...when it comes to "9/11 Truthers":
(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.
More like this
As a part of a longer post where I was, for the most part, serious albeit sarcastic, I asked one question that I considered a bit of a throwaway joke. Oddly enough, the more I think about it, the more I think that it wasn't such a joke. Here was my question:
Perhaps we could have a contest: Which…
Fellow SB'er Tara Smith, and academic neurologist Steve Novella have written an essential primer on the dangerous pseudoscience and quackery that is HIV/AIDS denialism. It's published in PLoS and is entitled HIV Denial in the Internet Era.
It makes a number of excellent points about the deadly…
As a skeptic and a blogger, my main interest has evolved to be the discussion of science-based medicine and how one can identify what in medicine is and is not based in science. Part of the reason for this is because of my general interest in skepticism dating back to my discovery that there…
Between sessions here at the AACR meeting, I started thinking. (I realize that's often a dangerous thing to do, but sometimes I can't help myself.) What I was thinking about was my annual bit of "fluff with a bite," the 2008 edition of "What is an altie?" Why, I don't know, but I was. Then, this…
...Wait, you mean there's people who actually think fire can't melt steel? I thought that was some sort of generic patently ridiculous fill-in for other, real claims made by real groups.
There's no claim too silly to be disbelieved by every twoofer. Of course, every category of twoofer tends to claim all the others are evil disinfo agents trying to be silly.
And, of course, it's worth mentioning that melting steel isn't a part of the scientific explanation. The steel merely had to get hot enough to weaken, not melt.
As anyone who has bent steel with the aid ov an acetylene torch knows.
To debate this topic with troofers is to become mired in an endless swamp of "YeaButs" - slow going and messy. Oh my, it is frustrating work.
The fourth frame in the cartoon is totally realistic. No amount of evidence can sway them.
Here's how a bubbleheaded TV talk-show host addressed the question of fire and steel: Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds
But troofers aren't fond of PM.
No end of silliness in the comments from that link you provided, decrepitoldfool. Even had one of those R9 Orbital Wave Cannon nuts.
And, of course, lots of twoofers bringing up melting steel (which would contradict their story anyway), some guy claiming selling fireworks and doing experiments on plastic models made him a demolitions expert, and thermate/ite nuts who think the stuff can burn perpendicular to gravity. Lot of the usual suspects.
Like Adam, I'd read the strip, but hadn't realized that it was quoting an actual "9/11 Truther" claim. I guess I don't hang out with them enough. Thanks for the explanation.
The cartoon is not accurate. What the truthers say is that the fire in the building wasn't hot enough to melt steel or weaken it sufficiently.
It's a variation on the quote mine. Taking research that is close to the subject and then using it without consideration of the context.
@Bronze Dog:
They bring it up because for them there shouldn't be any and according to them a thermal scan showed melted steel level temperatures below the debris.
You might send the "troofers" off to talk to their local fire department. Any urban firefighter with a year or two of experience will have seen steel beams soften and bend in fires fueled by nothing more exotic than wood and paper.
Even high-temperature steel loses 50% of its strength at 600 degrees C (~1100 deg F), which is within the range of an average house fire. By 800 deg C (~1500 deg F), it's down to 10% of its nominal strength. A high-rise fire fueled by kerosene or Jet A will burn significantly hotter than that.
It is possible that the World Trade Center engineers built it with double the required strenth (although unlikely), but they certainly wouldn't have built it with ten times the required strength.
The melting points of various steels range from 1130 deg C to 1500 deg C. There are probably alloys with higher melting points, but they aren't generally used in construction.
Prometheus
I have largely given up on trying to debate with, argue, present the facts to or debunk 9/11 conspiracy freaks.
When you refer one to the NIST report on the building failures, they tell you that "oh sure, you buy into The Government's Line of Bull". When I direct them to the very thorough and well-written Popular Mechanics site, I get back " Oh, that's been Debunked ages ago by 'experts' better than those at PM, you fool."
My calm, reasoned explanation of the facts is met with
"who's paying you off" or "you're just a DUPE!"
When I explain that the facts don't have political bias, I get nothing back for my trouble but ad hominem and other derision.
I've explained 5 times to one of them why World Trade #7 fell in, and just recently got an email from him with the same "nobody has yet explained why wtc7 fell in 3 blocks away" Enough. these people will not ever see reason, no matter how well documented the evidence is, and no matter how many times you tell them.
...But... um... How on earth do they think people make steel ingots for the last two and a half millenia? Using lasers to melt steel?
Interesting that you would note HIV/AIDS Denialists:
The latest:
Failure to find Vaccine has Researchers Seeking New Directions
2/6/08 -- San Francisco Chronicle.
A few money quotes:
Earlier in the day, the highly regarded federal AIDS scientist listened quietly as Harvard researcher Ronald Desrosiers, director of the New England Primate Research Center, told an audience of 3,000 conference attendees that the National Institutes of Health has "lost its way," and that current vaccine research trials were essentially futile.
"There is no rational basis for believing that any of the products in the pipeline have any reasonable hope of being effective," said Desrosiers, a leading expert in vaccine studies using primates such as rhesus monkeys.
A few thoughts about "rethinking" the issue:
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases chief Dr. Tony Fauci has agreed to convene a "summit" of top leaders in the vaccine field to rethink strategy and perhaps plot new directions for the flow of federal tax dollars.
The meeting slated for March 25 in Bethesda, Md., was convened after 15 vaccine researchers wrote Fauci asking for a reassessment.
"When the STEP trial failed, it caused all of us to drop back a few yards," said Fauci in a telephone interview, shortly after he returned to his office today from the 15th annual Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Boston. "We've got to rethink these things."
Of course, you need to rethink thing, you twit. You've been wasting billions of research dollars trying a devise vaccine to a harmless retrovirus that doesn't kill white blood cell, or even generate antibodies!
These Republican scientists are too clueless for words.
"But... um... How on earth do they think people make steel ingots for the last two and a half millenia?"
With explosives strategically placed near the steel in the middle of the night when the steel guards who haven't been bribed to look the other way by the government are sleeping?
What irritates me most with these 9/11 crackpots is that they are directing attention away from real questions about what exactly happened. I think that it's all too much of a coincidence that the neo-con game plan called for a "New Pearl Harbor", which promptly manifested itself, all the while there was plenty of intelligence around on these terrorists and the possibility of an attack. Condoleezza Rice was even informed by George Tenet of an impending attack, yet not even the slightest effort was made to prevent the attacks. Considering what these people are like, I do not think that it would've been in anyway beneath them to simply allow the attacks to happen, or even pull a few strings to make sure that the plot was not thwarted by 'overzealous' law enforcement agents.
How did the tops of the towers, above the impact zones, disintergrate/dissapear? I see no photographical evidence of this Pile driver that supposedly crushed the entire building in 10-15 seconds where did it go? After all it is this Pile driver that crushed 80 floors of cold steel superstructure in seconds.
Since you guys know everything please answer, the NIST report is a pre collpase theory and does not include the behavior of the collapse after collapse initiation, can you "experts" answer this?
Fire doesent melt steel, The Nist report admits this, only that the fireproofing was stripped by the impacts the steel severely weakened, so next time you have your barbeque make sure you fireproof your steel, for your grill will turn into jello. LOL It so easy to make fools of you guys.
Oh and since NIST admits fire doesnt melt steel, can you explain the witnesses who saw molten dripping metal, Or just do as you people do, just ignore evidence that doesnt support your evidence and say "woo" "woo" over and over again while the rest of the world laughs at you people. Please answer my questions.
Ky,
Interesting selection of quotes. I wonder why you didn't mention this one:
"Gene fingerprint tests show, for example, that a single infected individual carries more genetic variants of HIV than the flu virus - a notoriously changeable bug - will evolve worldwide each year. "It has the uncanny ability to replicate continuously, no matter what we throw at it," he said. "And we don't even know what constitutes an effective immune response.""
A changable bug, what a joke, if this were the case then the test wouldnt be the same, testing for the same genetic components for more than 20 years.
The best vaccine is when you test postive. Hundereds of chimps were infected not one has died after 20 years, its a big joke. When no one got sick they extended the window period from 10 months to ten years LOL another joke. I cant wait for that vaccine, cause well all test positive then!
Jeez in so scared of this virus thats in 1/1000 cells! Do you guys even have any electron microscopic pictures of these 100,000 ml viral loads from a patient...........of course not , another joke.
Maybe hiv does cause AIDS but you guys are way to sure of yourselves when you have no idea what youre talking about.
Could you explain what Rosie O'Donnell was trying to say here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0JBpJA6k4s
You should also tell cooler to follow the script better. "Fire doesent melt steel,..."
You should also tell cooler to follow the script better. "Fire doesent melt steel,..."
That advice presumes that Cooler has the ability to listen to anyone other than the voices in his head, which is not an ability he has demonstrated in the past. It's better just to ignore him until he learns to say something sensible (an event which, if it happens in my lifetime, I will take as a sign of the coming apocalypse).
Technically fire *doesn't* melt steel, the phlogiston does before it is consumed to produce the fire.
....what? :)
FORMOSAN TERMITES! WITH DEATH RAYS FROM OUTER SPACE!
Because sometimes something is so stupid the only sensible response is mockery.
Cooler, you do release that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, right? It can only be accepted as long as it does not contradict other physical evidence. A classic example is that eyewitnesses to aircraft accidents often report seeing the aircraft in question on fire whether it is or not. And if you're so focussed on such testimony does that mean you think an airplane did hit the Pentagon? After all there were numerous eyewitnesses that saw it do so.
No, it merely proves that chimps aren't humans. Big surprise there. Chimps are, however, similar enough to us to get infected, even though they don't get ill. They are where the virus comes from.
I smell stupid oxide. Once a component of your immune system is gone, it's gone, even if it "just" makes up "1/1000 [of the] cells". Hey, how many Langerhans Island cells have you got? Or do you deny that they are all that's between you and diabetes?
I skipped that bit of stupid oxide David just pointed out.
It's amazing someone doesn't understand the concept of cells developing into *gasp* very specific functions.
I wonder how well he thinks a car with deflated tires would work. After all, that air doesn't make up a large portion of the car's mass. Who cares if it serves a vital function?
"I smell stupid oxide"
I thought it was stupid monoxide, since it hurts your brain.
"I see no photographical evidence of this Pile driver that supposedly crushed the entire building in 10-15 seconds where did it go?"
You may benefit from looking-up Newton's three laws of motion and paying particular attention to number three.
You guys have no idea what youre talking about. Thanks for providing me with the electron microsopic pics of these 100,000 ml viral loads. Not!
Thanks for explaining what happened to the tops of the towers NOT! Nist just ignored that. Please just tell me what happened to the tops of the towers, in a paragraph or so. Waiting.
As far as what happened at the Penatgon I would like to see the 80 videos released, no one knows what happened there, including myself, more investigation is needed.
Lilly, you are such an airhead that you cant even have an evidence based debate, because youre an airhead, simple as that.
**Snicker**
I wonder how many times you've moved the goalposts to get to that sort of test. Somehow, I doubt any other disease in history required such a test.
And 100,000 ml viral loads? Are you asking us to demonstrate 100 liters of the virus in a human body? Do you know how much a liter is?
What's to explain? I imagine they would have broken up just like the rest of the building during collapse, especially since I didn't see any pics of them intact. I don't see anything about them that needs addressing unless you've got pictures of them remaining intact on the ground, which would probably stand a fair chance at killing all the possibilities that don't involve sorcery.
I'd be in favor of releasing them if they exist, but even if they all verified the scientific theory, somehow, I doubt you'd change your mind about anything. As for what happened, I think the piles of airplane debris strewn over the area generally in accordance with what you'd expect of an airplane crash would have something to say about it.
Lilly, you are such an airhead that you cant even have an evidence based debate, because youre an airhead, simple as that
HA HA HA! I got scowls from other library patrons, reacting to that. There is no point in "debating" you cooler, you'll just move the goalposts and after a while fall back to previously debunked positions. Lilly was being polite and gracious.
Not to feed the troll, but cooler, may I politely offer you another example of a human disease that monkeys don't (easily) get? Smallpox, which is very well described in the literature, is a disease of humans. As an orthopox virus, it is highly species-specific. As described in the book "Demon in the freezer" in order for a non-human primate to get smallpox requires a hugely large dose and the most direct infection pathway (IV injection). So just because it is hard to develop an animal model doesn't mean that the disease is not real.
Disclaimer: I work in HIV vaccine research, building an alternate non-primate model for testing immunogenicity of vaccines (ie *not* protection).
I see cooler has yet to grasp the fiendishly tricky concept of impacts.
