? Are you saying the innate nature of metal supports will render a stage immutable to the effects of jumping bodies? Does this nature extend to constructions other than stages? Is one hundred the upper bound of this nature?

  19. #19 Chris Noble
    February 13, 2008

    Can you clarify the bounds of this claim? Are you saying the innate nature of metal supports will render a stage immutable to the effects of jumping bodies? Does this nature extend to constructions other than stages? Is one hundred the upper bound of this nature?

    Angers Bridge was obviously an inside job. Note the government cover up and the implausibility of the OCT.

    Read all about it on 415truth.com

  20. #20 Nomen Nescio
    February 13, 2008

    I hope a bunch of twoofers come in here and declare you silly to the point that they call you a government disinfo agent.

    i already tried that. he didn’t take notice.

  21. #21 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    “Which leads me to my second point: I’m beginning to suspect that you are like 13 years old and have Asperger’s syndrome…”
    HEY, *I’m* an Aspie! No need to drag ME into this, too! >:(

  22. #22 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    When *I* was 13 years old, I had more common sense than Cooler. But then, even tree sloths have more common sense than Cooler.

  23. #23 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Thanks for giving us a sequential model on how building 7 collapsed, waiting, dumb trailer park troll.

    Why go through the trouble of providing detailed models when we’re trying to give you basic knowledge of how the world works?

    That’s like going into a detailed model of evolution when you’re arguing against someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of sex.

    Although Cooler covers his ears and shuts his eyes whenever skeptics express any opinions or ask questions, I’ll just go ahead and link to a debunking of some WTC7 myths.

  24. #24 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    I keep bringing this up, and the twoofers keep ignoring it: the Mason building fire that I keep pointing to, the one with the horrifically melted and distorted steel support beams, was fueled by TRASH. So much for it being “impossible” for a diffuse fire to weaken steel. If a “weak” trash fire set by hobos can do that, imagine what jet fuel can do…

  25. #25 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    Oh, and this bears repeating.
    “How long *should* the towers have taken to fall?”
    No twoofer ever seems to have an answer for this.
    Answer this NOW, twoofers.
    If you don’t answer, I shall force you to play Shaq-Fu for 12 hours straight.
    Or not.
    …Just answer, OK?!

  26. #26 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    What a tour de force of name calling that veils your inability to answer any question. I’ve repeatedly asked for evidence and you people have just ignored and acted like the 3 year old retards. Ok enough with the name calling, lets just focus on the issues.

    1) What happened to the 47 column steel core?

    2) Can you give the evidence that would survive a trial that Osama and Alqueda were guilty?

    3)Can you provide me with a sequantial model on how building 7 collapsed? Nist cant figure it out and admits it.

    Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology government investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center building, is asked about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Sunder says that he hopes to release something about that by the end of 2006. He adds, NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses… We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors…. But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” [New York Magazine, 3/20/2006]

    Can you explain how a plane virtually dissapeared in shankesville but they found a Bandana and terrosits passport?

  27. #27 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    What a tour de force of name calling that veils your inability to answer any question. I’ve repeatedly asked for evidence and you people have just ignored and acted like the 3 year old retards. Ok enough with the name calling, lets just focus on the issues.

    Why should we get detailed when you don’t seem to possess even the most basic scientific knowledge? You don’t know the difference between static and dynamic load. You speak as if explosives can violate conservation of matter. You’ve demonstrated no ability to grasp or form analogies. You seem to think in terms of Hollywood physics instead of real world physics.

    Why should we answer the big questions demanding detailed answers if you can’t even comprehend the simple answers to small questions? This isn’t about who you are, this is about how you act. Your inability to understand the static/dynamic load analogy is so shocking, I’m left to wonder how you can function in society. It’s so amazing, I’m left to seriously wonder if it’s deliberate.

  28. #28 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Your answer of “I have no idea to your answers and need to change the subject” is noted. LOL

  29. #29 Davis
    February 13, 2008

    It’s so amazing, I’m left to seriously wonder if it’s deliberate.

    Cooler is actually starting to get boring. And I really do wonder if he’s trying to be the ultimate troll. Part of me refuses to believe anyone could be that clueless, and immune to education.

  30. #30 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Wow more evasion, crude psychoanyalisis, and ad hominem attacks! I love it, its no wonder Real scientists like Dr. Brown and Dr. Maniotis who used to use these blogs don’t want anything to do with you people anymore. I should follow their lead. Last time, here are the questions that you people can’t seem to answer.

    1) What happened to the 47 column steel core in WTC 1 and 2?

    2) Can you give the evidence that would survive a trial that Osama and Alqueda were guilty?

    3)Can you provide me with a sequantial model on how building 7 collapsed? Nist cant figure it out and admits it.

    Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology government investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center building, is asked about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Sunder says that he hopes to release something about that by the end of 2006. He adds, NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses… We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors…. But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” [New York Magazine, 3/20/2006]

    Can you explain how a plane virtually dissapeared in shankesville but they found a Bandana and terrosits passport?

  31. #31 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Jeez even the lead electrical engineer of the towers says they were demolished, its so obvious.

    Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60 people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer, he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington, D.C.

    Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

    On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.
    I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material, which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an international group of professionals to investigate all plausible causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of the WTC structures.

    Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview, Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue elements within the government).

    Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, “Though an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the structures and their conceptual design parameters.”

  32. #32 Nomen Nescio
    February 13, 2008

    What happened to the 47 column steel core in WTC 1 and 2?

    parts of them will soon be sailing the high seas.

    scrap steel’s worth good money. most of it gets recycled and reused.

  33. #33 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    I mean during the collapses, what happened to the 47 huge core steel columns?

  34. #34 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Your answer of “I have no idea to your answers and need to change the subject” is noted. LOL

    You haven’t paid attention to anything I’ve said, have you? I’m the one rejecting YOUR efforts to change the subject. You changed the subject to those specific questions because you can’t answer any of our previous questions or rebut any of our responses. All of your evasiveness in changing subjects and failure to even grasp our answers have given us grave doubts as to your competence to hold a debate. You don’t want answers. You want to ask questions in an allegedly pointed way. You’re shotgunning in a transparent effort to hide your inability to respond to us.

    That’s the sort of thing to be expected with cranks: They don’t respond, they try to drown out the competition.

    That said, here’s a little something for you to ignore. And if you do read it, you’ll take any tiny amount of uncertainty, and claim the tiniest unexplained event means magic bombs did it. Even if the “official” theory is wrong, the worst case answer would be “we don’t know.” It’s not like twoofers can posit a more satisfying answer without good evidence.

    Of course, why would they bother tearing down WTC7? Why go through a million-man conspiracy at all? Those are questions that no twoofer will ever answer.

