Is anyone reducing 9/11 skepticism to controlled demolition?
Well, some are, more-or-less... eg: wtcdemolition.com but that's a whole other stroy...
gurich, what work, campaigning etc have you done on the real issues?
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Near free-fall not evidence of controlled demolition (40 posts)
-
Posted 16 years ago #
-
If we look at this philosophically, this is a sign of success. Used to be loads of physical evidence questions at 911blogger. When that wasn't going anywhere, then the personal attacks started. With the Paula Gloria gang & co banned from every legit board and now in tailspin--(even in the eyes of other no planers-lol)--now we're back to the evidence. There's an object lesson in there somewhere about "if you can't say something nice" and all that.
Hmm--I gotta dig up that question I had about the NIST report no debunker could ever answer...
Posted 16 years ago # -
Well, I thought CD was a real issue, so I spent a year and a half studying the tower collapses. I would say the best evidence for CD is provided by AE911Truth, Journal of 9/11 Studies and 9/11 Research. In the cases of WTC1 and WTC2, I believe the evidence has been misinterpreted resulting in superficially appealing but falacious claims. People glance over Gordon Ross's and Kenneth Kuttler's papers and then think CD is proven. People watch Richard Gage's presentation and trust what he is saying.
What I am saying, is there is nothing substantive. If you understand physics, I can explain it to you. If you don't understand physics you might need to find someone you trust and have them look at the arguments.
So chrisc, right now my campaigning is internal within the truth movement. There are too many high profile people out there saying "We know it's CD" with arguments like "fell too fast", "bones on the roof", "disappeared bodies", "amount of dust", etc., etc. They are wrong and I'm challenging people to rethink this. I care about the truth movement and I think our credibility is at stake.
Jenny, you made some claims and I asked you to back them up. I would appreciate if you would engage that. It's not time for stump the debunker. First, I'm not a debunker and second, I'm not saying I can explain everything in the NIST reports. I could point out quite a number of mistakes if anyone is interested, but maybe that's a topic for another thread.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Gurich-
I believe the near free fall speed collapse WTC 7 holds the answer to what really happened in WTC 1 & 2. With the research you have done, how do you explain the near free fall speed collapse of WTC 7 into its' own footprint?
Posted 16 years ago # -
Jenny, you made some claims and I asked you to back them up. I would appreciate if you would engage that. It's not time for stump the debunker. First, I'm not a debunker and second, I'm not saying I can explain everything in the NIST reports. I could point out quite a number of mistakes if anyone is interested, but maybe that's a topic for another thread.
Wasn't addressing you in particular--just making general observations. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm sure you can find playmates somewhere...;-)
Posted 16 years ago # -
Manatus,
WTC7 was a bottom up collapse which is totally different in terms of smaller energy requirements due to no momentum transfer. I don't think the fall times prove anything. I am waiting for NIST to explain.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Jenny,
If your style is hit and run maybe you can find playmates on another thread.
Posted 16 years ago # -
The WTC7 demolition was a traditional demolition. The fall times don't tell everything, but are part of the entire picture, along with the symmetry, straight down, pyroclastic dust clouds, into its own footprint, minimal surrounding damage, everything a controlled demolition strives for. NIST will likely never publish a report on it. FEMA said enough in their report about WTC7 in Appendix C; "Evidence of a high temperature corrosive ATTACK on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting... A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily of iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosive ATTACK. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making susceptible to erosion." And if WTC7 was CD, so were the others.
Just guessing here, but maybe the reason the twin towers were demolished like they were was that their heighth may have made a neat, straight down, minimal damage demolition impossible or too risky? Just a passing thought there.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Gurich-
You said... "I don't think the fall times prove anything. I am waiting for NIST to explain."
Like your conclusion, these statements indicate a shallow appreciation of the scientific method. This in turn detracts from the integrity of your claim. Your statements about the claim seem similar to and are as convincing as the data regarding WMDs in Iraq were; to the average person they may seem credible, yet to anyone with a background in the relative topics and with critical thinking ability they come across as attempts to arrange the data to support the hypothesis.
Just some feedback. No offense, that's just my perception. I'm all for getting to the bottom of how all 3 buildings collapsed at near free fall speed.
Posted 16 years ago # -
We can argue about free fall speeds and melting temperatures and thermite for another 7 years and it won't change anything.
Agreed. Mainly what's accomplished is to waste everyone's time rehashing stuff that most have all already been through. Time wasting is important. Years go by and little is done but to keep reviewing the same arguments over and over.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Manatus, my shallow appreciation of the scientific method includes actually doing the energy analysis myself. Does yours?
Posted 16 years ago # -
Ross and Kuttler produced their articles within the last two years and many took that as proof. I am presenting new findings that people have not been through. Those that think the truth movement should be based on evidence and science do not think this is a waste of time.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Manatus, I would be interested if you could point out any errors in the article. You should also show how I am arranging data to support a hypothesis or retract your slander. I think this is a classic example of people rejecting science that doesn't prove their existing beliefs.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Agreed. Mainly what's accomplished is to waste everyone's time rehashing stuff that most have all already been through. Time wasting is important. Years go by and little is done but to keep reviewing the same arguments over and over.
I agree. There is a lot of time wasted over straw-man debates.
I'd like to see some actual experimentation to prove that the (read: approximate) free fall speed argument is false. In other words, if this cannot be shown with experiments, the CD hypothesis stands as the most plausible explanation for what happened on 9/11. My original point in my first post was unanswered.
You just have to look at the building surrounding the collapse of the Twin Towers to see what the experiments will likely show. Many of these surrounding buildings were catastrophically damaged. NONE of them COMPLETELY collapsed to the ground. In fact, CD was necessary to demolish these buildings after the attack. Except of course, building 7, unless you count that as another example of CD (I do).
If this is not compelling evidence that at least a PART of the towers should have survived mere plane crashes (especially since they were designed to do so), I don't know what is.
Posted 16 years ago # -
Arabesque, how is this a straw man?
The experiments have been done. The laws of conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and gravitational accelleration have been proven. That's why they are called laws. These laws in no way favor the CD hypothesis over gravitational collapse--that is the point of the opening piece.
You are comparing low rise post and beam buildings which were impacted on the roof to high rise tube/core buildings. Where are the rules of structural engineering that equate the two?
The laws of physics can tell us an awful lot without empirical collapse tests. The CD hypothesis stands on its own merits, which, in the case of WTC1 and 2, doesn't include any support based on the laws of physics.
Posted 16 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.