Smallpox the body is teeming with virus, unlike hiv. In smallpox Damage occurs before antibodies like most other viruses, not after a ten year ever extending post antibody asymptomatic period. They developed a Successful vaccine to smallpox hundereds of years ago, one has to wonder why it is taking so long now for HIV. Probably because the best vaccine is when one tests positive.
Oh and 9/11 anyone care to explain how how the plane seemed to dissapear in shankesville but they found the terrorists passport and bandana. What a joke.
As far as the tops of the towers, they seem to disintegrate in midair, explosives seem like the easiest explanation, anyone else care to offer a more likely explanation?
In Smallpox , like most viruses, symptoms come within days before antibodies, they didnt have to extend the window period to 10 years.
Anyone have a better explanation besides explosives on how the tops of the towers disintergrated in midair? Dont look to the NIST report because they admit that it excludes at all the data "after collapse became inevitable."
During acute infection the body is teeming with HIV and this is when it causes the most damage before the development of antibodies.
Unlike smallpox, but in common with other viruses like herpes simplex, HIV is never cleared from the body. Just like other viral infections such as hepatitis B, HIV continues to replicate and cause damage during all stgaes of infection.
The cartoon which is the subject of the thread illustrates your behaviour only too well. You have been corrected many, many times in the past and yet you keep on repeating inanities such as "fire doesent melt steel". Willful ignornace.
Fire doesnt melt steel, at least last time I had my bbq it didnt, and I didnt need to fireproof my grill LOL.
So the most damage is caused in acute infection, so why is there only some dubious flu like illness and no OI's etc then, why does the immmune system seem to totally recover then, if the immune system was permantantly damaged in the acute phase, why does it take ten years for OI's to turn up, why are blood t cells totally normal?
No noble, your problem is you dont listen to your scientific masters. Dr. Darin Brown clearly explained that people like you have a "Taboo reaction" much the same that were directed at heretics like Galileo and the people that opposed the junk science of Mao etc. So you should bow your head in awe of your scientific godfather Dr. brown.
I'm basically saying the same things that the top scientists in the world were saying in the early 90's, that HIV Harmless withoiut other factors, scientists like Duesberg, nobel winners Mullis and Walter Gilbert, montaganier, the Armed forces of pathology scientists Col. Douglas Wear, and their highest ranking infectious disease pathologist Shyh ching Lo md phd.
Some of these scientists have changed their tunes, others havent, but I would reccomend you read Lo's chapter in his book on how he destroys the HIV hypothesis in his book, and shows the real way to prove a microbes pathenogenicity in humans. You need start to listen to your scientific masters. The militarys highest ranking infectious disease pathologist destroys the HIV hypothesis in one paragraph, and proves mycoplamsa incognitus is the only microbe to worry about. Bow your head.
http://books.google.com/books?id=G3rURFq6u84C&pg=PA525&lpg=PA525&dq=dr+…
"Fire doesnt melt steel, at least last time I had my bbq it didnt, and I didnt need to fireproof my grill LOL."
Quick question cooler: how is steel made?
Lo was able to induce death/disease in experimental animals, and see mycoplasma incognitus in dying patients tissues with the electron microscope, and this was in a original study with not much funding, and AIDS researchers have had 20 years and billions of dollars and can not do what Lo did, take pictures of the microbe in a patient etc. What a joke.
According to Garth Nicolson he was threatened by armed DOD agents to stop his reasearch when he found it in the blood of GWI/CFS patients.
In his new book "Project Day lily" he claims that he had sources in the pentagon that told him it was spart of the biological weapons program, and the guys running it are laughing their asses off how dumb doctors are not to figure this out. You'll write us off as kooks, which is strange considering your government experimented on black people, killed 3 million in Vietnam for no reason.
If Garth and Nancy Nicolson phds are making these claims of being threatened at gunpoint by DOD vets at the MD cancer center and claim to have sources in the Pentagon that it was part of the biological wepoans program, shouldnt it least be investigated, considering your governments horrific track record then dissmissed, not dismissed out of hand, isnt that the way most criminal investigations work?
www.projectdaylily.com True story that had to be fictionilized to stay out of court.
Kochs postulates folfilled right here, this is what Nicolson found in 50% of GWI/CFS patients by PCR, preferred over antibody testing for the animals Lo inoculated had only a weak antibody response when near death. Keep up the good work guys, spreading this microbe through the population, that can easily masquerade as many illnesses.
Lo SC, Buchholz CL, Wear DJ, Hohm RC, Marty AM.
Department of Infectious and Parasitic Diseasesi Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, D.C. 20306-6000.
The newly recognized human pathogenic mycoplasma M. fermentans (incognitus strain) causes a fatal systemic infection in experimental monkeys, infects patients with AIDS, and apparently is associated with a fatal disease in previously healthy non-AIDS patients. An apparently immunocompetent male who lacked evidence of HIV infection developed fever, malaise, progressive weight loss, and diarrhea and had extensive tissue necrosisi involving liver and spleen. M. fermentans (incognitus strain) was centered at the advancing margins of these necrotizing lesions. Following the treatment of 300 mg doxycycline per day for 6 weeks, he recovered fully. He has no fever or diarrhea, and his abnormal liver function tests have returned to normal. He regained all lost strength and 14 kg of lost weight and has remained disease free for more than 1 year.
Give up on the crank known as cooler... He still believes in the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny.
Give up on HCN, crank extrodinairre, cranky as they come. Total uneducated troll.
Two words: prove it.
Cooler -
In what way did the tops of the towers 'explode in midair'?
If the collapse zone was moving down at around 80-90% of free fall speed, then the intact top section - moving at near 100% of free fall speed - would break up as it hit the collapse zone.
I don't suppose you'd like to tell me *why* even more explosives were planted in these sections to blow them up? I mean, it's not as if they were going to survive the drop anyway..
(9/11 troofers please note - if there is a gap in the post above, it's because of a sentance ending in a question mark, and I know that troofers for some reason are unable to see these sentances. Try blinking, or looking out the side of your eye)
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.
Andrew Dodds said:
A very good point, it's kind of similar to the JFK conspiracy theory. There is actually more comfort in thinking that it happened as a result of corruption within your own government, which you can at least exert some measure of control over (in theory at least) rather than as a result of some horrible and uncontrollable external factor about which you really can't do anything - one person in a town of thousands being mentally unstable in the case of JFK or a small group of nuts from a movement you've barely heard of before in the case of 9-11. Sorry guys, your government really doesn't control everything.
Oh, and for the record I remain amused by Cooler's insistence on proving my initial point, I guess the apocalypse isn't due for a while yet! ;)
I'm guessing your bbq doesn't typically burn jet fuel and combustible office fittings.
I'm betting wind played a factor as well. There's plenty of wind on a tall skyscraper, enough to whip a fire into a frenzy.
Actually, I only posted that last comment so we could move the discussion somewhere along the lines of the value of the bellows to the development of civilization as we know it. If there were more tin on this planet, there'd be more bronze, which doesn't need a wind-blown fire to forge...
The "discussion" with Cooler has demonstrated - to my satisfaction, at least, that he/she is not amenable to reason. As someone once said, "You cannot reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into."
Seriously, if he/she is sticking to the "fire can't melt steel" nonsense - which anybody who has ever even watched a documentary on steel manufacturing can debunk - then there's really no point in continuing the "debate".
It's the Arrogance of Ignorance coupled with the Cry of the Conspiracy Theory.
Prometheus
Andrew, your claiming the tops of the towers disintergrated when they collided with the bottom half of the building, but then what crushed the rest of the building if the Pile driver was gone once it collided with the bottom half of the building?
I have to agree with you guys on one thing, there is no point in debating these issues, not because I'm wrong, but because you guys are emotionally attached to beleive certain things. I will defer to posts made by Dr. Darin Brown who has a PHD in mathematics on what this is really about. Remember, getting a PHD in math is a much tougher road then the grad programs you guys took. So you all should bow your heads. I will also Copy some of the Posts from MEC who teaches critical thinking, on why it is very difficult to have a normal debate with you people.
SLC,
Your comments, even from someone "with a PhD in elementary particle physics", remind me of the central sociological fact surrounding the reaction you embody:
This has nothing to do with the HIV hypothesis. Nothing to do with the pros vs. cons of vaccine administration. Nothing to do with whether global warming is human-caused. Nothing to do with the cause of the 9-11 attacks. Nothing to do with the issues.
It's all about "joining the anti-crankery club". It's all about getting patted on the back for "being skeptical". It's all about wearing "Skeptical Inquirer" t-shirts and throwing around terms like "whackjob" (implying that anyone who doubts a consensus viewpoint is akin to ejaculate fluid) and "denier" (implying that anyone who doubts a consensus viewpoint is akin to Holocaust deniers). It's all about having your ego stroked for helping in the fight against "scientific illiteracy" and "the cult of irrationality". It's all about the "taboo reaction" so eloquently and prophetically expressed by Feyerabend in Against Method years ago:
"Science [relating another person's characterization] ... is characterised by an essential scepticism; 'when failures start to come thick and fast, defence of the theory switches inexorably to attack on it'.' This is possible because of the 'openness' of the scientific enterprise, because of the pluralism of ideas it contains and also because whatever defies or fails to fit into the established category system is not something horrifying, to be isolated or expelled. On the contrary, it is an intriguing 'phenomenon' - a starting-point and a challenge for the invention of new classifications and new theories. We can see that Horton has read his Popper well. A field study of science itself shows a very different picture... Such a study reveals that, while some scientists may proceed as described, the great majority follow a different path. Scepticism is at a minimum; it is directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one's own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions which are no weaker than are the taboo reactions in so-called "primitive societies." Basic beliefs are protected by this reaction as well as by secondary elaborations, as we have seen, and whatever fails to fit into the established category system or is said to be incompatible with this system is either viewed as something quite horrifying or, more frequently, it is simply declared to be non-existent."
Read over the responses generated at this blog in reaction to HIV, vaccines, global warming, 9-11, etc. REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE DOUBTERS ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES, can anyone doubt that the "taboo reaction" expressed by the defenders of the faith here is any weaker than that in so-called "primitive societies"??
darin
Posted by: Darin Brown | January 13, 2008 6:57 PM
According to Mr. Particle Physics' definition of whackjob, our lovey hostess, Miss Tara Smith, surely is the premier specimen. In her latest literary blog tour de force - as usual borrowed from elsewhere - she proposes following theory of comedy:
This would be funnier if people didn't actually believe it...
The thesis that something is funny in proportion to its unreality is so far from mainstream theories of comedy that the author of it can only be characterized in terms of the rankest "ejaculatory fluid".
Miss Smith, allow me to enlighten you. The reason why the cartoon is not funny is precisely that it is not real - nobody believes "it". The attempted caricature of a "CAM" is one created and peddled by the drug industry and all the other cowardly anti-crank leaguers the same way FOX News peddles caricatures of "far left nut cases".
It's simply a childish piece of infoganda, saying we, the drug industry, are mature and rational, and anybody who thinks otherwise we'll call a crackpot and we'll use all means at our disposal to silence them. Even your own badly written comment is designed to show how serious and reposnsible you are while broadcasting tasteless cheap shots.
So where's the joke? There isn't any. The joke is you guys and your insecurity which makes you indulge in this kind of wishful thinking that reduces everything including yourselves to infantile self-serving caricatures.
Actually, only one truly funny joke has come out of this entire string of drivel so far, and it was from Eddie. Why is it funny? you are undoubtedly compelled to ask. Because it embraces the caricature and in doing so turns it against the very peddlers of it. That's witty:
So, the Pharmawhores are now defending the PharmaMonster!
Let me know if y'all got it.
Posted by: MEC | January 13, 2008 9:51 PM
Cooler,
Sascha is right. If you start believing in Project Day Lily or that the US government uses maffia methods, you're on a slippery conspiracy slope that'll make it impossible for you to distinguish fact from fiction. You'll start believing historical fables such as biological warfare used against native American Indians, slavery, at least one nuclear weapon dropped on Japan for no reason, Tuskegee style medical experiments, Napalm used on Vietnamese civilians during that heroic and well-intentioned effort to stem the tide of Communism, that Saddam was our best friend at the time he was conducting chemical warfare on Iranians and Kurds, that there were no WMDs secretly smuggled to Syria under the watchful eye of our spy sattelites, immunity from the rule of law under the Patriot Act and similar documents for the Government and large corporations, such as pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturers and latest the telecommunication companies.
MEC
HIV causes AIDS Cooler! Embrace it before it's too late.
I rest my case.
Prometheus
Cooler,
http://flickr.com/photos/quinn/58264107/
http://flickr.com/photos/arctic_photos/368764281/
http://flickr.com/photos/sunfell/31788995/
http://flickr.com/photos/9667772@N05/930047072/
Now shut up.
