I made a thread with the same name in another forum a while back, and it got quite a response, so I thought I'd give it a go here as well. I am on fairly good terms with a few people from both sides of the debate and may even persuade some of them to come over here to discuss it as well. So, here goes... I've found that a lot of people don't really understand the implications of the WTC collapses. I've decided it would be good to start a new thread dealing with the WTC collapses, as well as put a documentary video that I think is quite good on the subject from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth so that I could refer them to the OP if they didn't understand some of the arguments being bandied about. So, here's the video from A&E: [video=youtube;YW6mJOqRDI4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4[/video] Constructive comments or links to articles on this subject are welcome.
Dickie Gage is at best a moron, at worst a snake oil salesman that's after your pocket book. Those lies have been peddled for years, it's all easily debunked garbage. Peddle it elsewhere.
Sorry, here's a link. Which contains perfect comments that describe this baboon like this post by ref:
In regards to the collapses, here's a link discussing those: http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm
Little Dickie is a laughable putz. According to him, verinage should not be possible. It obviously violates what the schmuck tries to prove here. [video=youtube;DFVoencqfZw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw[/video] [video=youtube;3GNhEpHfgfI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNhEpHfgfI[/video]
You're quick on the draw in terms of insulting people, but not so keen on simply explaining why you don't agree with them. If you prove that a single claim in the documentary is not true, let alone an intentional deception, then do so; as mentioned before, it's easy to make assertions, what's hard is proving them.
If you'd started with that link and refrained from all of your insults, I might have been more interested in responding to it. As it is, I'm not so enthusiastic in responding to its points, as it seems that all I can look forward to is more of your insult ridden posts in response. - - - Updated - - - Here's a peer reviewed article discussing NIST's investigations, as well as work from others supporting the official story, I found it to be quite educational: http://www.physics911.ca/stevenjones
Sounds good Jango. I initially believed the official story, but my belief in it lasted somewhat less then yours did. I believe the reason for this started a while back. For starters, my mother exposed me to the dark side of government when I was quite young. My first experience with this dark side was when I watched part of the film Silkwood, which is based on the life of Karen Silkwood. Here's the preview: [video=youtube;1KGmkaoIbQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KGmkaoIbQo[/video] I couldn't watch the whole thing, and my mother was initially upset, until she finally realized that this type of thing is a bit much for a young kid. My mother later became an activist and got into the issue of depleted uranium. It may be that her activist days are over, but this early exposure got me interested in a book that my brother leant me called Rule by Secrecy, from Jim Marrs. He hadn't read it himself, but after reading it, my views regarding who really runs things changed a fair amount. 2 years after 9/11, I obtained Jim Marrs' first book on 9/11, The Terror Conspiracy, and that's when my belief in the official story was shattered. I left it at that for many years, until about 5 years ago, I got on to an online forum that had a section, like this one, dealing with conspiracy theories. There were what I thought of as some rather easily debunked arguments as to why the official story was true and alternative narratives weren't. So I began to make a few comments. Thousands of posts later, I and some others, including psikeyhackr who I see posts here as well, were all told that the discussion bordered on treason and the threads on 9/11 were closed for a time. So I stopped discussing 9/11 there, and moved on to others. I think that no one would deny that this subject is quite controversial, and I believe this is the main reason that I've been banned from various forums since then. And I'm certainly not saying that those who believe in the official story are the only ones to blame; in point of fact, I've been banned from more truther sites then those that stick to the official narrative, perhaps because I didn't subscribe to their particular brand of truth. In the end, though, I'm ok with this. You could say that forums are like the homes of those who run them, so if they don't want me there, fine. The old saying that there are plenty of fish in the sea certainly applies here. When I first came to this site, I saw that the conspiracy section was pretty big, with a forum for 9/11 alone, so this made me feel that this just might be the site for me to hang my hat for some time.