  35. #35 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    “Wow more evasion, crude psychoanyalisis, and ad hominem attacks!”
    OK, all together now…
    If you think someone pointing out your failed efforts to shift the burden of proof is “evasion,” you might be an altie.
    Also, Doggerel #49.
    I quote:
    “Since skeptics like me love to point out logical fallacies, the woos are starting to shout out names of logical fallacies without any understanding of them. One of the fallacies most commonly abused in this manner is the ad hominem. Most people think that any insult of any sort qualifies as an ad hominem. Not true.
    It’s only an ad hominem if your argument relies on it. Examples: “You’re just a paid pharma shill, therefore any data you use is biased!” is a real ad hominem. “You’re relying on an absurd redefinition, you’ve taken a single data point out of context, and you’re an idiot” is not an ad hominem. The last bit is entirely unnecessary, but its presence does not magically transform the previous two points into invalid arguments. And that’s why it rocks.
    So, when a woo abuses ad hominem in this manner, they’re essentially saying, “You threw in a side insult, therefore I’ll ignore your real arguments and verifiable data!”

  36. #36 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    And since cooler’s probably busy typing up an attempt to take that “I don’t know” grossly out of context, I’ll take a moment to point out that even if I did claim not to know, it doesn’t help him one iota.

    It’s like with Creationists: Even if evolution were falsified tomorrow, that doesn’t provide a single piece of evidence for Intelligent Design or any of that supernatural crap.

    Even if the “official” story for 9/11 was proven wrong tomorrow, that would not be one iota of evidence for space lasers, super stealth ninja demolition teams, or antimatter explosives. All of those involve throwing out everything we know about physics and logistics. “Teh Government is magic!” is not a valid line of inquiry until you can prove the existence of magic.

  37. #37 Dawn
    February 13, 2008

    Looks like I’m very late to this party. But, as someone who stood and watched the planes hit the trade centers, watched the smoke fill the air, and saw them fall…I’ll just say this…Cooler, you are an idiot.

  38. #38 Chris Noble
    February 13, 2008

    Of course, why would they bother tearing down WTC7?

    Why would they go to the trouble of doing a CONTROLLED demolition? They’ve just flown two jet planes into WTC1 and WTC2 and killed thousands of people. Why a CONTROLLED demolition? Were they worried about killing people?

    What would they have done if the planes didn’t crash into WTC1 and WTC2? Blown up WTC7 anyway?

  39. #39 skeptic
    February 13, 2008

    Fire from a blast furnace melts steel, not an oxygen starved hydrocarbon fire.

    I’ll add that NIST has not and most likely cannot explain the progressive collapse.

    If you read their reports (available online) they can only explain the initiation of collapse when it is assumed that almost all of the fireproofing material had been blown off the trusses and girders. After that, they have nothing. They simply cannot explain why the building collapsed the way it did.

    Look for it, you won’t find it.

  40. #40 skeptic
    February 13, 2008

    I see the whole 9/11 troof thing as something of a defensive rationalisation – it is more comforting to think that internal agents did it than to think that America could actually be attacked. Proof of this is the way that whilst the troofers are extremely vocal about the whole thing, they have done absolutely nothing to actually challenge power.

    Posted by: Andrew Dodds | February 8, 2008 3:58 AM

    So I guess you’ve missed the hundreds of videos on youtube of people challenging those in power? I guess you’ve missed people running for Congress on a 9/11 truth platform?

    Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    Turn off your TV for a while.

  41. #41 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Ahhhhh more appeal to emotion and adhominem and evasion to my questions from Dawn. Oh it makes me so happy you ignorant twits whip out every fallacy becuase you cant handle my POWER! Greetings skeptic, finally some sense here. Here are my questions again for the 9/11 deniers. It gives me a total boner that you guys can’t answer.

    1) What happened to the 47 column steel core in WTC 1 and 2 During the collapses, how did they fail?

    2) Can you give the evidence that would survive a trial that Osama and Alqueda were guilty?

    3)Can you provide me with a sequantial model on how building 7 collapsed? Nist cant figure it out and admits it.

    Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology government investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center building, is asked about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Sunder says that he hopes to release something about that by the end of 2006. He adds, NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses… We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors…. But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” [New York Magazine, 3/20/2006]

    Can you explain how a plane virtually dissapeared in shankesville but they found a Bandana and terrosits passport?

  42. #42 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Fire from a blast furnace melts steel, not an oxygen starved hydrocarbon fire.

    1. It wasn’t oxygen starved. Black smoke does not tell you much.
    2. Show me where melting steel is part of the “official” theory.

    If you read their reports (available online) they can only explain the initiation of collapse when it is assumed that almost all of the fireproofing material had been blown off the trusses and girders. After that, they have nothing. They simply cannot explain why the building collapsed the way it did.

    Heated steel loses strength. Supports fail, and the top part of the tower falls on the lower floors. They can’t support that much stress and the mass falls to the next floor. This is called pancaking. Have you ever debated one of us before? You don’t seem to have a grasp of our stance.

    So I guess you’ve missed the hundreds of videos on youtube of people challenging those in power? I guess you’ve missed people running for Congress on a 9/11 truth platform?

    Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

    Not much of a challenge. They’re doing it without evidence or logic. At least out of all the ones I’ve seen so far. They’re fighting unarmed, hence they have nothing to perform a challenge.

    Turn off your TV for a while.

    I don’t watch as much as I used to. The internet is much more interesting and relevant to my life. Only TV news I watch is the Daily Show, which, despite being a parody of mainstream news, often does more of their homework, bringing up contradictions whenever someone gets on the microphone.

    The 9/11 troofers generally remind me of this one abysmal Moon Hoax show that came up on Fox News. Lots of shotgunned claims and ignorance of rebuttals. It’s like they deliberately go out of their way to avoid reading anything real skeptics write.

    So, “skeptic”, which kind of twoofer are you? R-9 Orbital Wave Cannon, Micro Nuke, Antimatter bomb, Super Stealth Ninja Demolition Squad?

  43. #43 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Loose Change Final Cut elucidates many of the Paradoxes of the Official theory. This film gives me a total boner.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&q=loose+change+final+cut&total=335&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

  44. #44 Chris Noble
    February 13, 2008

    1) What happened to the 47 column steel core in WTC 1 and 2 During the collapses, how did they fail?

    You apparently regard Danny Jowenko as an authority. Why don’t you read what he says about WTC1 and WTC2?

  45. #45 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    “Fire from a blast furnace melts steel, not an oxygen starved hydrocarbon fire.”

    The fires at the WTC were not oxygen starved.