Has anyone else noticed this disturbing little idiosyncrasy: the use of "bow your heads" when a truther thinks he/she has won an argument from authority? I don't quite know what to make of that infusion of at least an implied religiosity (though that probably says something about how those beliefs are held).
Nobody is claiming the steel melted, just that it weakened, so I made SURE I fireproofed my bbq grill so it wouldnt sag like licorice next time. LOL. As far as Bowing your head, I think thats funny, you cranks lack senses of humor as well. Maybe to fix that, you should BOW YOUR HEAD! (just collapsed in complete laughter)
Because clearly a grill will clearly burn as hot as a building full of jet fuel.
Don't worry, I do have a sense of humor; I'm just laughing at you, not with you. I have this evening off, and I'd like to take this moment to thank you for making my night just a little bit brighter.
Actually the temp of a jet fuel fire and a bbq fire are the same, except for the fact that the beams in the WTC are like a thousand times bigger than the tiny steel beams on a grill. I get a good laugh at how ignorant you people are, I mean nobody besides hard core redneck trash hillbillies beleives the OCT anymore, you guys are in good company.
99% of the plane vanished in Shankesville but they found the terrorists passport and Bandana WTF?, only people like you guys and your pals in the trailer park would beleive this drivel.
Hell yeah look at the most viewed videos on google they are all exposing the 9/11 fraud, they are popular because anyone with half a brain knows the OCT is a joke. Zeitgeist, Loose change etc.
http://video.google.com/videorankings?type=viewed&range=d2008-02-08&cr=…
Sorry that link was for the most viewed in the world, here is the most viewed films in the USA
http://video.google.com/videorankings?type=viewed&range=d2008-02-08&cr=…
Blah blah blah. Let me know when if you can do anything besides attack my character and repeat things.
In the meantime, I'm done and going back to lurking. Have fun playing with yourself.
Cooler,
Try going down to the firestation and asking the nice folks there if they've ever seen steel beams weaken, fail or bend in a structure fire. Why not ask the folks who've seen it instead of just focusing on the Internet?
As for the "LOL", I don't blame you for a little nervous laughter - you've got to be feeling a little dealing with people who actually think, for a change.
Prometheus
Jet fuel can burn at up to 1000 degC. That's one hell of a BBQ you've got. And the larger beams also have a much greater load to bear. You also overlooked the fact that there are various types of steel - the grill in your BBQ is likely designed to withstand temperatures, whereas architectural steel will generally be more suited to load bearing.
I'm not sure why you're making the jump from "The upper part of the structure broke into pieces on impact" to "The upper part of the structure and all of the matter therein completely disappeared, never to have any physical effects again."
How can somebody take even a freshman level physics or engineering mechanics class and think that this stuff is remotely believable? Please stop. You're making Newton cry.
The fact that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire , fires that were much hotter and longer speaks for itself, let alone fire and damage have never caused a building to dissapear within seconds, pulverized symetrically.
I suggest you guys tell all the Controlled demolition experts this new easier way to make a building vanish, just bomb a few random floors and the building will pulverize symetrically within seconds and dissapear,they will save much money with this new revolutionary technology.
Froghead,
My hypothesis is that explosives pulverized the top section of the towers above the impact zone, in a couple sentances can you give a more likely explanation how they disspeared? Nist had millions of dollars and thier report did not include the structural behavior after collapse initiation, perhaps you or your pals could explain it.
What happened to the tops of the towers? Just give me 2-3 specific sequential causal steps on how they vanished.
How about this: They didn't disappear. The top part of the building collapsed and crumbled in the process, landing on the bottom part of the building. The enormous amount of momentum built up by countless tons of matter falling tens of stories isn't easily stopped, so the building below it collapsed as well. Nothing disappeared. A huge pile of material just kept on going.
Here's the deal: The bottom floor of a 30 floor slice of a building isn't designed to withstand the force of the other 29 floors falling on it. The floor above that isn't designed to withstand the force of the other 28 floors falling on it. Repeat. Eventually, you have a collapsed pile of 30 floors of building, falling with the kinetic energy gained by falling an average of 15 floors. The floor below the impact zone was not designed to withstand having 30 floors of crap landing on it. Repeat once again.
It's exactly what somebody who dabbles in physics might expect. What, exactly, would you have expected the building to do? What mechanism can you propose that would have stopped the collapse once it started? What kind of collapse pattern would you have expected to see, and why?
Wonderful. Cooler subscribes to the Hollywood theory of explosions, where blowing stuff up violates the conservation of matter by erasing matter from existence. And I thought the space laser people were crazy.
And one thing I wonder about in Cooler's movieland: How do they trigger the explosives during the collapse? All the wiring involved in demolition work tends to add a lot of failure points. They'd have to put those in very carefully AND very stealthfully AND they'd have to work reliably during a collapse. Oh, I know: The plot demands it work, therefore the writers can ignore logistics.
The fact that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire...
Good grief your an ignorant nit. Almost two years ago a electrical suppliers warehouse burned here in Portland. I watched on the news as the entire structural steel roof failed due to the intense heat. By the time it was done, most of the metal in the structure was a pool of molten slag, due to several large spools of aluminum wire that had ignited.
Go to your local fire department and ask folks there. Go to your local fire suppression service providers (or insulators as they often do it too) and ask them why they put fire proofing material on structural steel, in building that house volatile chemicals. Don't take my word for it or anyone else on the internets. Go ask local experts.
Or you could continue to wallow in ignorance, listening only to what paranoid, ignorant morons on the internets have to say about it.
Cooler blathered:
"The fact that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire..."
DuWayne said, in response:
Good grief your an ignorant nit.
He's not just ignorant DuWayne, he's flagrantly dishonest. Cooler has been corrected on that point several times, his repitition of it can only be attributed to deliberate lying.
I think that Cooler's position is strongly bolstered by the truth about 4/29. It makes the whole "steel can't possibly melt or soften, ever" argument make that much more sense.
NO steel framed high rised building has ever totally dissapeared and been pulverized symetrically within seconds, the only buildings that totally dissapear within seconds are controlled demolitions.
As far as the floors being able to handle a certain load, its not the floors that were supporting the weight of the building, it was the massive 47 steel core columns and steel perimeter. If the floors provided the support for the building and failed bc they couldnt handle the load, then the building would have just collapsed outright, for how did the 1st floor handle the 99 floors above it? Its nothing to do with the floors, its the steel supporting superstructure that provided the strengh of the towers.
Also the majority of the buildings mass was ejected laterally, meaning this mass couldnt possibly crush the rest of the building for it was being ejected sideways. The experts have weighed in, and over 200 architects and engineers agree that explosives have brought down the 3 towers, youll write them off, which is funny because if they supported the OCT youd praise them. Architects for truth site.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Cooler, I thought the claim was that the Towers collapsed straight down in their own footprints, a result which proves that they were brought down by planted explosives. But if the "majority of the buildings mass was ejected laterally", then they plainly didn't collapse straight down in their own footprints. But that still proves that they were brought down by planted explosives. Could you clarify what result would not prove that the Towers were brought down by planted explosives? Thanks!
"NO steel framed high rised building has ever totally dissapeared and been pulverized symetrically within seconds, the only buildings that totally dissapear within seconds are controlled demolitions."
1. Please find a building that "disappeared" as a result of controlled demolition.
2. Explosives in controlled demolitions don't "pulverize" anything. The use of explosives is only used to compromise the support structures. What pulversized the concrete was your everyday weight, gravity and kinetic energy. You'd benefit from a freshman level physics class.
"Its nothing to do with the floors, its the steel supporting superstructure that provided the strengh of the towers."
Indeed, the bulk of the support came from a steel core. In the reconstructed WTC7, a concrete core was used instead of the original steel core. Why do you think this choice was made, if steel cores are somehow impervious to fire?
By dissapear I mean its there, and than 10-15 seconds later its reduced to 1-2 story pile of rubble. The king david hotel didnt "dissapear" nor did the OKC building Nor did the fires in Madrid and venenzula, which were much hotter and longer. You guys will make ad hoc excuses that the design was different, but this is speculation, if anything these towers were built stronger for they were built for multiple jet impacts.
The towers were symetrically pulverized, like if a tree exploded into sawdust straight down within seconds, it didnt topple over but was symetrically pulverized. Only explosives could symetrically pulverize a tree, and you will laugh at this comparasin, but the jokes on you because the towers are about 1000 times stronger than a tree with 47 steel core columns etc, they are not made of wood. Good day im going to the gym.
"You guys will make ad hoc excuses that the design was different..."
They aren't ad hoc excuses, they are important technical details you are overlooking. Want an example? The Torre Windsor in Madrid was only 32 stories high IIRC, and had a concrete core. Most of the steel above the 17th. story of the building was destroyed, making the structure completely unsalvageable (it was demolished). You can ignore, but you can't expect to be taken seriously.
Or, if you wish to be taken seriously, you can answer a challenge that no other 9/11 conspirazoid has yet assented to:
1) Find a steel frame building at least 40 stories high
2) Which takes up a whole city block
3) And is a "Tube in a tube" design
4) Which came off its core columns at the bottom floors (Earthquake, fire, whatever - WTC 7)
5) Which was struck by another building or airliner and had structural damage as a result.
6) And weakened by fire for over 6 hours
7) And had trusses that were bolted on with two 5/8" bolts.
"...if anything these towers were built stronger for they were built for multiple jet impacts."
They were built for impacts at approach speed. The is a big difference in kinetic energy between an impact at approach speed and an impact at 500 MPH. Once again, a physics course could help here.
"Only explosives could symetrically pulverize a tree..."
Cite an example.
"Only explosives could symetrically [sic] pulverize a tree..."
That's probably true, actually. Tree trunks are usually solid, not like the Towers, and it is physically impossible for a tree trunk to collapse down on itself the way that the Towers did.
"That's probably true, actually. Tree trunks are usually solid, not like the Towers, and it is physically impossible for a tree trunk to collapse down on itself the way that the Towers did."
Yeah, unless he includes symmetric collapse in the scenario, which I took him as doing.
In any case, a building is 90 percent air, not solid like a tree trunk. So cooler, another one of your analogies fails.
So your claiming a tree is more sturdy and strong than a steel framed building? Wood is not as strong as steel, just look at any tornado, hurricane, the trees are much more likely to collapse than a modern steel skyscraper.
A bank safe is also hollow, but it would be much sturdier and much harder to penetrate/damage than a solid block of wood.
We were talking about pulverization, not collapse. A building is more likely to be pulverized because it is 90 percent air, meaning there is space between impact points.
Cooler's stupid, it burns us. How could he not comprehend what we're talking about.
The point was that you were setting up a false analogy which has nothing to do with the WTC. Trees are not buildings.
Of course, I don't think the towers collapsed symmetrically. Seen footage with one of the top sections tilting as it falls.
Bronze dog is a junior college dropout. The only people that beleive the OCT are redneck hillbillies. The japanese parliament just grilled the priminister that 9/11 was an inside job, its so obvious.
Typical profile of 9/11 OCT nut. White trash, uneducated, drives a truck, or more polished ignorant "educated" (yeah right) white trash like the Clintons. Heres a good idea of whos company your in, here a 9/11 truthseeker named Mark Dice asks Danny Bonaduce whether 9/11 was an inside job. Mark is calmer, graduated college, better looking, while the zany highschool dropout drug addict Bonaduce has a shit fit over it. Heres the white trash company you're in. NOtice Bonaduce's response is the same as many of the posters here, note Dr. Darin Browns post above about the "primitive tribal response" that has nothing to do with the issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnliRXAIyIo
Funny, a person who can't write "prime minister" and puts "your" instead of "you're" is accusing us of being uneducated.
Well, I guess that seals it, cooler.
Congratulations on a successful application of the rarely attempted "argumentum ad prettier-than-some-of-you-guys."
Physics be damned! To hell with chemistry!
Just look at Bonaduce, and tell me fire melts steel!
I thought the only reasonable interpretation of cooler's analogy was tree trunk = skyscraper, since it didn't occur to me that anyone would think that a tree with branches sticking out was a reasonable model for a skyscraper. My apologies for mistaking you for a reasonable person, cooler.
FYI, I live in Oklahoma and have some experience with the effects of tornadoes on trees. The branches usually break off, but the trunk doesn't "collapse". Usually you see the trunk stubbornly standing there with all the branches broken off, or the trunk lying on the ground, basically intact, but again with all the branches broken off. Solid wood is very strong. It is also not compressible, which is why it is a very bad model for a skyscraper.
cooler should read up on the square-cube law and then do a little experimenting with solid and hollow rods.
"The fact that no steel structure has ever collapsed due to fire"
Did you even LOOK at the first and third pictures I posted?!