Gage is trying, though an admittedly basic method, to demonstrate that building floors don't just give way at near free fall speed; even cardboard boxes resist, and the WTC buildings were made of stuff much stronger then cardboard. If you'd like some of the technical details, you might want to watch this video from David Chandler: [video=youtube;k7c0Gtq4sYY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7c0Gtq4sYY[/video] Yes, there is the whole scale issue, but steel is a lot stronger then cardboard as well. As to verinage, verinage works by imploding a few floors first. Are you suggesting that's what happened in the case of the WTC buildings?
Chandler is full of crap, too. What he thnks are explosives going off are not. He thinks that the dust entrained behind a falling object is explosive ejecta, when it lasts far too long and conitnues to follow a free-falling object.
Verinage works by knocking out the upright elements one one or two floors by pulling them with cables. Thus, enough of the upper structure is dropped onto the lower to overcome its resistance. This is what happened when the heat-weakened columns in the towers broke under the strain.
That steven jones paper you linked from physics911.ca does not constitute academic peer reviewed scientific discourse. The paper wasnt published in an objective main stream scientific periodical as far as I can tell and I see nothing to indicate that it was subjected to a traditional peer review process. Essentially, the steven jones piece was self published on a subjective 911 website. Additionally, the jones paper doesnt include any primary data or analysis instead the paper consists of jones' subjective analysis of secondary source material. Essentially, the jones piece is little more OpEd piece. One example of a glaring deficiency in jones reasoning is his total failure as far as i can tell to demonstrate that a thermitic substance is capable of producing the effects he attributes to it. If you are interested in actual academic scientific discourse do a google scholar search on the WTC collapses and read the articles published in mainstream scientific and engineering journals which unequivocally contradict the CD hypothesis. While I think the 'official' narrative is acutely defficient in various capacities there is little or no credible evidence to support the CD hypothesis. Additionally, contrary to jones, I think occams razor disproves the CD hupothesis. Ask yourself, which is the simplest explanation a) a militant group used highjacked airliners to bring the buildings down or b) a group sanctioned by our govt employed personel to high jacked jets and rig the wtc towers with explosives so that the buildings could be felled in a coordinated 'complex' attack involving explosives and airliners.
Not saying I disagree with you cooky, but what exactly "constitute academic peer reviewed scientific discourse"? So what deficiencies exist in your mind? And what (little) evidence supports the CD hypothesis?
Care to list what you believe is an "objective main stream scientific periodical"? I've found that the terms "objective" and "main stream" are generally contradictory terms. You might want to take a look at this article: http://www.debatable.us/topic/182-what-is-the-mainstream-media/ It's been peer reviewed here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/...lapse_Jones_T hermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf A bit about the site: http://www.journalof911studies.com/styled/index.html The fact that Steven Jones wasn't at the WTC buildings at the time of the collapses is irrelevant. He has obtained information from those who did collect primary data, as well as samples of the dust at the WTC buildings, which factors into a paper he wrote with other scientists, which can be seen here: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/...J.htm?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM He's even had a documentary made of his work regarding 9/11, and the trials he's had to undergo since he publicly questioned the official story: [video=youtube;nF2yixhc4Fw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF2yixhc4Fw[/video] Did you read the Bentham paper linked to above? Not going to do your homework for you. I've certainly never asked you to find articles supporting my viewpoint. If you believe there is an article that should be considered here, link to it. Could you be more specific here? On that we clearly disagree. Your first premise relies on the notion that 2 airliners could have brought down 3 steel framed skyscrapers. From everything I've read, this simply couldn't happen.
Whenever anybody offers reasonable debate that counters the "official" BS story then, of course, they're all crazy/morons/kooks (pick your word). Everything the "official" BS story represents and 100% infallible and must not be challenged. Same old, same old.
So Steven Jones' paper was reviewed by ... Steven Jones? Do you find this credible? The Journal of 9/11 Studies (J.o.N.E.S) is Steven Jones. Bentham is a 'pay to publish' publication: You have the dough, they'll publish your paper. In the peer-review process for Bentham, you choose your own. Does this seem credible?