    “If you read their reports (available online) they can only explain the initiation of collapse when it is assumed that almost all of the fireproofing material had been blown off the trusses and girders. After that, they have nothing. They simply cannot explain why the building collapsed the way it did.”

    You and the other truthers have yet to explain what was so anomalous about the collapse or even explain what should have happened in the same scenario minus your “controlled demolition” pablum.

  46. #46 Chris Noble
    February 13, 2008

    Loose Change Final Cut elucidates many of the Paradoxes of the Official theory. This film gives me a total boner.

    Can you come up with an alternative theory that is a) plausible and b) free from paradoxes? When you are doing this try to redirect a significant proportion of your blood flow to your brain.

  47. #47 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Perhaps the troof brigade here would like to take a stab at answering this question: how was the building orchestrated to fail exactly at the impact points of the planes. Specifically, how did they avoid detonating or partially detonating any of the explosives on impact, and how did they avoid compromising any of detonating cord?

  48. #48 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    “Heated steel loses strength. Supports fail, and the top part of the tower falls on the lower floors. They can’t support that much stress and the mass falls to the next floor. This is called pancaking. Have you ever debated one of us before? You don’t seem to have a grasp of our stance.” says bronze Dog

    Even in the Nist FAQ I posted above they reject the pancake theory. Bronze dog can’t even get the official story straight!

    “NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system–that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns–consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”

  49. #49 Cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Try watching the movie Mr Noble, it might give you a boner as well. You need it.

  50. #50 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Tyler,
    They are such things as wireless explosives, also unignited explosives do not go off during impact, try throwing an unlit stick of Dynamite against a wall as hard as you can. Probably wouldnt go off. This experiment would give me a total boner.

  51. #51 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Cooler once again fucks it up. Pancaking was rejected as being what started the collapse. Check out their answer to question 6 (about the time of the collapse) to put it in context:

    “In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”

  52. #52 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    They are such things as wireless explosives.

    Which would still require an apparatus to detonate from a distance. How was none of it compromised?

    “…also unignited explosives do not go off during impact, try throwing an unlit stick of Dynamite against a wall as hard as you can. Probably wouldnt go off.”

    How about flying a plane into and lighting it on fire?

  53. #53 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    They provide this scenario without any calculation, and it does not explain the failure of the 47 core columns, how did the core columns fail? Jim Hoffman, a software engineer, debunks the NIST FAQ here. He’s a bright guy, youll say he doesnt have the qualifications, which is interesting since you guys always rely on Popular Mechanics, and they 25 year oldish reporter Davin Coburn as the know it all of 9/11.

    Hoffman’s debunking of the NIST FAQ gives me a total boner.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

  54. #54 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    The Magical Mystery Bombs…hoping to take you away…

  55. #55 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    One point Cooler has just avoided, and apparently never even thought of:

    Even if we answered his questions with “I don’t know”, there’s nothing going in his favor. He’s chosen the same defeatist tactic as the Intelligent Design crowd: Don’t provide evidence, just throw rocks at an incomplete, but generally well supported theory.

    For all his talk, he has yet to answer his own questions. He couldn’t win even if we had no theory at all. How about this, twoofers: Get a theory of your own that’s as well supported, and then we’ll have much more motivation to answer every piddling little question.

    That’s one reason why I ask what kind of twoofers these people are: They seem awfully unwilling to put their ideas on the chopping block. Most want to remain in their isolated ivory tower so that they can apply (often moving) standards to everyone but themselves. The resulting inaction on their part does nothing but reinforce the status quo.

  56. #56 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    Cooler, stop it with the appeals to authority. WE’RE NOT STUPID.

  57. #57 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Cooler, I skimmed Jim Hoffman’s piece. His answers to the first three questions are essentially handwaving. For instance, he doesn’t even attempt to explain to top down nature of the collapse in terms of a “controlled demolition”. He basically lists a bunch of things about controlled demolitions that were supposedly present trade center collapse:

    * Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions
    * Radial symmetry about the building’s vertical axis
    * Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials
    * Total destruction of the building

    All of which are dubious. Care to point out where the “sounds of explosions” are in the collapse? The building also wasn’t totally destroyed or pulverized (it wouldn’t have taken nearly as long to clean up otherwise). It’s just more troofer nonsense from a guy with inflated credentials (software engineers are not structural engineers).

  58. #58 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    God this Hoffmann guy is brilliant. He gives me a total boner.
    From his site.

    How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn’t have set them off?

    There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel. Second, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft. Assuming that the jetliners were being flown by autopilot at the times of their impacts, the GPS navigation systems could have kept the targeting error margin to within a few feet. Third, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. Consider that the black boxes that store aircrafts’ voice and data recorders protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes.

  59. #59 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    …Hello? Earth to Cooler, come in Cooler.

  60. #60 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    Guys, I don’t think he’s listening.

  61. #61 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Hell, I’d rather rely on Hoffmann tha Davin Coburn from Popular Mechanics, a popular radio host Charles Goyette makes a total fool of him, its hilarious!

  62. #62 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Hoffman’s answers are dodgy in the extreme:

    1. For the first and second points, he doesn’t explain how, in this case, the collapse was still initiated exactly at the impact points of the planes.

    2. No one is saying that heat alone would detonate them, the explosive force of the jet impacts also factors in.

    As for his final point, care to point to a case of these casings being used successfully for conventional explosives?

  63. #63 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    And Example of a top down demolition

    The really powerful explosives were probably in the elevator shafts, and the plane was mostly shredded upon impact, and the fire didnt seem to be to intense, and was probably much less intense inside the elevator shafts, were talking about military explosives which can easily have technology that makes them impervious to ignite only upon detonation (Casings etc).
    And whos to say a few didn’t go off, many witnesses heard sounds of explosions.

  64. #64 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    …he really ISN’T listening, is he?

  65. #65 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Nope. He’s in the penthouse of the ivory tower.

    I remember an episode of South Park where the town was overrun by hippies in a concert claiming that they were going to start a revolution. Stan temporarily joined them and became disillusioned when they just partied for 3 days.

    But anyway, seeing some stuff:

    Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. Consider that the black boxes that store aircrafts’ voice and data recorders protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes.

    I’d be willing to give him that. Though I tend to wonder how they’d remain attached to the critical points on the supports, and how and when they’d be planted there. Super Stealth Ninja Demolition Squads, I guess.

  66. #66 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Cooler,

    Do you have another example of a controlled demolition being accomplished by placing explosives only in the elevator shafts?

    Also cooler, since you seem to be convinced that the explosives used wireless detonators, how did they avoid premature detonation with all the EMI from the office equipment and radio back and forth going on that day? Fuse based blasting caps are still often used for this reason.