"Bronze dog is a junior college dropout."
Ad hom. Also, Doggerel #27.
"The only people that beleive the OCT are redneck hillbillies. The japanese parliament just grilled the priminister that 9/11 was an inside job, its so obvious."
Proof, please.
Cooler's basically conceded the argument guys. His usual tactic is to ignore rebuttals to his previous claims and spew a bunch of new, equally erroneous ones. Notice that there are absolutely no substantive claims in his latest post, simply grotesque ad homs. He's got nothing left, we win.
"The japanese parliament just grilled the priminister that 9/11 was an inside job, its so obvious." Why would they grill him if he agrees with them? Or is the prime minister of Japan a redneck hillbilly?
Oh, funny. Cooler accuses me of being just about everything I quietly suspected he was: Dale Gribble. And I'm guessing that the only evidence, if any, he used was the fact that I'm from Texas.
Of course, the only trucks in my family are a couple of SUVs, not pickups. I drive a small car, and plan to upgrade to a hybrid of some type after I wear it out. I'm definitely no dropout, and currently continuing my education.
Oh, and what makes you think I'm white? As if race mattered in such a discussion.
As for the current exchange, cooler, you're the one currently throwing the 'shitfit'. That's why you've avoided every single point we've made and resorted to wussy ad hominem. Heck, half the time, I can't even see the point of your questions, except possibly for the argument that the event wasn't "Hollywood" enough to be real.
Cooler, can you *at least* admit that fire can melt steel? Pretty please?
No, I mean Bronze dog started the Ad hominem attacks so I got pissed and reacted. The OCT is a joke I mean if you dropped a 15 story building on top of an 80 story building, and took another 15 story building and dropped it through air, according to the OCT they would hit the ground at appx the same time, freefall like speeds.
Even Nist admits the towers fell at around 10 seconds, this defies conservation of momentum, I mean 80 floors of cold steel supporting superstructure would provide about the same resistence as air?
Not buying it, not to mention the many other paradoxes of the OCT, Cheney trying to block the investigation, planes virtually disspearing in Shankesville while a pristine terrorists bandana and passport survive, planes going unintercepted for over an hour, 80 video cameras at the Pentagon that are not being released. Even if you dont totally beleive the inside job hypothesis, its a lead that needs to be investigated, who would that harm? Put some people under oath, offer immunity, demand the release of the videos etc.
Here is the japanese parliament grilling the priminister that 9/11 was a false flag operation, the former president of Italy also came out, its obvious to anyone who does not have the "taboo reaction" Dr. Brown talked about above that a real investigation is needed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t-dZiNE9NI&feature=related
"Cooler's stupid, it burns us. How could he not comprehend what we're talking about."
"I skipped that bit of stupid oxide David just pointed out."
"That advice presumes that Cooler has the ability to listen to anyone other than the voices in his head, which is not an ability he has demonstrated in the past. It's better just to ignore him until he learns to say something sensible (an event which, if it happens in my lifetime, I will take as a sign of the coming apocalypse)."
And you guys whine about Ad hominem attacks? Typical behavior from people displaying the "Taboo reaction" Dr. Brown so eloquently described. First make personal attacks, then when that person responds in kind, play victim even when you all started the whole thing, typical sanctimonious hypocrisy.
But what else would you expect when this is the way people act when confronted with evidence that they would never beleive because they beleive that their government couldnt do such a thing. So they mudlsling and make secondary "elaborations" on how the OCT and only the OCT could be true.
Show me where they were a premise in my arguments.
Precise citation down to page numbers, please. I think you're making stuff up.
Citation and context, please. Of course, if he did such a thing, I would be much more suspicious of him trying to cover up incompetence.
The planes didn't disappear. The items weren't pristine, but some things can survive. Destruction isn't always perfect, and believe it or not, unlikely things can happen on occasion.
Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a plane off the ground? And, of course, they had to go from air control to the police to the military before they would have even started firing up the fighters. Even after the Patriot act streamlined the process, it took half an hour for them to intercept a plane that was flying towards the Whitehouse.
Quite frankly, if the planes had been intercepted, THAT would be suspicious for anyone who knows how it works.
You keep saying a lot about that without providing any context. As far as I know, you might be talking about cameras in sensitive areas away from any of the damaged areas.
Which inside job hypothesis? There are thousands and thousands of them. All the ones I've seen end up relying on Hollywood pseudoscience, violating Occam's razor, outright lies, or claiming that normal events are suspicious.
You might as well say there's no harm in following 'psychic detectives', even though the efforts eat up time and money.
Man, couldn't last long against the initial stupid, which didn't promise to get much better. Argument from cartoon physics: The plane didn't make a cutout, therefore it didn't hit. Argument from one limited photo that didn't happen to catch visible debris. Given those flaws lines of argumentation, I don't expect it to get any better. If you want me to watch the whole thing, you'd better tell me that was a very low point. Might as well bring up the debunked notion of "irreducible complexity" in a discussion of biology.
"The OCT is a joke I mean if you dropped a 15 story building on top of an 80 story building, and took another 15 story building and dropped it through air, according to the OCT they would hit the ground at appx the same time, freefall like speeds."
There is no "free fall" like speed in the case of the twin towers. Look at the video, debris are clearly falling faster than the tower at every angle. This claim is simply false, and such has been pointed out to you before.
"Even Nist admits the towers fell at around 10 seconds, this defies conservation of momentum, I mean 80 floors of cold steel supporting superstructure would provide about the same resistence as air?"
It's been pointed out to you over, and over, and over again that a skyscraper is not a solid structure but 90 percent air. It doesn't provide much resistance in the case of a a pile-driver being dropped on top of it. And even without pile-drivers, progressive collapses are nothing new when it comes to engineering failures.
Here's a good new 9/11 movie, Loose change Final cut that displays a good case that a new investigation is needed
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&q=loose+ch…
Given the previous editions of Loose Change, I'm not exactly confident in the 'final cut' addressing anything, and only rehashing long-since debunked arguments.
How about you try focusing on one issue at a time, Cooler, instead of changing with nearly every post? Pick one thing that demonstrates a controlled demolition and stick with it. No silly tree analogies, please. Doing the crank method of 'shotgunning' with lots of debunked points and hoping we'll miss one doesn't help your case. Doesn't work for the ID crowd, the ufologists, the moon hoax landers, and so forth.
"How about you try focusing on one issue at a time, Cooler, instead of changing with nearly every post? "
Namely, the fact that fire does in fact melt steel. You've avoided that one like a hot potato, especially when others have explained, in great detail, how it works.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTr…
Here is Stephen Jones Paper, he was a respected Physics professor at BYU. In his paper he talks about Fire's ability in melting steel, and uses quotes from Thomas Eager, an MIT materials engineer and supporter of the OCT that ordinary office fires don't melt steel. He also brings up many other Flaws in the OCT.
Argument From Authority.
Nice try.
And by "nice try", I mean "absolutely pathetic."
You've been shown, time and time again, that plain ol' ordinary vanilla fire melt steel.
Look at the photos I posted for once. The melting cranes in the blaze. The melted, twisted support beams in the burnt Mason building.
1. We aren't talking about an ordinary office fire melting steel. It only needed to weaken the steel to start the collapse, not melt it. Thanks for the straw man.
2. How many ordinary office fires involve jet fuel?
"Here is Stephen Jones Paper, he was a respected Physics professor at BYU."
Actually, he lost most of his respect as a physicist due to his involvement in "Cold Fusion" research. In addition, his paper has been thoroughly discredited, and his own university wants nothing to do with it (he's the Michael Behe of Trooferism). See here for a list of references.
And for anyone with further interest in Steven Jones' history of crankey, 9/11 conspiracism is hardly his only, erm, extracurricular activity.
So now your claiming fire melts steel? Even the Popular mechanics idiots admits it doesnt. Funny how your so obsessed with small technicalities and have pretty pathetic explantions for the larger issues such as the rapidity of the collapses, the horizontal ejections of large steel beams, squibs, and the near symetrical rapid collpase of building 7, which even NIST can't explain after years and their lead investigator admitted in 2006 he has no idea how it collapsed, but I'm sure you'll have got your convoluted explanations.
Not to mention the magical terrorists passports found in Shankesville, the Pentagon and at ground zero. This has nothing to do with the evidence, if Dick Cheney admitted the attacks were an inside job you still wouldnt beileve it.
It's like the JFK assasination, Howard Hunt a CIA agent came out and basically said it was an inside job, but nothing will convince a group of people that refuse to beleive that Big Brother could do any harm, you people are straight out of Orwells 1984, so there is not much point in debating these issues.
"It's like the JFK assasination, Howard Hunt a CIA agent came out and basically said it was an inside job..."
The JFK assasination is an equally ridiculous conspiracy theory.
And I'm getting sick of you galloping around to new assertions every time one goes down in flames. You're just going around in a circle of fallacy and dubious claims. Pick an issue, provide reference and make an actual case. Otherwise, shut the hell up.
@Chris Noble:
I listened to the video you linked and I think I just lost 20 points of IQ from hearing that steel doesn't melt.
Guess I talked to reasonable intelligent (but still deluded in my opinion) truthers if that is really their consensus opinion.
Oh and Cooler you might want to increase the temperature on that BBQ if you want it to distort/melt. I don't even need coal, just wood.
1. Yes. Fire can melt steel. That's one method people use for making items out of steel. That's what we've been claiming since the start. Yet you pretend that we're waffling or something.
2. Where does PM say otherwise? Show us. Issue, volume, page number. Don't make shit up.
Stop projecting and lying.
1. The "rapidity" of the collapse is pretty much an invention of nuts like you who want us to believe that the laws of physics don't apply, and will manipulate the math to do so. I haven't seen any footage that backs up this "rapidity."
2. You people can't even make up your mind whether or not there was any debris sprayed out. The moment we point out that controlled demolitions don't generate a lot of lateral force, you'll swing right back to claiming they collapsed 'into their own footprints.'
3. We know how the buildings collapsed. You conspiracy nuts are the ones who can't come up with an explanation. You can't even come up with a consistent description of the events, much less an explanation. And most of the times you try, you demand that we believe in magic.
You idiots cant even explain building 7 after 5 years, are so ignorant of conservation of momentum that you think 80 floors of cold steel structure would provide as little resistence as air would, think planes can dissapear while a terrorists passport and bandana can still survive.
Somehow building 7 came down at at near symetry, all 81 columns failed at the same time at several levels throughout the building......just a little suspicious, of course not, not to you neo con trash government can't tell a lie Bonaduce worshippers.
You are just displaying the "taboo" reaction that Dr. Brown so eloquently described and that your white trash idol Bonaduce showed in that video. There is no point debating trash cranks like you people. Whats the point of debating? Somebody on the inside could give a confession and you'd still deny reality. Keep living in youre delusional world that Orwell aptly described in 1984. Good night, Losers. Its no wonder the few friends you people have hate you.
"Somebody on the inside could give a confession and you'd still deny reality."
You mean like bin Laden bragging about how successful his plot was?
Yeah the fatty bin laden no audio tape they just happened to find along with the Terrorists passport. Jeez it was 2001, didnt Osama have a camera with audio?
11/30/2002 - Swiss scientists: "The recording is a fake"
Scientists in Switzerland say they are almost certain that an audio tape attributed to Osama bin Laden is a fake. ... Researchers at the Dalle Molle Institute for Perceptual Artificial Intelligence, in Lausanne, believe the message was recorded by an impostor.
In a study commissioned by France 2 television, researchers built a computer model of Bin Laden's voice, based on an hour of genuine recordings. Using voice recognition systems being developed for banking security, they tested the model against 20 known recordings of Bin Laden. The system correctly identified his voice in 19 of them.
This meant there was only a 5% risk of error in their conclusion that the latest tape is a fake, Professor Hervé Bourlard, the institute's director, told the Guardian yesterday. [Guardian]
Love how that Bin Laden tape came out in 2004 right before the election that looked nothing like him, glad it won Bush the election then.
"Keep living in youre delusional world that Orwell aptly described in 1984."
1948. And 1984 was a social satire, not actually intended to be a "prediction" of anything. HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO GO OVER THIS?!
But back to the subject of fire melting steel:
You DID look at the photos I posted, didn't you?
Especially the one with the melting cranes?
You don't know what we're thinking. You don't even know what we believe. You don't even know what the "official" theory is, do you?
What's this about conservation of momentum? It's probably moot anyway, since we don't think what you want us to think. The buildings collapsed at less than freefall, contrary to what you say. You're in the group that's demanding we believe in explosives that can violate the laws of thermodynamics. You're the one here who apparently believes that a building can turn into airy powder with less-than-nuclear force. You're the one positing exotic forces, just like those people who explain the mythical allegedly "faster than freefall" collapse with space lasers applying downward force.