A good Example of a mainstream and reputable scientific periodical would be the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Additionally, The American Society for Civil Engineers publishes a number of high quality scientific periodicals that have printed articles on the collapse of the WTC towers. A list of the journals published by the ASCE can be found here: http://ascelibrary.org/journals. Additionally, the publication process for submissions is detailed here: http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=29619. Not one article published in any of the ASCE journals supports the CD hypothesis. On the contrary, every article published in an ASCE journal either explicitly or implicitly refutes the CD hypothesis. Bentham publishing is not considered an academic journal within the scientific community. Bentham is a pay to publish 'vanity' journal that is not considered a credible publication within academic circles. The publication of a 'hoax' paper in a Bentham periodical demonstrates why the reputation of Bentham publishing is so dubious as explained here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html. The failure of those who are advocating the CD hypothesis to get an article detailing the evidence/analysis that supports the CD hypothesis published in a mainstream scientific/engineering journal i.e. an ASCE periodical, PNAS, Science etc is demonstrative of just how feeble and insubstantial the evidence for a CD of the towers is. At present, the scientific synthesis of the failures and resulting collapses of the WTC towers embodied by numerous mainstream scientific publications is incongruent with the CD hypothesis.
Everything you need to understand how, and why the buildings collapsed the way they did. [video=youtube;wKdi27dtycU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKdi27dtycU[/video]
Or they say that the official story may have some small mistakes and generally aren't even interested in pointing out what they believe those are -.-
Prove it than. Again, prove that it "lasts far too long". As to following a free falling object (ever wonder why the WTC buildings fell at or near free fall speeds?), there is certainly a lot of evidence that explosive ejecta at first moves horizontally, but when expended, ofcourse it falls downward; explosive ejecta still follow the laws of gravity. - - - Updated - - - There is no real evidence that the fires could have even collapsed a single floor, certainly not all at once, as required by verinage. Which would mean that unless you're saying that the verinage technique was employed within the WTC buildings, your theory falls flat.
There's plenty of evidence that the thermitic material found at ground zero was certainly not typical "paint": Thermite Proven! Jones Science Proves Red Thematic Material not just Red Paint Chips | AboveTopSecret.com That being said, 9/11 researcher and chemist Kevin Ryan has noted that it's possible that a nano-thermitic material was applied to one or both of the Twin towers in the form of a spray on paint, as mentioned in his article The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites | 911Review.com: ****************** The amazing correlation between floors of impact and floors of apparent failure suggests that spray-on nano-thermite materials may have been applied to the steel components of the WTC buildings, underneath the upgraded fireproofing ( Ryan 2008 ). This could have been done in such a way that very few people knew what was happening. The Port Authority’s engineering consultant Buro Happold, helping with evaluation of the fireproofing upgrades, suggested the use of “alternative materials” (NIST 2005). Such alternative materials could have been spray-on nano-thermites substituted for intumescent paint or Interchar-like fireproofing primers (NASA 2006). It seems quite possible that this kind of substitution could have been made with few people noticing. ******************
The smoke created in an explosion expands in every direction in which it is not impreded. The dust follows Chandler's bits of aluminum cladding. He's a fool. And, no, the collapse did not procede at anything like the rate of free-fall acceration. That would have been about 9 seconds for the first tower. From all the video, especially the Naudet video from inside the north tower, it took about 14 seconds, maybe 16. The north tower took about 22 seconds. - - - Updated - - - Fire Science 101, first week, steel truss structures such as roofs collapse in fires. Google McCormick Place. Same type pf structure, in a larger space with a smaller load of Class A fuels and no initial damage to the structure. - - - Updated - - -
Ryan is mostly a water tester for UL. He also is a pompous ass. It was paint. There is no kaolin in thermite. - - - Updated - - - Ryan is mostly a water tester for UL. He also is a pompous ass. It was paint. There is no kaolin in thermite.