  67. #67 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Also, in terms of ultra-high powered explosives that could still compromise the building when dislodged from the critical support structures, wouldn’t we have, you know, seen those? You can see the explosions even from conventional explosives in most demolitions.

  68. #68 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Im sure we’d find easy answers top all of this with a real investigation. We are talking about black op intelligence agencies with the most advanced military technology, anything is possible with these types of “stealth ninjas”

  69. #69 Laser Potato
    February 13, 2008

    No, Super Stealth MONKEY Ninja Demolition Squads. They’re even worse. 😉

  70. #70 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Im sure we’d find easy answers top all of this with a real investigation.

    Which you have yet to justify.

    We are talking about black op intelligence agencies with the most advanced military technology, anything is possible with these types of “stealth ninjas”

    Are you saying that you can send a large team of people into continually occupied buildings, tear down walls to get to supports, plant and secure bombs with high-strength supports to hold their high strength, fix the walls, and leave the building?

    You might as well claim that they hijacked the Enterprise and beamed the bombs in place.

    You’ve got nothing except to essentially claim that the government has access to unprecedented magic. You do realize that technology like that would require incremental steps, some of which would be in use today. And if the government had access to that sort of thing, why would they waste the effort, time, and manpower for performing completely unnecessary steps that would only add failure points to a hypothetical false flag scenario?

    Someone Cut Lex Luthor a Check.

  71. #71 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    The were several unprecendented power downs and unusual evacuations and contruction. I suggest you see the film 9/11 mysteries for this rock solid evidence. Place high powered explosives in the elevator shafts and youve got yourself a doozy. This film also gives me a total boner.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871

  72. #72 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    Cooler, preparing a building for demolition usually takes months. Keep in mind that the tallest building ever legally demolished, the Singer Building, was only 612 feet tall. For comparison, WTC 1 and 2 were both around 1350 feet tall. That means it would more than double the record currently in place. Wouldn’t it take far more than a few powerdowns to configure that?

  73. #73 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    Future nobel laurete jim Hoffmann has an answer for everything.

    How could the Twin Towers, with so many tenants, and so many columns (240 perimeter columns, and 47 core columns) be wired for a controlled demolition without the operation being noticed?

    This question, like the previous one, assumes that the demolition of the Twin Towers would have to look like a conventional one, with fuses and large numbers of cutting charges. First, understand that the demolitions could have been engineered using wireless operations. Attack Scenario 404 describes how the charges could have been activated via radio signals in a precise fashion controlled by a computer. Second, the demolitions may have been achieved without accessing the perimeter columns. The fact that the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of pulverized concrete, hurling steel assemblies up to 500 feet in all directions shows that they were destroyed with much more energy than a conventional demolition — perhaps two orders of magnitude more. That gave the planners much more leeway in the placement of charges required to totally destroy the buildings. The core structures contained the building services such as elevators, and plumbing and cabling shafts. It would have been easy for people who controlled building security to surreptitiously install devices in hidden portions of the cores.

  74. #74 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    I love troofers. They say shit like this:

    “The fact that the Twin Towers exploded into vast clouds of pulverized concrete, hurling steel assemblies up to 500 feet in all directions shows that they were destroyed with much more energy than a conventional demolition — perhaps two orders of magnitude more. That gave the planners much more leeway in the placement of charges required to totally destroy the buildings.”

    …and yet simultaneously want to claim that the demolitions were so neat and tidy that they “fell into their own footprints” and therefore must have been demolished on a controlled fashion. No consistency, but then again, it’s crankey. Anything suffices.

  75. #75 cooler
    February 13, 2008

    They were pulverized symetrically, like a tree exploding into sawdust, they didnt topple.

  76. #76 Bronze Dog
    February 13, 2008

    Twoofers and woos in general are masters of double-think.

    So, two orders of magnitude, meaning explosives 100 times as powerful. How big are we talking, here, because I have a hard time imagining them hiding something like that easily without magic.

    Another problem with CD scenario: Explosive charges for those go off in series of very loud booms (and with 100x power, even louder than normal), so I guess I left the Hushaboom twoofers off my list of possibilities.

  77. #77 Tyler DiPietro
    February 13, 2008

    We’ve already been through this cooler:

    1. The building wasn’t pulverized, certain parts of it were. Take a look at the dust samples taken from the collapse site, they mostly contain the softer materials of the building (aside from the concrete).

    2. Trees are not a valid analogy. They are not mostly hollow like a building, among other things.

  78. #78 Troublesome Frog
    February 13, 2008

    My question is, can anybody come up with a controlled demolition theory that makes any sense at all given the motivations of people involved? Questions like who, why, how, and more specifically, why they chose such a roundabout way of accomplishing it? Bonus points for including a “no plane” theory.

  79. #79 autumn
    February 14, 2008

    I don’t know why I’m even trying, but here goes. . .
    Cooler, as to your asking for information that would be sufficient to have Bin Laden convicted in a US (I assume) court, no, we probably don’t have it. We also never had sufficient proof to even attempt to try Al Capone for any of the hundreds of murders commited under his watch, and for exactly the same reason. Large criminal organizations are very purposefully decentralized.
    If, on the other hand, it were possible to try an entire organization as an individual, Al-Quaeda would be very easily convicted based on the evidence placing Atta and other hijackers at Al-quaeda training facilities, and communications by Al-Quaeda with Atta’s associates indicating an upcoming event, as well as the debris found at the crash sites.

  80. #80 blf
    February 14, 2008

    A toofer troll bellows:

    We are talking about black op intelligence agencies with the most advanced military technology, anything is possible …

    No. They are constrained by the what is physically and economically possible; i.e., by the laws of physics, by time available, and by money available.

    Plus, there should be a reason. Unfortunately, the reason doesn’t have to a rational. Given this hypothesis is some super-secret mysterious “stealth ninjas” of an unknown size, based in an unknown location, funded by an unknown source, trained in an unknown manner, with access to information unknown to others, and to technology unknown to others, with motivations that are unknown, and yadda yadda yadda all completely unknown, its seems likely the rationale is also unknown. Even the evidence for these “stealth ninjas” existing is unknown.

    What is also unknown is how a bunch of clowns as incompetent and corrupt as the Cheney and Bush II Three Ring Circus could possibly keep secret, much less organize or accomplish, any attack, even using these super-duper secret “stealth ninjas”.

  81. #81 Laser Potato
    February 14, 2008

    Cooler’s still not listening. But what do you expect for a troll named after an Akira Toriyama villian?

  82. #82 N.C.
    February 14, 2008

    Man, 7 years later and people still believe the WTC “wired for explosives by a shadowy cabal” story?