After my initial comment a few days back, I decided to come back and have a look. As I expected, there's no settling the issue with these "troofers". All you get out of them is a continued stubborn refusal to accept the facts.
I think Orac was right. There's not much difference between "9-11 troofers" , "Anti-Vaxers" and HIV Denialists.
Cooler,
the only thing that you have achieved in all your ranting is to demonstrate the perceptive accuracy of the cartoon.
Somebody using the pseudonym tried to argue that the cartoon wasn't accurate. Apparently nobody was really stupid enough to believe the "fire doesn't melt steel" bullshit. Thanks for proving him wrong.
I'll buy each of you a beer if you can get cooler to acknowledge that fire does indeed melt steel. Or at the very least, to acknowledge that there is photographic evidence in this thread demonstrating that fire can deform steel.
Jesus, are you guys that Ignorant. You guys are now arguing that fire does melt steel? Do you even know what your argument is now? According to Frank gayle from NIST and Thomas Eagar an MIT materials engineers professor fire, supporters of the OCT even, jet fuel fires do not melt steel. You guys have come full circle to the point I dont even know what youre arguing for. Noble, I suggest you read Darin Browns post on how he decontructed you people and your "tribal reactions" that have gotten so ridicoulus, you guys are know arguing the very point that Debunkers attempt to debunk! Exactly as Dr. Brown stated, it's nothing about the issues, just a mindless desultory "taboo reaction"
From Stephen Jones paper, jet fuel office fires didnt melt any steel on 9/11.
"The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams-- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (workingwith NIST) stated:Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt.(Field, 2005; emphasis added.)And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: "In no instance did NIST reportthat steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htmNone of the official reports tackles the mystery of the molten metal pools. Yet this is clearlya significant clue to what caused the Towers and WTC 7 to collapse. So an analysis of thecomposition of the previously-molten metal is required by a qualified scientific panel.
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely notcapable of melting steel.In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame.... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust whenthe fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuseflame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat
intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase forburning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to meltsteel at 1500 °C.""But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in thebest ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steelbegins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% lossof strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on thislow-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Evenwith its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stressesimposed by a 650 °C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added
You guys just got totally owned, Thomas Eagar phd a MIT materials enginner professor and supporter of the OCT clearly says that the WTC fires are a diffuse flame, the same as the type of flame in a fireplace, and cannot even come close to melting steel! hahahahahahah, if you bothered to read any of the links I provided you wouldnt have made such fools of yourselves, but why bother to read anything?
Afterall, If I told a 7 year old like Chris Noble that Santa Claus Doesnt exist, do you think he would make a rational decision based on facts? No, he would just have the "taboo reaction" and make an idiot of himself as he just did.
You mean this link? Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Nobody is saying that the fires in WTC7 melted steel. Weakened yes. meleted no. This doesn't make idiots making stupid comments like "fire doesn't melt steel" correct. Fire can and does melt steel.
It's a tsunami of stupid from cooler again... /head-desk
"I'll buy each of you a beer if you can get cooler to acknowledge that fire does indeed melt steel. Or at the very least, to acknowledge that there is photographic evidence in this thread demonstrating that fire can deform steel."
No beer for me, thanks. I'll accept a cane sugar Coke.
"Thomas Eagar phd a MIT materials enginner professor and supporter of the OCT clearly says that the WTC fires are a diffuse flame, the same as the type of flame in a fireplace, and cannot even come close to melting steel!"
Argument from authority, Doggerel #27, and no cites or sources. I'm starting to notice a pattern here.
Once again, Cooler demonstrates his complete ignorance of the "OCT" and our position by erecting a straw man.
Sigh. Cooler can't even come up with a *real* source for his claims, he has to resort to quote-mining. I should have seen this coming.
going WAAAY back to Feb. 6th, quoting Prometheus:
actually, large engineering projects are often built with safety factors of two or more. that fount of wisdom (ahem) wikipedia boldly claims factors of ten are not unheard of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_factor
then again, were i a structural engineer tasked with a skyscraper, i'd probably vary the structural strength --- and perhaps the safety factor, too --- with the floor level. higher floors, with less mass above them, shouldn't need the same considerations as ground level.
designing a building to survive full-speed impact of a loaded airliner, however... i imagine nobody does that, except maybe the military, and then only as a side-effect of designing for surviving artillery bombardment. after all, how often do such events really happen? perhaps one could argue that skyscrapers ought to be designed to survive fires better, but even so, how often do skyscraper fires get accelerated by thousands of gallons of jet fuel? it wouldn't be reasonable to expect such events to be anticipated, and designed for, by the original builders. conversely, it is reasonable that --- when such an unusually violent event happens --- the building might just come down.
(one happy accident was that the collapse of the towers so closely resembled a controlled demolition. if they hadn't come straight down, for instance, the outcome might have been far, far worse. but given the realities of physics --- 90% air or not, the towers were HEAVY --- toppling them sideways would've taken much more effort.)
Actually, there is a very simple way that anyone can use to show why the towers came straight (ish) down.
You may wish to do this experiment outside your local ER, it'll save travel time.
First, balance a housebrick on your foot (no shoe allowed). This may be uncomfortable, but no lasting damage is done. This demonstrates a static load.
For the second part, drop the brick from a height of 10 feet or so onto your foot. This demonstrates the same mass but with a small dynamic component.
This is what you get when one floor of a skyscraper gives way - essentially, to stop a moving mass requires orders of magnitude more strength than to hold the same mass statically, and IIRC the towers only had a 200% reserve strength.
The simulations show that the towers had around a 50% reserve after the impacts (WTC1 slightly more than WTC2); this then fell as the fires took effect. The chief mechanism appears to have been weakening and sagging of the floors, which then exerted a pull-in effect on the outer columns (Photos show inward bowing a minute or two before collapse). As soon as a few of these columns lost the ability to support the mass above, loads were transferred causing neighbouring columns to fail, rapidly leading to complete collapse.
WTC7 took very large amounts of damage in the collapse of the towers, and as far as is possible to tell came very, very close to immediate collapse - observations showed movement and bulges immediately after the damage. The fires there merely finished it off.
Especially for the towers, 'troofers' have a habit of claiming that either the impact or the fire could not have brought down the building, which is true - it took the combination to do that. Of course, getting them to admit this is like trying to nail jelly to the wall before it sets..
Thats what I aknowledged, that the OCT says the steel weakened not melted, yet some people here are so ignorant on 9/11 they claim it melted.
There are basically 2 explanations of why the towers collapsed, The NIST report and the "troofer" claim. Let me break it down since you people seem to have not much knowledge of either hypothesis.
NIST hypothesis.
The planes damaged 15% of the columns and stripped the fireproofing off. The fire weakened many of the perimeter and core columns. The upper block's weight then crushed the rest of the building. Nist says the buildings collapsed in 10 seconds.
"troofers hypothesis"
See problems with this hypothesis and sees that the explosive hypothesis can much more easily explain the Data.
1. Can easily explain the rapid collapses and the lack of resistence from the 80 stories of cold steel superstructure.
2. Can easily exaplin the disspperence of the upper block of the towers.
3. Can easily explain the sounds of explosions, one group of witnesses claim they heard a huge explosion before the impact of the first plane.
4. Can easily explain the pulverization of concrete and horizontal ejections of large steel beams.
5. Can easily explain the sulfidation of steel and molten metal.
I see this as a more likely explanation and so does anybody else with half a brain. If you dropped 1 car on a stack of another 9 cars it would be very strange for all the cars to be pulverized symetrically within 15 or so seconds, the cars would provide resistence, ie conservation of momentum.
youll say this scale is too small. Lets say you stacked 100 houses securley on top of eachother, and then you took a crane and dropped ten houses on the other 90, youre saying the ten houses would plow through the rest in around 15 seconds and there would be pulverization and horizontal ejections, and somehow the pile driver would also end up being pulverized as well? A big joke.
the problem with the troofers' nonsense is that there seems to be no motive for anybody to go to the enormous trouble and effort they're assuming somebody not only went to, but then covered up.
it's not that it's hard for a cynic to imagine reasons a sufficiently distasteful government might want to engineer (or merely to permit) a terrorist attack on its home ground. i can think of several, but none of them particularly demand that any particular skyscraper be positively demolished. crashing hijacked planes into anything, producing any results, would have been sufficient for just about any outcome such a conspiracy might have wanted.
conversely, if the conspiracy was specifically to bring down the WTC (perhaps for purely symbolic reasons?) then no aircraft hijackings would have been needed. a replay of the 1993 WTC bombing with a bigger car bomb (cf. Oklahoma City) would have sufficed, and been much easier to engineer.
but the particular conspiracy theory of hijacking planes, and crashing them into the towers, and demolishing said towers with explosives, and making it appear that the former was the cause of the latter, AND covering it all up... is not only way, way too much trouble to go to, but is pointless trouble that could not possibly create any outcome that might not have been reached with much less effort and risk using a simpler conspiracy.
in fact, if i were a true conspiracy theorist, i'd hypothesize that the troofers were part of the coverup. that the NIST findings were exactly correct, that the conspiracy had been simply to lead al quaeda into hijacking those planes and crash them into whatever random buildings they pleased, and to arrange for the CIA / NSA / whatever-TLA to conveniently not discover those plans in time to do anything; and then discredit the very idea that any conspiracy had ever taken place by planting obvious lunatics as the loudest, most vocal proponents of the conspiracy theory. who'd ever push any investigation if it meant having to take the side of such complete maniacs and scientific illiterati as our friend cooler?
No cooler, they claimed that fire can melt steel. As a general fact. Which is true. You'd do well to read what people actually say.
no, let's not. the proper analogy for a skyscraper is a skyscraper; regular-sized houses simply don't scale up to that level, and you just can't do the house-stacking trick you propose.
Ok, now it just feels similar to knocking over the guy in a wheel chair. I mean seriously, you have a guy who is high-fiving himself, because no one here buys anything he spews - this is behavior that is more than a little pathological.
At which point, the resulting construct would collapse in on itself, since the typical house isn't designed to support the weight of another house, let alone 99 other houses on top of itself.
What rapid collapses? What lack of resistance? Those buildings collapsed just as expected. Please refrain from making shit up.
What disappearance? Even if there was this alleged disappearance, how the hell would explosives explain it? Bombs do not cause violations of the conservation of matter.
Citations, please. Make sure it links to a recording. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially since twoofers love to rip things out of context.
Besides, explosions don't require explosives. "Explosives" is a just a label given to chemicals and such that are particularly easy to explode.
Besides, controlled demolitions aren't done with a single large explosion. They're done with series of explosions. Are you going to start dipping into the "micro nuke" hypothesis, now?
The building is 90% air. Air is a fluid. When it is compressed during pancaking, it will force its way out in an explosion and potentially bring debris along with it. Also, you're applying a lot of truly massive forces in the collapse. Anything that wound up being compressed by the weight coming down from above had a chance to get flung off.
1. I thought you were arguing that steel can't melt.
2. How the hell would explosive charges explain it?
3. Here's something I found. Are you going to be introducing weird thermite/ate stuff that doesn't act like thermite/ate?
Stack anything on top of eachother securely, cars, refrigerators, bricks, there is no precedent in physics where if the bottom half of the mass outweighed the top half of the mass 10 to 1 or so where the bottom half wouldnt arrest the collapse if the top half, which was 1/10 the weight were dropped on top of the mass.
Let me remind you of Dr. Darin Browns post on what this is all about the "taboo reaction" which many of you clearly display, this has nothing to do with the evidence.
SLC,
Your comments, even from someone "with a PhD in elementary particle physics", remind me of the central sociological fact surrounding the reaction you embody:
This has nothing to do with the HIV hypothesis. Nothing to do with the pros vs. cons of vaccine administration. Nothing to do with whether global warming is human-caused. Nothing to do with the cause of the 9-11 attacks. Nothing to do with the issues.
