I keep hearing how (and I'm paraphrasing here) that 'everybody agrees with the Kean commission's version of events and the debate is over', and that all of the 'mainstream' scientists, architects, engineers, etc., agree with the original story. If that's true, then why is there an apparent fear to debate various aspects of the issue to their logical conclusions? For instance, here: http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...dr-david-griscom-wins-911-physics-debate.html Here is an excerpt: ANETA also advertised the debate on the James Randi Educational Forum, which claims to be a forum for open debate, currently dominated by NEOCT supporters, but the post was quickly removed by the moderators as being "off topic." Reverend Chris Mohr again posted the advertisement, in the interest of fair debate, but the post resulted in only one volunteer with no science degree and a Hirsch Index of 0, who made ad hominem insults. A two week extension was given, until March 15, yet no physicist stepped forward to debate on behalf of the NEOCT or to defend NIST. At the noon deadline, the moderator asked Dr. Griscom to give his reasons why the official story violates Newton's Laws of Motion. They were as follows: The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was an obvious controlled demolition, immediately severing the vertical support columns, resulting in 2.4 seconds of free fall. The lateral ejection of steel, such as the beams which lodged in the American Express building, over 400 feet from WTC 1, would require an explosive force. The molten steel at ground zero was at a higher temperature than office fires could create, and it persisted for weeks. Dr. Griscom found a report by an honest scientist at NIST, saying the WTC steel was ductile and would bend, not shatter, and that the plane was the largest strain that the towers experienced.
Perhaps the good doctor could grace us with his mathematical proofs of this violation. In my experience those who argue such a violation occurred show a less than backward understanding of what Newton's laws actually say
Perhaps any one of the numerous and highly knowledgeable (that are supposedly so commonplace throughout the vast scientific community) could find the time to show up to debate the points? Surely, there must be someone with the ability to make Swiss cheese of the 'good doctors' arguments, and help out a charity of their choice (since it's so very elementary to poo poo this 'kook" huh?). Should be a slam dunk. Why doesn't it happen? Fear of what?
Dr. Griscom's reasons for controlled demolition? 1. The collapse of World Trade Center 7 was an obvious controlled demolition, immediately severing the vertical support columns, resulting in 2.4 seconds of free fall. 2. The lateral ejection of steel, such as the beams which lodged in the American Express building, over 400 feet from WTC 1, would require an explosive force. 3. The molten steel at ground zero was at a higher temperature than office fires could create, and it persisted for weeks. Rebuttal: 1. Why has no one provided any proof that redistributed loads of what REMAINED of the structure could not have caused this to happen. I have seen neither a detailed explanation as to how explosives could have caused this nor have I seen anyone provided calculations to show that the remaining shell should have remained standing. 2. I have not seen any evidence showing huge steel beams or any other heavy material being ejected sideways at high velocities. A parabolic trajectory using heavy pieces from high above and little force could have moved these this far 3. No molten steel was ever tested for or found at ground zero. Visual identification of a molten substance in various light sources and contaminated with debris cannot positively identified.
So like so many others, the doctor can not express his argument in maths.. Using the laws of motion he should be able to model what did happen, then model what should have happened and explained the difference. - - - Updated - - - So the doctor is unaware of isothermic reactions?
Right, and there were specific stashes of chemicals present at the WTC such to produce these reactions? Lets put it in the most basic of terms, in order to produce the result observed that is the destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7 there had to have been an additional source of energy brought to bear. and this energy would have to have been directed as the product of some form of malicious human intervention. Am I being clear 'nuff?
The fact that the rate of acceleration of the descent of WTC 1, 2 proves that the upper mass could not possibly be crushing the lower bit of the tower. The fact of free fall acceleration of WTC7 proves beyond any doubt at all that the "collapse" of this building was engineered, it was supposed to happen like that because somebody planned it that way. I bring up the total destruction of these buildings as a factor, and get an answer that alleges the buildings were not totally destroyed, however when the matter of proof is addressed, the opposition falls silent. if there is no proof of this "incomplete destruction" then the statement stands the destruction of WTC 1, 2, & 7 was complete. and complete destruction of anything is grounds for starting an investigation ( forensics 101 ) The truth hurts, lies KILL! what do you want?
It is NOT opinion that WTC7 dropped for 2.25 sec at free fall acceleration. it is NOT opinion that WTC 1, 2 & 7 were completely destroyed. it is NOT opinion that the alleged "FLT175" aircraft penetrated the south tower wall without slowing down. ( a clear violation of the laws of physics ) it is NOT opinion that the alleged "FLT77" left less than 1% of the mass of an airliner on the Pentagon lawn, ( this is impossible, given what is known about airliner crash physics ) need I go on....... the whole attack by radical Arabs bit is BOGUS! 9/11/2001 = LIE
All of this IS your opinion,it's not based in any facts at ALL And do you understand 'free fall acceleration'?
Go ahead and prove to the random readers of this forum that you either do, or do not know anything of what you write ..... not my problem .... & Yes I do understand 9.8 m/s^2 and in the case of WTC7, its been proven & documented and the documentation has been accepted by both the NIST and AE911TRUTH what do you have?
Fear of debate? Its 2014. The debate is over. It ended a long time ago. We know Al Qaeda hijacked airplanes and flew them into buildings. We know why WTC 1, 2, and 7 collapsed. There is no evidence of explosive residue.....anywhere. There is no hard evidence of a conspiracy to frame Al Qaeda for a terrorist act that they did not commit. That's why there is no more debate. Cause there's nothing left to debate. My suggestion? Move on and find a new, more productive hobby...cause 9-11 Truth is an utter failure.
I keep having flashbacks to 2005 - I swear I should have kept all those posts and just cut and pasted as needed. "Wheels on the bus go round and round" lol
Maybe YOU think that its been proven that is radical Arabs hijacked airliners and crashed said airliners into buildings. however, where is the proof? & While I'm at it, where is the proof that no explosives were used to destroy WTC 1, 2 & 7 ? Nobody has the documentation that states the authorities tested for explosives and found none, no tests were done, WHY? The NIST report(s) constitute a white-wash job, total cover-ups & hiding from the truth. do you personally buy the "total collapse was inevitable ...... " crap about the WTC towers?
Can't go too many posts without the ridicule. Must keep injecting it into the discussions, per some agenda, I'd speculate.
For the exact same reason scientists don't debate 'flat earthers'. There is no reason to debate them.
What is the ridicule? Are you claiming I have not been having these debates since 2005? Or that the circular repetitiveness is not a feature of these debates.
Yes, people are always turning down easy money, I know. - - - Updated - - - Wheels, bus, and all that.
The offer for the free money offered up by 'too good doctor' to disprove his conclusions (the one that you already responded to a couple of posts back). That should be 'easy money', shouldn't it?