    To answer your question about 7 World Trade Center:

    1) A critical column supporting a large open bay (i.e. one that could not easily redistribute its load) was damaged by WTC1/2 debris and a fire possibly caused by a rupture of a generator fuel supply line, and buckled due to a reduction of its load capacity.

    2) The failure cascaded vertically as the structure failed to redistribute the load, and the eastern section collapsed.

    3) Damage caused by the eastern collapse (probably along with damage caused by other local fires and debris) brought down the rest of the building.

    No horizontal thermite, demolition crews, evil Jewliani conspiracies, or moon lasers required.

  83. #83 Nomen Nescio
    February 14, 2008

    It gives me a total boner that you guys can’t answer
    […]
    This film gives me a total boner
    […]
    This experiment would give me a total boner

    kindly keep your sex life on your OWN blog, or i shall have to start calling you a wanker. eesh.

  84. #84 Orac
    February 14, 2008

    Eeewww. I don’t really want to know what sorts of things give Cooler a boner.

    Actually, I hadn’t been paying much attention to this thread anymore, given how long it’s gotten–until you pointed that out…

  85. #85 Lilly de Lure
    February 14, 2008

    blf said:

    What is also unknown is how a bunch of clowns as incompetent and corrupt as the Cheney and Bush II Three Ring Circus could possibly keep secret, much less organize or accomplish, any attack, even using these super-duper secret “stealth ninjas”.

    Well, to be fair they did manage to sink back to their usual level of competence when it came to choosing appropriate patsies to fly the planes. If they are trying to invent excuses to attack Iraq or Afghanistan why blame the attacks on a group of terrorists hailing mainly from Saudi Arabia and North Africa? Wouldn’t a group consisting of Iraqis, a few Afghans and a Palestinian or two for the sake of completeness make more sense?

  86. #86 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    Wow, all this mindreading on how a criminal would operate, ie totally useless. As far as NC’s chain reaction collapse, this would be virtually unprecendented in history, this is what happens when there is random damage to a building, watch this controlled demolition gone bad. The only buildings that come straight down very rapidily are alamost always usually Controlled demolitions. Buildings that have collapsed during earthquakes have toppled. This is what random asymetric damage does to a building.

  87. #87 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    see and hear this video to this huge explasion heard on 9/11, and according to Popular Mechanics it was an aerosol can blowing up lol. Sounds like a huge bomb to me. Not to mention namy witnesses that heard huge explosions in the building.

  88. #88 Tyler DiPietro
    February 14, 2008

    He just doesn’t know when to call it quits, does he?

  89. #89 Bronze Dog
    February 14, 2008

    Wow, all this mindreading on how a criminal would operate, ie totally useless.

    What? It’s stupid to think a criminal would take a very direct path with much smaller logistical demands, instead of some zany, roundabout scheme fraught with danger of exposure and potentially thousands of lines of evidence? Why use a world-spanning Goldberg device to drive a nail when you’ve got a variety of hammers at your disposal?

    see and hear this video to this huge explasion heard on 9/11, and according to Popular Mechanics it was an aerosol can blowing up lol. Sounds like a huge bomb to me. Not to mention namy witnesses that heard huge explosions in the building.

    Sounds a little bit loud for an aerosol can to me. But I don’t hear many exploding cans in my life. Suppose it could have been a large can.

    But it’s far, far too quiet to be a “two orders of magnitude” larger-than-usual demolition charge. Doesn’t even come on par with the standard noises I hear during a video of a controlled demolition. To top it off, it’s one explosion, not a tight series.

  90. #90 DuWayne
    February 14, 2008

    No, no he doesn’t. I for one find it highly amusing.

  91. #91 Bronze Dog
    February 14, 2008

    I’ve currently got a comment in moderation. I mentions Goldberg devices. That pretty much sums up the twoofer theories: A lot of fanfare, complexity, and moving parts (each of which adds on more failure points) for what could be more easily done with a simple tool.

  92. #92 N.C.
    February 14, 2008

    The building in that failed demolition video is hilariously incomparable to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.

    1) In the demolition, all the supporting columns were taken out near-simultaneously. 7 World Trade Center’s collapse was precipitated by the failure of a single critical column, caused by falling WTC1 debris that gouged a 10-story gash into the building. 7 WTC was especially prone to a collapse of this type because of its sparse column layout (less, but stronger columns supporting greater floor areas to increase usable space and to avoid putting piles through the utilities located below 7 WTC).

    2) The building being demolished collapsed partially within seconds. 7 World Trade Center took about 8 hours to collapse completely, from initial damage to final collape.

    3) The building being demolished was not subject to massive debris strikes or multiple raging fires.

    4) Even discounting the huge time disparity, despite your claims, 7 WTC did not “come straight down”: the collapsing 7 WTC struck the nearby Verizon Building and Fiterman Hall as well. Fiterman Hall was rendered uninhabitable and the Verizon Building took years to be repaired.

    5) You know what else is unprecedented in history? Two jetliners striking 100+ story skyscrapers.

  93. #93 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    see and hear this video to this huge explasion heard on 9/11, and according to Popular Mechanics it was an aerosol can blowing up lol. Sounds like a huge bomb to me. Not to mention namy witnesses that heard huge explosions in the building.

    Funny thing. When some things get really hot they explode. Concrete explodes. Cans explode. I was attempting to put a fire out once when tinned food started exploding. I moved away fast.

    It would have been unprecedented if there weren’t secondary explosions.

  94. #94 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    Orac wrote:

    Eeewww. I don’t really want to know what sorts of things give Cooler a boner.

    That has got to be a logical fallacy.

    Appeal to boner.

    Ad Priapus.

    You missed the Bikini Babes for 911 truth!

  95. #95 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    Wow, all this mindreading on how a criminal would operate, ie totally useless.

    That sounds eerily like the Intelligent Design crowd when you ask them questions about who the Designer is, how they did what they are supposed to have done and why they did what they are supposed to have done.

    Why did the Illuminati go to such great lengths to do a controlled explosion. We’ve already heard from one of your authorities that they used 100 times more explosives than a normal controlled explosion. Why not just blow the crap out of the buildings?

  96. #96 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    Usual fallacies, guilt by association (you are just the same as evolution denier) Ruling out things you dont want to beleive (that explosion couldn’t be a bomb, it could only be a busted generator, is it possible that it was a bomb, why is not possible that that huge explosion I posted wansnt a bomb?)

    Ignoring and convoluting the evidence, I show you of what happens to a building when it it experiences random damage, it falls in direction of the damage, and is not a total near symetric rapid collapse, now suddenly building 7 toppled over, yeah right…………

  97. #97 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    The building in that failed demolition video is hilariously incomparable to the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.