It's all about "joining the anti-crankery club". It's all about getting patted on the back for "being skeptical". It's all about wearing "Skeptical Inquirer" t-shirts and throwing around terms like "whackjob" (implying that anyone who doubts a consensus viewpoint is akin to ejaculate fluid) and "denier" (implying that anyone who doubts a consensus viewpoint is akin to Holocaust deniers). It's all about having your ego stroked for helping in the fight against "scientific illiteracy" and "the cult of irrationality". It's all about the "taboo reaction" so eloquently and prophetically expressed by Feyerabend in Against Method years ago:
"Science [relating another person's characterization] ... is characterised by an essential scepticism; 'when failures start to come thick and fast, defence of the theory switches inexorably to attack on it'.' This is possible because of the 'openness' of the scientific enterprise, because of the pluralism of ideas it contains and also because whatever defies or fails to fit into the established category system is not something horrifying, to be isolated or expelled. On the contrary, it is an intriguing 'phenomenon' - a starting-point and a challenge for the invention of new classifications and new theories. We can see that Horton has read his Popper well. A field study of science itself shows a very different picture... Such a study reveals that, while some scientists may proceed as described, the great majority follow a different path. Scepticism is at a minimum; it is directed against the view of the opposition and against minor ramifications of one's own basic ideas, never against the basic ideas themselves. Attacking the basic ideas evokes taboo reactions which are no weaker than are the taboo reactions in so-called "primitive societies." Basic beliefs are protected by this reaction as well as by secondary elaborations, as we have seen, and whatever fails to fit into the established category system or is said to be incompatible with this system is either viewed as something quite horrifying or, more frequently, it is simply declared to be non-existent."
Read over the responses generated at this blog in reaction to HIV, vaccines, global warming, 9-11, etc. REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS OF THE DOUBTERS ON ANY OF THESE ISSUES, can anyone doubt that the "taboo reaction" expressed by the defenders of the faith here is any weaker than that in so-called "primitive societies"??
darin
Posted by: Darin Brown | January 13, 2008 6:57 PM
Infact heres a video of the typical "taboo reaction" being displayed by Danny Bonaduce, and many of the posters here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnliRXAIyIo
Cooler, in case you need to see that third photo again...
flickr (dot) com/photos/sunfell/31788995/
And a close-up shot...
flickr (dot) com/photos/sunfell/31788976/in/set-699043/
This is not the work of explosives, thermite, or what have you. It was simple ARSON. All that happened was a bunch of homleless people went inside and set the place on fire. That's it.
...What we have here is a failure to communicate.
Doggerel #43, by the way. ("You're just afraid of the TROOOOOOOOOOOOOOTH!!!11!!")
Laser,
Perhaps you should listen to your scientific master Dr. Darin Brown who has a PHD in mathematics when he deconstructed you people. You will say I'm appealing to authority, but it's authority WITH superior arguments as well, this combination is deadly effective. Bow your head to your scientific masters!
try restating that in english, and perhaps i'll be able to make enough sense of it to tell you which part of the math and physics you've got completely bass-ackwards. as it is, though, you're just babbling.
Cooler's post, translated: "You disagree with me, therefore you're wrong! You won't admit it, and you're trying to distract us by talking about the evidence!"
Face it, cooler, you're the one with the 'taboo reaction,' here. Your latest effort there just demonstrates it. You ran away from the subject screaming like a little girl from some honest observations and questions. When it's the skeptics 'just asking questions', suddenly your sacred doctrine isn't allowed to be questioned.
Now try talking about the arguments. Elitism isn't a substitute for argument or evidence. Or are you the type to call the typical skeptical reaction to "Pi = 3.000" a 'taboo reaction' as well? You'd do a wonderful job as a mainstream media propagandist, changing subjects like that whenever it's convenient for you.
Evidence. Now.
Its called conservation of momentum idiots. Stack ten fridges on top of eachother, take one and drop it on the rest and see if they all get symetrically pulverized in seconds. Its so obvious it's a joke.
i don't think that term means what you think it means.
no, not likely. that's because a stack of refrigerators is NOTHING LIKE a skyscraper. the structural stresses, material strengths, masses, inertias, and so on are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
in fact, no random stack of anythings will ever be a good analogy for a skyscraper. skyscrapers, contrary to what you appear to think, are not just really tall stacks of individual floors.
1. I fail to see what that has to do with conservation of momentum.
2. The "square cube law" tends to make smaller objects stronger to scale than larger counterparts. That's one reason why insects and very small structures tend to be stronger than large-scale counterparts.
3. Stacks of fridges and houses aren't built like skyscrapers. Stack of houses would probably collapse pretty quickly, stacks of fridges would more likely be prone to toppling. Lego logic doesn't scale so easily, which is why skyscrapers needed different structures than smaller buildings.
4. Again, you're making stuff up about the time scale. If you're arguing that the towers were turned into airy powder, you'll have to prove that the towers collapsed as fast as you say. But because you're so invested in us believing something other than what we really believe, you won't bother answering any challenges to your premise. The towers didn't collapse as quickly as you say.
far as i can tell, conservation of momentum would be an excellent concern to keep in mind if the WTC towers were floating in microgravity and their top few floors just happened to slam into them travelling in a straight line at a known speed, and...
...except that skyscrapers collapsing in the real world are standing in a gravity field, which means constant acceleration, which means a constant input of kinetic energy as the collapse goes on. the system is no longer closed, and so a conservation law (such as conservation of momentum) is no longer applicable, such laws being defined over closed systems.
Scienceblogs is a great place to come parade your ignorance of physics; there are likely to be several people with degrees in the subject (or related subjects) on-hand to put you in your place. When you mention "conservation of momentum" in this context, it's clear you're just bringing up things you don't understand and hoping no one else notices.
Oh, and cooler -- can fire melt steel?
Alternatively, expand the system; as the building accelerates downwards, the Earth accelerates upwards such that the total linear momentum of the combined system remains zero.
In any case, fun though it may be to poke ignorant trolls with the physics stick, the 'debate' really should have ended when cooler cited an expert who identified the cause of the collapse as fire...
I'd rephrase that: It tends to get overwhelmed by gravity. I've run into some twoofers who end up ignoring that, seeming to argue that the building's component parts should have just hovered in the air.
Also, a skyscraper is a heck of a lot messier than a billiard table. For the scale they're at, billiard balls are quite rigid and elastic. Tons and tons of concrete, steel, and office miscellania tend to end up being more inelastic at that scale.
It's also why we don't get, say, human-sized spiders. That's the kind of law I can get behind.
Hmm, but elasticity affects kinetic energy conservation, not momentum.
No. Read what people say.
And, of course, it's worth mentioning that melting steel isn't a part of the scientific explanation. The steel merely had to get hot enough to weaken, not melt.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | February 6, 2008 4:06 PM
You and other troofers are the idiots that keep on chanting "fire doesn't melt steel".
It is a) factually incorrect and b) irrelevant because the "OCT" does not involve steel melting.
I watched the Danny Bonnaduce film clip. I don't agree with his political views about George Bush but he did get one thing right. Troofers have the right to make a fool of themselves by airing their ridiculous conspiracy theories. The freedom of speech also applies to the rest of us who can call you nuts. If some idiot came up to me on the street and started harassing me about 911 conspiracy theories I would also tell him to F### off. This isn't a "taboo reaction". Their is no taboo about stupid conspiracy theories. You can believe that the queen of England is a shape-shifting alien if you want. Just don't be surprised if people laugh at you.
Understand this cooler. People are laughing at you. The people on this thread are not responding to you because they think they can convince you of anything. On the contrary, they are responding to you because you keep on making stupid comments that only demonstrate the perceptive accuracy of the cartoon.
One can only hope one of the space laser people will come in and start arguing with cooler. It'd be fun to see two silly people going at it. One going on about a "disappearing" section of the building (violating conservation of matter), and the other with a theory that would require advanced technology on par with the sillier bits of Star Trek.
Cooler,
check out this "taboo reaction".
Buzz Aldrin punches guy in the face
Go Buzz!
Now that is a debate that I'd pay to watch!
After that I want to see the "HIV was created as a bioweapon" loons debate the "HIV doesn't exist" loons.
Well, I was hoping cooler would at least admit that fire can melt steel. My offer to buy everyone a drink if he does still holds.
Make mine a cane sugar Dr Pepper.
Another fun group to pair up would be the "conventional" controlled demolition people who think super stealth ninja demo experts planted thousands of charges and miles upon miles of wire without being detected versus the crowd who think it was a planted nuke or some form of single "super bomb".
I'm not entirely sure where cooler falls on that spectrum. He does, after all, seem to think the top sections disappeared, so maybe he thinks it was an antimatter bomb.
Nobody's laughing at me, the jokes on you noble. It's like when you got into that debate with Darin Brown and you offered him Gallo's paper which found hiv antibodies in 26 of 72 AIDS patients as proof of HIV causal role in AIDS. Do you realize that the few 2nd rate hacks that post here everyday do not represent the average intelligent American?
Its getting to be common knowledge that 9/11 was intelligence agency inside job. Who's dumb enough to think a plane could dissapear in Shankesville but they could find a pristine bandana and terrorists passport? The only people dumb enough to believe that are you and your unemployed friends.
Get out of the house, go to a decent college campus in America, and away from the trailer park mentality expressed on these blogs and you'll see highly educated architects, engineers, professers and students doubt the OCT.
There's a reason movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist are the most watched online films ever, the average educated American knows that the OCT is BS and that you guys are just a bunch of trolls who don't think it's possible for the government to lie. I will leave you with apost by MEC who teaches critical thinking who eloquently satirizes how stupid you people are.
Cooler,
Sascha is right. If you start believing in Project Day Lily or that the US government uses maffia methods, you're on a slippery conspiracy slope that'll make it impossible for you to distinguish fact from fiction. You'll start believing historical fables such as biological warfare used against native American Indians, slavery, at least one nuclear weapon dropped on Japan for no reason, Tuskegee style medical experiments, Napalm used on Vietnamese civilians during that heroic and well-intentioned effort to stem the tide of Communism, that Saddam was our best friend at the time he was conducting chemical warfare on Iranians and Kurds, that there were no WMDs secretly smuggled to Syria under the watchful eye of our spy sattelites, immunity from the rule of law under the Patriot Act and similar documents for the Government and large corporations, such as pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturers and latest the telecommunication companies.
MEC
HIV causes AIDS Cooler! Embrace it before it's too late.
Want a bet?
I'll double Davis' wager.
Please tell me why the explosive demolition hypothesis is not a viable hypothesis? If you think its not possible, explain why, and please give a sequential model of how the towers and building 7 collapsed.
Over 200 architects and engineers agree with me at
ae911truth.org
From their site
As your own eyes witness -- WTC Building #7 (a 47 story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives:
1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse (heard by hundreds of firemen and media reporters)
3. Symmetrical "collapse" - through the path of greatest resistance - at nearly free-fall speed -- the columns gave no resistance
4. Squibs, or "mistimed" explosions, at the upper 7 floors seen in the network videos
5. "Collapses" into its own footprint - with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Tons of molten Metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor) in basement (no other possible source than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
8. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
9. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
10. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
11. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As seen in this revealing photo the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1. Extremely rapid onset of "collapse"
2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone -- a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4. Squibs, or "mistimed" explosions, 40 floors below the "collapsing" building seen in all the videos
5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people - mostly to dust
6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8. Symmetrical collapse - through the path of greatest resistance - at nearly free-fall speed -- the columns gave no resistance
9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris - outside of building footprint
10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements - obliterating the steel core structure.
13. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for -- 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed"
Who's opinion do you think I value more, a good looking young intelligent group of college kids, engineers, professers, scientists or you and your trailer park- esque friends?
I'd get laughed at at the trailer park as well, so you guys are in good company, and I couldn't care less.
And yet, here I am, doing that. Got a few chuckles from my brother, too.
Science isn't a democracy. American Idol is not a model of epistemology.
No one I know of. I highly doubt that anyone here believes that. Oh, and define "pristine". You defining it like that flattened bullet from the JFK shooting was "pristine"? Or do you actually mean the dictionary version?
Kind of hypocritical of you to raze on these hypothetical people anyway, since you mentioned something about "disappearing" chunks of the WTC.
And once again, you demonstrate a profound ignorance of what we believe. It's as if you're trying to act like a political propagandist.
Already in college. Brother's been there too, and got a degree. I'm working on an MS.
Already know that argument from authority is a fallacy, especially since you can't even form or repeat a coherent argument from any of those people. Considering that you want us to go back to the model of "because important person said so", straight of the the Dark Ages, I thought you should know that we've moved beyond the thought-stopping cliches of your ilk. Don't base your life on American Idol.
1. Popularity does not equal evidence. Geocentrism used to be popular.
2. We know the government often lies. Stop lying about our views. You're really demanding that we believe everyone except you lies. The investigation didn't begin and end with the government, and we aren't basing our evaluation on the government's alleged authority. I base my views on my knowledge of science, and the science happens to back up the "official" theory.
Meanwhile, you're asking me to believe in matter that magically "disappears" in violation of some of the most firmly established laws of physics. Got a perpetual motion machine behind your trailer, cooler? If what you're asking us to believe is true, breaking the first law of thermodynamics in the other direction should be easy-peasy.
And let's not forget that you can't even commit to saying that fire can melt steel. I don't see any reason to believe much, if any steel melting occurred at the WTC, but I do know that you can create circumstances where a fire hot enough will melt steel.
Meanwhile, you have yet to explain how unspecified explosives can make a giant chunk of a building "disappear", unless you intend to explain it in terms of the Death Star leaving behind only sparklies and maybe a Praxis Wave if you're watching Special Edition.
According to Eagar fire doesnt melt steel, only deform/weaken it Davis, can you read? Noble can you even understand what youre saying, your pals Davis and Potato are claiming fire melts steel, I thought only 9/11 crackpots make that claim Noble? Are you going to address your friends' embracement of loony 9/11 canards?
because it makes no damn sense to posit such an enormous effort without any obvious motive for why anybody should've bothered, when alternative hypotheses appear to be perfectly plausible, quite reasonable, and show excellent motive for each participant.
oh, and it's been more'n two years now since i moved out of the trailer park. i got my college degree well before that, no less, but i'm more scruffy-looking than handsome if i'm to be honest.
All of the scientific issues aside, the main flaw in the "logic" of people like Cooler is that they're still breathing (and writing nonsense on 'blogs).
You see, if there were a massive conspiracy that managed to plant explosives in the World Trade Center and destroy them, they would have the will and the power - not to mention the reach - to silence people like Cooler and the crack-pots who feed him/her (mis)information.
After all, after killing 3000 people, what's keeping them from killing a few fringe 'bloggers and conspiracy nuts?
That's why I find their "arguments" so unconvincing. The bad science and bad engineering is only secondary.
Theories that rely on massive, ruthless conspiracies all have that flaw. Any conspiracy that is capable of keeping so many people silent must rely on the threat of death. And so, people who are blabbering on about "massive conspiracies" should be quickly and quietly "eliminated".
Their continued chatter proves their argument false.
Prometheus
So instead of focusing on the physical evidence, whip out the crystal ball and pretend you know exactly the way the criminal would operate and think instead of conducting an investigation.
Next time a investigator arrives at a crime scene, he should not investigate the evidence, rather make mind reading speculations. Makes a lot of sense.
Why must you feed the troll? Haven't you noticed it ignores every attempt at rational communication and just uses your criticism as an excuse to vomit forth some more stupid?
Got a comment stuck in moderation since I used a couple links.
1. Logistics problem 1: Demolishing a building with explosives is hard work. It takes demo teams months of planning to pull it off when they have free reign in the building. Add to that the time they'd need to do it without being seen in a building occupied nearly all the time AND cover up their work with fresh spackle while hoping no one notices.
2. Logistics problem 2: It takes thousands of charges and miles upon miles of wiring. You'd think someone would notice.
3. Demo teams usually have to cut into the supports. Risky business when the building is allowed to remain for a long time.
4. Fridge Logic problem: Why not do something simpler like an extra-big truck bomb or finding a handful of manipulable fanatics to pull off a hijacking?
5. The government isn't competent enough to pull off an attack and cover up of such detail that conspiracy nuts allege. No one on Earth is. Bush & Co are not deities, despite whatever Jingoist fantasies you may entertain. They're a bunch of idiots and shortsighted sociopaths from what I've seen. No way could they ever dream of pulling off a million man conspiracy.
6. The problem with giant million-man conspiracies: You're going to get lots and lots of whistleblowers who don't have to have their quotes taken out of context.
7. Explosives simply aren't powerful enough to have the magical matter-destroying properties cooler's hypothesis assigns to them.
8. Why bother with James Bond-esque shit? Reminds me of a sound clip I heard before "Snakes on a Plane" came out (never watched the movie): Mad Scientist-type: "I will rule the world! And I will do so by putting... Snakes! ...on a Plane! And there will be Snakes on a Plane!" That sort of shit only works in Hollywood, and not even with me.
9. Explosions don't work like they do in Hollywood.
Onto other silliness:
Define "rapid." It seems to me any collapse would necessarily be "rapid."
Got a recording? Seismic data? You do realize that we don't give a lot of credence to eyewitness testimony, especially in moments of crisis.
Which videos? I've seem twoofers calling video compression artifacts "squibs", and I've seem them call blowouts of dusty air the same, apparently forgetting that air is a compressible fluid that gets compressed during a collapse.
Provide evidence of this pulverization, and/or a type of explosive that could do that sort of thing.
Speak English.
Don't make shit up. It was asymmetrical. The corner that got visibly damaged by falling debris collapsed first.
Show me. Don't make shit up.
1. Where'd you get those numbers?
2. How the hell does that support the explosive theory?
Don't make shit up. Show me.
1. That would refute thermate/thermite. Incendiary cutting involves fast-burning chemicals. They would have given off their heat quickly, and then it would dissipate. The molten metal was more likely aluminum, with a lower melting point that could be sustained by weaker, slower fires.
2. How the hell do you cut through a vertical column with thermate/thermite? Show me how it's done.
Covered.
What, are you going to say the buildings were empty, now?
1. Define "slow".
2. What do you expect to happen when a chunk of support column gets heated and weakened with a LOT of weight still on top of it.
Where the hell to you get "intact". That building wasn't made of Lego. Oh, and the collapse was asymmetrical. The top chunks of the towers tilted visibly as they fell. I still fail to see how "conservation of momentum" factors into that.
Please refrain from making up all this "symmetrical" shit.
Because they didn't have a plane crash into them, knocking of large chunks of insulation, I imagine.
Nothing but a bunch of stock replies. About as riveting as a debate with a cookie-cutter Creationist. I only see one thing I never saw before, and that's the one about FEMA and that oxidation or whatever. You'll have to explain that one in detail, since I'm not seeing how that contributes.
I feed him because I find him hilarious. He's one of those people who lets Hollywood special effects do all his physics lessons for him.
They are wireless explosives that could easily have been placed in the elevator shafts, there were many unprecedented power downs and Larry silverstein took out a 6 billion dollar insurance claim 6 weeks before when he took ownership, see the film 9/11 mysteries for the eternal truth.
Bow your head, oh and its the intelligence agencies that have successfully done many covert ops such as overthrowing democratically elected leaders around the world, not the presidents, who are just mere puppetts. These intelligence agencies operate without much oversight and have waged secret wars in Vietnam etc. They are more competent than you'll know.
9/11 mysteries, good film, probably will win an Oscar
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871
I can read just fine, unlike you apparently. Even if I accept Eager's authority (which I question), he never claims fire can't melt steel. He claims the fire in the WTC was not hot enough to melt steel. That's it.
There's evidence of steel production in various societies going back over 2000 years. If they weren't using fire to melt it, then what did they use? Magic? Or do you think they had electric arc furnaces?
I agree, he is hilarious. I'm personally curious about the extent to which he is immune to evidence (100% so far). I've seen no sign, ever, that cooler even entertains the possibility he might be wrong. About anything.
He reads it the same way I did. Apparently cooler doesn't understand the concept of "circumstances", and temperature is a circumstance. The temperature in the WTC fires was a specific circumstance that didn't qualify for melting steel.
I wonder if Cooler's going to end up claiming that blacksmiths since the Iron Age were all in on it, along with every chemistry textbook I've ever read, every chemistry teacher I had, and the people who gave me 8 hours of college credit for my CLEP test.
It's kind of like what Creationists do with Pasteur: He showed spontaneous generation doesn't occur under specific circumstances and a few-day time limit. Creationist then go on to extend that one specific circumstance to claim that no kind of abiogenesis can ever occur in any circumstances over any period of time. Induction from one example hardly works.
So, cooler, I highly recommend you get your reading comprehension and writing ability up to grade school level. Hint: Vocabulary alone doesn't fix egregious failings of logic.
I suppose his next discovery will be to reverse the magical process of erasing matter with bombs to create energy from nowhere.
Since cooler likes to pimp movies, allow me to present this wonderful corrected version of 9/11 Mysteries. It has a quite entertaining method of rebutting the near infinite stupid in the video.
Cooler, people have been melting steel with fire for over 3000 years. This isn't some new development in science that you could have missed. Fire can melt steel. Get over it. I can guarantee that Eagar as a metallurgist hasn't missed this technological innovation.
This is a separate question from whether the fires in WTC7 were sufficiently hot to melt steel. The "OCT" does not involve steel melting. The fires were sufficiently hot to significantly weaken the structural steel. This lead to the collapse of the building.
9/11 Cartoon: Steel Melting Double Straw-man
By Arabesque
A blog entitled Respectful Insolence posts a 9/11 Cartoon The "troof" hurts...
The cartoon asks the question "can fire melt steel" and gives a misleading answer. Yes, fire can melt steel, but only in special conditions as Dr. Thomas Eagar explains:
Ironically, this cartoon found underneath the blogger's tagline, "The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, pseudoscience" is actually a double straw-man. First of all the NIST report denies molten steel (likely because acknowledging molten steel would be very problematic for the official story--in contrast to what this cartoon would have us believe). Secondly, molten steel can only occur with the conditions described above by Eagar.
Did the steel melt at the WTC as denied by NIST? According to eyewitness testimony of "pools of molten metal", analysis, and other evidence; yes it did. With very unusual temperatures.
Is this the only evidence of molten steel? Hardly. In fact, "a fire protection engineer and two science professors" published a brief report about steel taken from Building 7, revealing:
What does it all mean? The NIST report denies this evidence even though some of it made its way into the previous FEMA report. This is exemplified by John Gross, who denied the existence of molten steel: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en-CAThere is compelling evidence that the steel melted, and no official explanation has been given. Instead, official reports have been forced to deny the existence of molten steel to support the official story that fires caused the Towers and Building 7 to collapse.Contrary to the insinuations of this cartoon, the truth is more complicated than the question: "can fire melt steel?" Indeed it can, but not in the conditions we are told existed within the World Trade Center on 9/11. It is an indisputable fact that jet fuel fires cannot reach the temperatures needed to melt steel. Not only this, the buildings were designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires of the kind seen on 9/11. Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Architects for 9/11 Truth, and others are calling for an investigation to answer what really caused the molten steel and the unusual temperatures observed.
OK thats what we are talking about that the WTC office fires didnt melt steel.
Anyways, Since you guys claim to know everything please provide me with the top 3 peices of evidence indisputedly link Osama and Al queda to the attacks. The FBI admits that they have no hard evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11, which is why 9/11 is not listed on his most wanted poster, please give me the unambigious evidence that he and the hijackers are responsible. (Source Loose change Final Cut, try watching the film instead of having a "Taboo reaction")
Is is the passports and bandana found in the empty ditch in shankesville? The flight training manual left in Atta's rental car (he had to learn how to fly on the way to the airport) The Fatty no audio Bin Laden confession tape that they happened to find in a house in a city as big as San francisco? Please prove the FBI wrong and give me the top 3 peices of evidence proving Al queda carried out the attacks.
Oh jeez, I forgot about the Passport of Satam al Saquimi that flew out of his pocket from the plane after it collided with the World Trade center and exploded and landed on the sidewalk. Oh god, I'm sorry, this is not suspicious at all, we must invade the entire middle east based on this Passport!
But they were hot enough to weaken steel. Your own post points that out. You don't suppose that a weakened steel support structure might be more likely to... well... collapse, do you?
Have you ever calculated the forces on the members used to hold up a building or a bridge? Each piece is there for a reason, and they tend to be under a lot of stress. Softening even one region can cause major problems because it changes the forces on just about everything. Having a section of a truss lose most of its load bearing capability or change shape unexpectedly is not something that is necessarily designed for.
Cancel that Coke, I demand a copy of Castlevania: Symphony Of The Night now.
Hell, I'll even email my address to you if he actually concedes. Remember, NTSC version!
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. Then crash fully fueled jet airliners into them, the exact same models as AA11 and UA175, in the same locations as the real impacts, and broadcast it live to the whole world.
If the buildings collapse in the manner recorded on 9/11/2001 then we do not need a new investigation of the events of that day. If the buildings collapse in some other way, then we need to repeat the experiment until they do. So you see, no scientific evidence or logical argument will ever justify, even in principle, a new investigation of 9/11.
1. Evidence isn't always fitted into nice "top" categories, nor does it require specific numbers of pieces.
2. Define "indisputedly" [sic]. You're the kind of person who will take a theory with one unlikely detail and decide that that merits throwing out the laws of thermodynamics.
3. I don't think there are any grounds to think you'd be honest about the evidence. You whine and whine about the towers not meeting your arbitrary Hollywood expectations during collapse, so you have to invent matter destroying bombs. I mean geeze, why should I ride your subject change if you've been dodging and waffling on something so basic?
How about a citation that doesn't involve me sitting through a bunch of useless, debunked canards by people who openly quote mine. If the FBI says something point me to the FBI saying it. Why should I have to let one of your idols do the filtering for me?