    Exactly, that was my point, that building 7 didnt collapse in the direction of the damage like that building did, that video is what youd expect in a random fire /damage scenario, buildings topple in the direction of the damage, controlled demo’s come done rapidly, near totally, and with near symetry.

  98. #98 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    Usual fallacies, guilt by association (you are just the same as evolution denier) Ruling out things you dont want to beleive (that explosion couldn’t be a bomb, it could only be a busted generator, is it possible that it was a bomb, why is not possible that that huge explosion I posted wansnt a bomb?)

    It’s amusing when you try to use the langauge of skepticism but get it all wrong.

    I am not saying you are an evolution denier although it wouldn’t surprise me. You simply use the same style of fallacious arguements.

    It is possible that the explosion was a bomb but given the rest of the information we have it is superfluous and unlikely. The building was on fire. Burning buildings often have things in them which explode.

  99. #99 Tyler DiPietro
    February 14, 2008

    “Exactly, that was my point, that building 7 didnt collapse in the direction of the damage like that building did, that video is what youd expect in a random fire /damage scenario, buildings topple in the direction of the damage, controlled demo’s come done rapidly, near totally, and with near symetry.”

    Exactly how do you derive the absolute rule of “buildings topple in the direction of the damage”? N.C. already explained two things relevant to your claims here, which you simply ignored:

    1. The WTC 7 building had a structurally peculiar design, it used fewer support columns to provide usable space in the building. The remaining columns were unable to redistribute the weight and buckled.

    2. The collapse of WTC 7 was not even, it struck and severely damaged several buildings.

  100. #100 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    Wow tyler and NC, you should contact Dr. Sunder from NIST and give him your hypothesis, since he Admits that after extensive anyalsis hes got no idea, but you and NC know exactly how it collapsed, yep.

    Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the National Institute of Standards and Technology government investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center building, is asked about the collapse of WTC Building 7. Sunder says that he hopes to release something about that by the end of 2006. He adds, NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses… We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors…. But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.” [New York Magazine, 3/20/2006]

    Jeez even an explosives expert Jowenko says the building was a controlled demolition and came virtually straight down, you guys are flat out lying about the data, Jowenkos diagnosis was completely unbiased for he didn’t even know the building collapsed on 9/11.

  101. #101 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    Here’s another question for cooler that will go unanswered.

    Wouldn’t about now have been a good time to set off all those hidden explosive charges in WTC7?

    Why wait 8 hours?

  102. #102 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    Jeez even an explosives expert Jowenko says the building was a controlled demolition and came virtually straight down, you guys are flat out lying about the data, Jowenkos diagnosis was completely unbiased for he didn’t even know the building collapsed on 9/11.

    Jowenko’s diagnosis was made before he knew that the building had been significantly damaged by the collapse of WTC1 and had multiple fires that were not put out.

    Jowenko also states that the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 were not controlled demolitions.

    If you are going to appeal to Jowenko’s authority then you have to be consistent. When you cite somebody as an authority only when they agree with you then ultimately it comes back to your preconceived ideas and lack of credibility.

  103. #103 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    I dont answer questions that rely on reading the minds of the perpetrators, If I were to do that I would wonder why Al queda decided to hit the least occupied part of the Pentagon, making a u turn, ignoring the top brass, and pass over hitting a nuclear power plant which would have caused much more havok.

  104. #104 cooler
    February 14, 2008

    Wrong, if you watch the documentary youll see they explained to him all the possible collapse scenarios, even after he still says it was a CD, also he knew the towers collapsed on 9/11, so he knew saying they were demolitions would be implying it was an inside job, something many experts consciuosly or subconciously want to avoid at all costs, thats why the Dutch doc brillainty didn’t tell him building 7 collapsed on 9/11, to get an unbiased opinion, which is very tough given the tremendous emotion that day invokes in people that can twist the science.

  105. #105 Leni
    February 14, 2008

    This is really old and totally far gone. I still feel like the little creep deserves a response.

    So.

    Cooler (obviously) wrote:

    Leni are you stupid? you cant compare a human body and solid steel pillars, even if you add Dynamic energy, its a joke, you autistic retard.

    A) Autistics aren’t retards, you asshole. In fact, I’ve known nonverbal autistics who are several orders of magnitude more intelligent and perceptive than you are.

    When I remarked that I thought you had Aspergers’ it had nothing to do with your intelligence.

    B) Apparently you still aren’t getting it. Yes, actually, you can compare a steel pillars to humans. FYI- The argument isn’t meant to illustrate what would happen if people were bridges. That’s fucking retarded and you know it, and you know why.

    Leni, what junior college did you flunk out of? just wondering.

    Why? Is my physics degree from a big 10 university too much for your little penis to handle?

    Hmm. Good luck with that, small penis man.

  106. #106 Chris Noble
    February 14, 2008

    thats why the Dutch doc brillainty didn’t tell him building 7 collapsed on 9/11, to get an unbiased opinion,

    Yes, they brillianty forgot to mention the details about a huge whole in the side of the building and multiple unchecked fires. A conclusion formed upon insufficient evidence is not worth anything. Jowenko’s rationalisations when he hears the extra details are ridiculous. He starts talking about people planting the explosives during the fire. It’s all ridiculous.

    You still haven’t answered why you hold him as an authority on WTC7 and then ignore his opinions regarding WTC1 and WTC2.

  107. #107 Robster, FCD
    February 14, 2008

    Actually Cooler, WTC7 DID collapse in the direction of the damage, but you would never know it from the cherry picking of the “truthers.”

    Since the highest form of evidence accepted by “truthers” is internet video, I’ll offer this one up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw

    The southern side of WTC7 was impacted by debris from tower 1, gouging a 20+ story hole. The southern face of #7 was also heavily involved in fire, but “truthers” only show you the northern side of the building, with few fires. The southern side was most heavily damaged, and the building’s collapse began there first.

    Also, I don’t think that Cooler understands what pyroclastic flow means. Just because something looks like a pyroclastic flow, or a demolition for that matter, or sounds like a bomb, doesn’t mean it is one.

    Another detail that needs to be corrected is that the fireproofing on towers 1 and 2 were of any quality whatsoever. Although I know it will probably slow down this comment, this link shows the low quality of the fireproofing of the towers. I doubt the towers would have stood after an hour+ fire in the upper quarter of the building, even without a plane hitting it. The above site has some great debunking info, especially in regards to building 7, and actual peer reviewed papers regarding the structural failures that occurred on 9/11/01.

    BTW, is it possible for fire to melt steel? (this didn’t happen on 9/11, but is it possible?)

  108. #108 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    Why? Is my physics degree from a big 10 university too much for your little penis to handle?