Oh, and it's funny that a purely reflexive person like you keeps going on about 'taboo reactions.' You've spent most of this thread knowing NOTHING about us or our views. You only knew what your lords and masters told you about us. Just like with any woo. Whenever we demolish your physics-defying nonsense or ask you to explain what you mean by 'conservation of momentum' (since you seem to be using a definition that'll never be found in a physics textbook), oddly, you start insulting our educational background, whipping out trailer trash insults, and just generally putting up barriers to our questions and observations. That's one reason I think that conspiracy nuts are champions of the status quo.
So, Cooler, are you going to go back to the topics you've been running away from, or are you once again retreating in hopes of finding one aspect we don't know as much about?
Reminds me of Phil Plait versus Moon Hoaxers: They always invent new complaints after their old ones are demolished, and yet never concede the old points. Do you think the moon landing was a hoax, by the way, cooler?
I don't really expect him to pay attention to this, but...
"According to Eagar fire doesnt melt steel, only deform/weaken it Davis, can you read?"
And it melts it too. Quite well, I might add.
"The maximum flame temperature increase forburning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to meltsteel at 1500 °C"
That's a big fat lie, you big, fat liar. To quote Prometheus...
"Even high-temperature steel loses 50% of its strength at 600 degrees C (~1100 deg F), which is within the range of an average house fire. By 800 deg C (~1500 deg F), it's down to 10% of its nominal strength. A high-rise fire fueled by kerosene or Jet A will burn significantly hotter than that.
....
The melting points of various steels range from 1130 deg C to 1500 deg C. There are probably alloys with higher melting points, but they aren't generally used in construction."
Oh, and the Mason building's melted support beams were the result of a "weak" diffuse fire (most likely trash, wood and maybe lighter fluid.) Or do you think the hobos used thermite, bombs and space lasers?
Still waiting for that indisputable evidence that would convict Osama and his pals. That would be an interesting Trial, Osama's Lawyers would demand all the videos at the Pentagon and the Airports be released (13 of the 19 hijackers never appear on any airport cams)
They would demand a chain of custody for the "confession tape" They would put Larry Silverstein on the stand and grill him why he and his kids just happened not to show up that day and why he had unprecedented power downs and took 6 billion insurance claim against a terrorist attack 6 weeks prior. They would also grill one of his bodyguards when he told a member of We are Change that he recieved a warning not to show up that day.
The Jury would get suspicious as they would see planes dissaperaing and terrorists passport's still surviving. No wonder you guys would do everything to stop a real investigation, and just rely on convulted speculations on how building 7 and the towers collapsed, even when they displayed many of the charecteristics of a controlled demolition, and none of a fire/damage scenario, for fire and damage has rarely collapsed a modern steel structure (unless you want to babble about buildings that havent even finished being constructed)
Just give me the evidence that would convince an impartial jury he was guilty. Waiting.
@Chris Noble:
Is there any way that I can buy you a beer? Seeing that I was wrong about the cartoon not being correct.
Cooler wrote:
In my case that is because I'm too stunned by disbelief about the stuff you've been spouting and that until you could not deny it any more your denial that fire could melt steel. I didn't think that people were that sloppily educated about physics.
@Laser Potato:
Well I had to pay to refurbish my parents fireplace due to getting a wood fire hot enough to warp the iron/steel bar keeping the the fireproofed tiles up (and causing it to tear out the bolts in the tiles). So even if you read that paper as Cooler would want us to there is a distinct possibility of the fire still being bad enough that it would have caused the collapse.
Cool more moving goalposts from the collapse couldn't happen to Bin Laden didn't do it. You do realize that even if Bin Laden isn't the one who orchestrated this that doesn't make the collapse due to impacting planes causing an inferno any less real.
Oh and what disappearing plane?
How can so many smart people be so stupid? There are so many justifiable questions left unanswered in the truth movement.
One would only need a third grade education to believe the line our government is feeding us.
Want an opinion? Try an educated one!
What i want to belive is irrelevent. It is obivious those that cling to the official version have'nt taken the time to look.
ae911truth.org
Hydrocarbon fires can't melt steel. I've been an iron worker,welder for thirty five years.
There is no way in hell the towers could have came down that fast through the path of most resistance.
And i also refuse to belive that our air force is that incompetent.
Don't believe or don't want to believe?
Why do so many truthers think they know more about physics, engineering, and materials science than the experts in the subjects? Actually, I have an answer to that one: the incompetent vastly overestimate their abilities.
Ive never backed down from the explosives claim, 10 seconds through 80 floors of cold steel superstructure, the path of greatest resistence? Are ya stupid? See Loose change and you'll see Fox news report on the missing plane in shankesville on 9/11/01, see the final cut on how they found the terrorists passport and bandana. Again, are you people stupid?, yes you are, sorry for asking.
Just give me the evidence that would convince an impartial jury Bin Laden was guilty. Waiting.
what exactly is the "path of greatest resistance" through a skyscraper (and which one?), and how do you know it?
where do you get this conviction that anything whatsoever followed any path of greatest resistance on 9/11, and how can you demonstrate it?
"Ironically, this cartoon found underneath the blogger's tagline, "The miscellaneous ramblings of a surgeon/scientist on medicine, quackery, science, pseudoscience" is actually a double straw-man."
Thanks troll, your concern has been noted. So has your Appeal To Authority fallacy and obvious copy/paste format.
Not to mention obviously only having SKIMMED THE HEADLINE AND NOT READING THE THREAD AT ALL.
What would the appropriate time be? Please show some calculations. Or are you just guesstimating?
I suggest you read the NIST FAQ, they admit the towers collapsed in about 10 seconds.
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html
Here are the NIST FAQ's with Jim Hoffmans critique in seperate print.
Oh, still waiting for the evidence that Al queda was responsible for 9/11
You keep using the word "admit" for some reason. My question is, why is the collapse time a problem, and what would you otherwise expect it to be? What reason do you have for expecting this? Again, please show your work.
That's because you'd rather hop from one shallow examination of a subject to the next than deeply examine one of your claims. It's a common tactic because it's harder to refute a flood of nonsense than to focus on a single claim and discuss it until it's settled. The fact that you "change the channel" as soon as anybody challenges you for a specific claim doesn't do your position a lot of good.
The topic most of us are interested in is your...unique understanding of physics and structural engineering. How long *should* the towers have taken to fall?
Well according to anyone with any knowledge of physics the 80 floors of cold steel should have arrested the collapse. And there is no explanation on how the tops of the towers disintergrated. It defies common sense, if you dropped a ten story building on a 90 story building youre telling me it would crush the building in 10 seconds, offering very little resistence this is 5th grade stuff.
A mechanical engineer Gordon Ross has done the calculations, the bottom half should have arrested the collapse.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
OK, the towers collapsed in about ten seconds. so what? what other time span would you prefer them to have taken, and why?
FWIW, the notion that the underlying structure should have significantly slowed the collapsing top floors is indeed fantastic once you consider the energies involved. see mr. Dodds' falling-brick suggestion, posted above dated Feb. 11th.
pretty much any building is constructed and intended to support its own superstructure (and not a whole lot more) statically, but once a mass begins to fall --- even if only a few feet, such as a single floor's height --- the kinetic energy accumulated becomes tremendously larger than the static stresses of the same mass held immobile. gravity is strong on these scales, and several floors of a skyscraper add up to a huge mass.
to rephrase the brick-balancing experiment: picture yourself standing upright, arms held straight up and elbows locked, supporting about --- oh --- one-half to one-third as much weight as you maximally could support, in that position. never mind how it got there; i'm talking support, not lift unaided.
you should be somewhat uncomfortable in the short run. let's ignore the long run, since unlike structural steel, you've got nerves and joints to worry about. how much weight are you balancing, more or less? a rough guess is fine.
now drop that amount of weight onto your uplifted arms from, oh, four or five feet up. that's less than one floor's height, but the supporting structure of the towers didn't just disappear after all, so i'm giving you some leeway to simulate the structure buckling. think you can break that fall? please don't try it, because you cannot.
This is the dumbest analogy Ive ever heard, youre comparing the strengh of a human body and saying its comparable to the strengh of a steel framed 47 core columned skyscraper. I rest my case.
Oh and can anybody tell what happened to the 47 core steel columns? I can't wait for this one.
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!
really? i would've guessed you were the type to appreciate the sound of your own voice...
Here is footage from the day of 9/11 in Shankesville, no plane, but they found the terrorists passport and bandana in the ditch!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BFW2-_om64&feature=related
Well, it's obvious Reaper has never talked to a skeptic before in his entire life.
Back to cooler:
Oh, man, you're illiterate. He's not comparing load strength, he's comparing static versus dynamic load! Unless steel's strength magically multiplies when something's falling down onto it (how would it know to do that?) whereas human arms don't, the analogy is still valid.
So, nice job misrepresenting the argument, cooler. What do you do for your day job? Give Ann Coulter false reports on how evolution works by claiming the entire process is random?
But then again, what can we expect from someone who believes in antimatter bombs or whatever other matter-destroying devices were used to bring down the towers? After all, he seems to think the tops of the towers "disappeared."
Someone cut Lex Luthor a check. He could have made money off that Star Trekish technology or used it to conquer the world the old fashioned, non-comic book way, but he had to conjure up a super scheme involving millions of people keeping quiet to perform the world's most roundabout false flag operation ever. One big truck bomb would have been just as effective for that purpose, and it wouldn't involve falsifying the laws of thermodynamics.
So, have fun with your position as head of the Thought Police, cooler and Reaper. That doesn't mean you can insert whatever thoughts you want us to have in our heads.
The last time I checked acetylene was a hydrocarbon. Now what is acetylene used for?
Unless you live in Australia don't worry. The laughs have been worth it. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
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?
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!
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.
Cooler you posted a link to a youtube video from "Mark Dice".
Have you visited his website?
http://www.markdice.com
He's stark raving mad! A complete loon!
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?
I work in in the oilfield. I have personally witnessed rig fires melt large amounts of thick steel.
And as cooler and his twoofer budddies continue to avoid the hobo-induced melted steel beams...
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
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.
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.
cooler wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Mark dice is a baller! His videos are hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU
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?
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.
Thanks for giving us a sequential model on how building 7 collapsed, waiting, dumb trailer park troll.
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?
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
i already tried that. he didn't take notice.
"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! >:(
When *I* was 13 years old, I had more common sense than Cooler. But then, even tree sloths have more common sense than Cooler.
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.
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...
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?!
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?
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.
Your answer of "I have no idea to your answers and need to change the subject" is noted. LOL
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.
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?
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."
parts of them will soon be sailing the high seas.
scrap steel's worth good money. most of it gets recycled and reused.
I mean during the collapses, what happened to the 47 huge core steel columns?
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.
"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!"
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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+ch…
You apparently regard Danny Jowenko as an authority. Why don't you read what he says about WTC1 and WTC2?
"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.
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?
"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."
Try watching the movie Mr Noble, it might give you a boner as well. You need it.
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.
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."
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?
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
The Magical Mystery Bombs...hoping to take you away...
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.
Cooler, stop it with the appeals to authority. WE'RE NOT STUPID.
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).
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.
...Hello? Earth to Cooler, come in Cooler.
Guys, I don't think he's listening.
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!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo&feature=related
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?
And Example of a top down demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8&eurl=http://www.911blogger.c…
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.
...he really ISN'T listening, is he?
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:
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.
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.
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.
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"
No, Super Stealth MONKEY Ninja Demolition Squads. They're even worse. ;)
Which you have yet to justify.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
They were pulverized symetrically, like a tree exploding into sawdust, they didnt topple.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A toofer troll bellows:
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".
Cooler's still not listening. But what do you expect for a troll named after an Akira Toriyama villian?
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.
kindly keep your sex life on your OWN blog, or i shall have to start calling you a wanker. eesh.
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...
blf said:
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?
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIEBLdd6W3Q
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
He just doesn't know when to call it quits, does he?
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?
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.
No, no he doesn't. I for one find it highly amusing.
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.
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.
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.
Orac wrote:
That has got to be a logical fallacy.
Appeal to boner.
Ad Priapus.
You missed the Bikini Babes for 911 truth!
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?
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............
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.
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.
"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.
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc
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?
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.
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.
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.
This is really old and totally far gone. I still feel like the little creep deserves a response.
So.
Cooler (obviously) wrote:
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.
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.
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.
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?)
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
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.
"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 www.ae911truth.org I will take that over NIST's explanation as explained by Dr. Sunder that's "I don't really know......"
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.
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?
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.
@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?
I suggest you go to the 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
There's really no reason to talk to cooler anymore, as entertaining as it may be, after he said this:
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:
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Speculations, how exactly did the 47 core columns and perimeter columns fail in 10 seconds or so?
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.
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.
Cooler wrote:
Cooler wrote:
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?