    Hmm. Good luck with that, small penis man.

    What a waste of money on your education, dumb loser, they should forget about building buildings out of steel and use human corpses, for they provide the same dynamic load resistence. You should put your degree back in the cereal box you got it from, leni, goodnight

  109. #109 Freddy the Pig
    February 15, 2008

    Cooler’s invocations of elaborate and conspiracies involving thousands of people indicate a complete unfamiliarity with Occam’s Razor. That is understandable since he probably isn’t allowed to have sharp objects.

  110. #110 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    “In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished,” says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH-Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that “the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished.”

    tack on over 200 architects and engineers at http://www.ae911truth.org I will take that over NIST’s explanation as explained by Dr. Sunder that’s “I don’t really know……”

  111. #111 DuWayne
    February 15, 2008

    cooler –

    …dumb loser…You should put your degree back in the cereal box you got it from…

    I’m rubber, your glue, etc. Seriously man, you have gone far beyond the realms of even the patently absurd, to a place which words just cannot describe. I know preteens with more maturity than you exhibit.

  112. #112 Andrew Dodds
    February 15, 2008

    Cooler – don’t suppose you’d like to tell us WHY WTC7 was demolished? Given that few people actually knew that it existed prior to 9/11 (I didn’t, and I once stood on top of one of the main towers), there was zero propaganda value in demolishing it, and if it was as obvious a demolition as you claim, then it would be likelt to give the game away. So why?

  113. #113 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    Because it was the largest CIA office outside of Washington, you know the Same CIA thats overthrown democratically elected leaders around the world and started a secret undeclared war in Vietnam that killed millions and destroyed an entire generation of Americans.

    It seems as if building 7 could have been where the operation was executed, thus has to be destroyed.

  114. #114 Who Cares
    February 15, 2008

    @Cooler:

    What means heat capacity? What is the heat capacity of steel?
    What happens when steel is heated? Do you know what an expansion joint is? Do you know what tolerance(s) means (in the context of building materials)?
    Can you explain the general building structure of WTC1 and WTC2?

  115. #115 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    I suggest you go to the http://www.ae911truth.org for those answers. This is a typical tactic of deniers, turn simple high school level issues like Koch’s postulates and basic issues of physics, understandable to a 8th grader, and convolute them.

    Like with HIV forget about Kochs Postulates, just babble scientific drivel about how this 1/10000 cell virus can cause the immune system to collapse, or with 9/11 come up with some unprecendented chain reaction collapse of building 7.

    I suggest instead of implying I have no expertise, you read the history of Scurvy on wikipedia, the cure was proposed 200 years in advance by tribespeople, and ignored by experts to the detriment of many people. Sometimes common sense prevails over the stupidity of some “experts” who want to turn the simple into the complex to mask thier idiotic theories.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scurvy

  116. #116 mooglar
    February 15, 2008

    There’s really no reason to talk to cooler anymore, as entertaining as it may be, after he said this:

    Im sure we’d find easy answers top all of this with a real investigation. We are talking about black op intelligence agencies with the most advanced military technology, anything is possible with these types of “stealth ninjas”

    He’s admitted that under his theory “anything is possible,” which is to say, like ID, there is no evidence that can falsify it. If he thinks it looks like a controlled demolition, it must be! But if it didn’t look like a controlled demolition, he’d just say the Super Stealth Ninjas were so good they can make a controlled demolition look like the result of planes crashing into the building. If a theory fits any and all evidence, no matter what it might be, then it’s pretty much a useless theory and simply an exercise in sophistry.

    I mean, look at this quote cooler uses to bolster his claims:

    This question, like the previous one, assumes that the demolition of the Twin Towers would have to look like a conventional one, with fuses and large numbers of cutting charges.

    See? It must be a controlled demolition because it looks like one. What, you say? It doesn’t look like a controlled demolition? Well, of course, you’re assuming it would! It doesn’t have to look like one! Why would you try to pigeon-hole things like that?

    cooler’s belief in a 9/11 conspiracy isn’t based on any evidence and it isn’t based on how the towers or fell or whether steel melts from fire or how WTC 7 collapsed the way it did. Those are just props he brings out to show to make it seem like his belief is girded by evidence, but it’s not. He believes that 9/11 is a conspiracy on faith and no evidence in the world will convince him otherwise. He’s as much as said so.

    Also, the idea that considering the motivations and likely actions of the terrorists/plotters behind the “conspiracy” is irrelevant and beyond the pale is ludicrous. How is it possible to try to figure out what happened on 9/11 without considering how and why the people responsible did what they did? It’s trivially obvious that any action, plot, or plan conceived and carried out by humans is affected by the motivations and goals of those carrying the action out, and that we can therefore use what happened to make educated guesses about those goals and motivations. Or that we can look at what happened and see that events don’t fit well with certain postulated goals and motivations.

    According to cooler, we shouldn’t even try to profile criminals based on the crimes they commit and every FBI or criminal profiler is just slinging bullshit, despite many having a pretty good track record. And, I guess, if a black person living in the South in the 60s found a cross burning in his or her front yard, cooler would tell us that we’d have to be clairvoyant to have any idea who might have put it there and why.

    The stupid doesn’t just burn… it is like being exposed to the fusion in the heart of the sun.

  117. #117 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    Yes profiling is important in a criminal investigation, but so is the physical evidence, many people dismiss conspiracy theories out of hand only because they think they can read the perpetrators mind, and what makes you think their mind reading abilities are correct, even if they were justified in attempting to make them, junior college dropout?

  118. #118 Robster, FCD
    February 15, 2008

    Problem is, you don’t have any evidence, cooler.

    As to the 200 architects and engineers (including a single structural engineer), thats 200 worldwide, compared to the hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers in the US alone that don’t agree with ae911truth. Pointing to your preferred group only demonstrates how unpopular it is within the architectural engineering community itself.

    Can you show us a single peer reviewed article from ae911truth that supports any of your claims? A single one. Thats it. They had a video with a doctored recording of a demolition to make them seem quiet, and got shamed into admitting their academic dishonesty.

    Richard Gage’s presentation also had a discussion of “mistimed squibs” in WTC7 (but no evidence of properly timed explosions), which he admitted was incorrect, but has not corrected this admitted falsehood.

    But hey, Gage’s primary MO appears to be asking for lunch from supporters and selling DVDs. Does he even have a paying job?

    BTW, can fire melt steel?

  119. #119 mooglar
    February 15, 2008

    cooler:

    As if it matters, since you neither care about nor will acknowledge my response, history gives us a wealth of data about conspiracies throughout the ages, how they work or don’t work, what sorts of clues they leave behind, and what is more or less likely to be true. The overwhelming evidence of history shows me that simple explanations are more likely to be true than complicated, fanciful conspiracy theories.

    History shows us that needlessly complicated plans usually fail catastrophically and that needlessly complicated conspiracy theories requiring masterful Cracker-Jack execution on the part of the perpetrators are almost always wrong. And that rarely do successful crimes involve needless complications for dubious benefit, as are required for 9/11 conspiracy theories to work.

    History also shows us that successful criminal conspirators use the most efficient and direct methods to accomplish their goals, not needlessly complicated methods that invite failure. As such, generally, when we see a successful criminal act like the attacks of 9/11, we can reasonably assume that the perpetrators had a fairly simple goal and used the most efficient means to achieve that goal. Without evidence that the perpetrators had some murky, unfathomable goal as you seem to be suggesting, it is an unwarranted leap to assume they had such a goal.

    Just because something is possible does not make it likely, and we can use the information at our disposal to determine which things are more or less likely. We are not at sea with no idea which way the wind might blow as you want to suggest with your assertion that only by reading the perpetrators’ minds can we have any idea whether they would adopt a needlessly complicated plan. We can use our knowledge of history to determine which scenarios are more or less likely, and yours, I’m afraid, is not likely at all. No mind reading required.

    I do not, of course, expect cooler to acknowledge or engage with anything I have written in any kind of reasonable manner. In fact, with my knowledge of his past history, I will confidently predict he will not. Since I do not have telepathic abilities, when cooler fails to engage anything I have written, my point will be proven, as I have predicted his behavior without resorting to mind reading.

    Also, I’m not really sure why cooler thinks I will be hurt by him calling me a “junior college dropout.” Even if I am, all it proves is that cooler is unable to understand things so obvious that even a “junior college dropout” can understand them.

  120. #120 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    As to the 200 architects and engineers (including a single structural engineer), thats 200 worldwide, compared to the hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers in the US alone that don’t agree with ae911truth. Pointing to your preferred group only demonstrates how unpopular it is within the architectural engineering community itself

    This is not true, most architects and engineers have not spoken out on the issue for either side. The ones that did worked for the Bush administration (NIST), and even admit they have no idea why building 7 collapsed.

    According to Eagar fire doesnt melt steel in office/building fire, but im sure under controlled conditions like a blast furnace you coould get steel to melt, I dont really know, even if the steel did melt, lets say all the steel melted/weakened between the 80th and 90th floor, many people think that the tops, at worst would have toppled off, not went through the path of greatest resistence in 10 seconds or so.

  121. #121 Tyler DiPietro
    February 15, 2008

    “The ones that did worked for the Bush administration (NIST), and even admit they have no idea why building 7 collapsed.”

    So Purdue University now works for the Bush administration? How about MIT? The American Society of Civil Engineers? They’re all in on the conspiracy too.

    It’s so funny that you can’t realize the extent to which you’re just peeing on your own feet here.

  122. #122 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    theyd be out of a job if they didnt tow the official theory, like when stephen jones was forced to retire. SON. punky punky retard.

  123. #123 Robster, FCD
    February 15, 2008

    I win! Fire can melt steel!

    ae911truth have never published a peer reviewed paper on any of their claims, and with their lack of willingness to correct errors in their presentations, I don’t expect them to be able to meet that hurdle any time soon.

    Next up is the tower collapse. First, you need to understand how a skyscraper is designed and constructed. A floor only holds up the weight on that specific floor, not the floors above it. The weight of every floor is transferred to the load bearing columns, not the floor below. If you were to sever any one column, its loss would have to be compensated for by the other columns. Cut enough, and a collapse will occur, with that mass landing on the floor below, which cannot support it. Remember, floors can only support their own load, not the floors above. For every ten feet it falls, it will punch through the next floor faster and faster.

    But where would that mass go? Gravity pulls downward, so the mass of those unsupported upper floors would prefer to fall downward, as it the base is square instead of round. We are talking about a 330 by 420 ft building, after all, so it would take a fair amount of thrust to push that mass far enough to roll (assuming it was solid enough to maintain its form, which it wasn’t).

    So sideways would require energy input, which a very important point. Electricity follows the path of least resistance, but matter follows the path of least energy change. If a bullet hits a body, it doesn’t go around the body, which would be the path of least resistance, but through. So the top of a skyscraper, should it lose its support, will fall down, through the path of most resistance, but least energy change.

  124. #124 cooler
    February 15, 2008

    Speculations, how exactly did the 47 core columns and perimeter columns fail in 10 seconds or so?

  125. #125 Robster, FCD
    February 15, 2008

    theyd be out of a job if they didnt tow the official theory, like when stephen jones was forced to retire.

    The mob couldn’t even keep everyone quiet, even under threat of death.

  126. #126 Robster, FCD
    February 16, 2008

    Speculation? How is that different than what the “truthers” do? Except mine follows the laws of physics, of course.

    Also, the columns didn’t fail in 10 seconds, but rather from the initial impact to the collapse itself.

  127. #127 Who Cares
    February 16, 2008

    Cooler wrote:

    I suggest you go to the http://www.ae911truth.org for those answers. This is a typical tactic of deniers, turn simple high school level issues like Koch’s postulates and basic issues of physics, understandable to a 8th grader, and convolute them.
    No cooler I want YOU to answer these questions and it is exactly for the reason you posted. Because you don’t show the understanding of materials and physics you attribute to an 8th grader (which isn’t true it’s more like college level).
    Letting you answer it would also allow to see where the holes are in your education.

    Oh and don’t bother with the name dropping since it is not relevant to the questions.

    So again I ask:
    What means heat capacity? What is the heat capacity of steel?
    What happens when steel is heated? Do you know what an expansion joint is? Do you know what tolerance(s) means (in the context of building materials)?
    Can you explain the general building structure of WTC1 and WTC2?

  128. #128 Who Cares
    February 16, 2008

    Cooler wrote:

    I suggest you go to the http://www.ae911truth.org for those answers. This is a typical tactic of deniers, turn simple high school level issues like Koch’s postulates and basic issues of physics, understandable to a 8th grader, and convolute them.

    No cooler I want YOU to answer these questions and it is exactly for the reason you posted. Because you don’t show the understanding of materials and physics you attribute to an 8th grader (which isn’t true it’s more like college level).
    Letting you answer it would also allow to see where the holes are in your education.

    Oh and don’t bother with the name dropping since it is not relevant to the questions.

    So again I ask:
    What means heat capacity? What is the heat capacity of steel?
    What happens when steel is heated? Do you know what an expansion joint is? Do you know what tolerance(s) means (in the context of building materials)?
    Can you explain the general building structure of WTC1 and WTC2?

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.