Self-Evidence and the Physical World
Posted: August 11, 2008 at 8:06 amI got a little chuckle out of a comment on this blog that the collapse of the WTC was surely a controlled demolition, The reason? The poster proposed that the reason was “the physics of the event was self-evident”. NOT because he had any real proof of a deliberate implosion, but the weakest reason of all, the persons own personal obsevation. Now when someone calls an event “self evident” you know you are dealing with someone who is too stupid or far too lazy too dig up any real facts to back up their observation. And the self evident nature of the observation had to take into consideration the knowledge of the observer. If you don’t know what you are looking at, it is far too easy to be fooled.
To make a point, in 1492, Columbus sailed the oceans blue. The far to common legend even today is that old Chris did this to prove the Earth was round. But nothing could be further from the truth. Enlightened individuals of that time already knew the Earth was round and even had some idea of its size. The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued in his writings that the Earth was spherical. Fact is Christopher Columbus proposed to reach India by sailing west from Spain. He reasoned a longer westward sea route would work. It may have proven true but Columbus used an erroneous estimate of distance based on calculations by Ptolemy. King Ferdinand hired experts and scientist of the time to examine the proposal made by Columbus, and they in fact got the much longer distance correct. but as it is Queen Isabella overruled the experts and Chris sailed away. Hey, Lets face it, He got lucky!!!, if North American was not sitting where it is now he may well have died in the middle of a colossal sea journey.
But what has this got to do with the “self evident” nature of 9/11? You see the uneducated “common man” of 1492 may well have thought Columbus would sail off the edge of the world because to them it was so “self-evident”, the Earth was flat, Hey! it looks flat, right? “Dude!!! Just look the Earth is flat as a pancake” As with everything else the more enlightened members of society knew better and I can imaging them having a hell of a time trying to explain a round Earth to a bunch of dirt farmers who’s “self evident” world didn’t reach beyond their flat farm fields. This would rear it’s head again when good old science, with the help of Copernacus proved the Earth revolved around the Sun. But to the Church and other members of the unenlightened masses it was “self evident”, the Earth was not moving and the Sun and stars were spinning around over our heads.
And now we hear the same “common man wisdom” coming from a group of people who as a group know the nothing about structural dynamics of tall buildings, little of controlled demolitions and even less of the events surrounding 9/11. To them the towers were a controlled demolition not because they know how the a controlled demolition is done or the tremendous structural loads in a 1300 foot building, but because “Dude! It’s Self Evident”. “DUH… it LOOKS like one of them implosions I done sawd’ on my TV” It’s sold as an attractive proposition, you don’t need to know all that fancy physics stuff, that’s just those egg head science types trying to hold you down, you don’t need to research how events actually transpired, Why bother with all those pesky “facts”, you got YouTube and it’s self evident, the Earth is flat, the Sun revolves around the Earth and 9/11 was an inside job.
The Discussion
see what everyone is saying
What is self evident in REAL building collapses is that they produce layer after layer of pancacked floors… but no such evidence in the inside job of 911.
What is self evident about fuel is that it does not burn hot enough to weaken or deform hardened steel assemblies because if it did then your gas stove would collapse, your car would cease to function in a pool of molten metal, and we’d be using fuel instead of demolitions to “pull” buildings.
What is self evident about the current government is that they lie. They lie about WMD, they lie about their past crimes, they lie about the reasons to go to war, they lie about the economy, they lie about anything and everything because they are LIARS and have no credibility.
What is self evident about the gullible is that they actually BELIEVE what the government tells them – without question.
What is self evident to all your readers is how many times that you have completely ignored the evidence I have raised in post after post after post on this blog.
The biggest piece of self evidence that most people naturally understand is that a gullible person with their head buried in the sand is both blind and a coward.
What is obvious to anyone is that you Ken are NOT a very smart guy!
You still can’t grasp the concept that the jet fuel was only the starter fluid that set the other HOT burning material in the building alight. It most certainly burned more than hot enough to weaken the structure. Yeah Yeah, I know you used to pump gas in the Air Force, not exactly brain surgery is it Ken?, but to a dullard like you it was no doubt the high of your existence.
It is obvious you know nothing of how a car motor works. That what prevents the burning of fuel from melting the ALUMINUM in a modern engine is steady cooling from coolant, oil and even the air fuel mixture, NOT that fuel burns cool. Gee! too bad the WTC didn’t have a cooling system.
And of course the “Pull ” thing is the raving of a fool.
But is can’t do anything about your obvious dim-wittedness, that is your problem and the cause of you failures in life. You will always be thought of as the fool, and the type of person people like me laugh at. “Look at the boob in the tin foil hat” Sorry, truth hurts.
“You still can’t grasp the concept that the jet fuel was only the starter fluid that set the other HOT burning material in the building alight. It most certainly burned more than hot enough to weaken the structure. Yeah Yeah, I know you used to pump gas in the Air Force, not exactly brain surgery is it Ken?, but to a dullard like you it was no doubt the high of your existence.”
What were those “other HOT burning materials”, Admin, if you don’t mind me asking?
And just one side remark: Ken never served in the Air Force, he served in The Marines. This is not directly relevant to the issue at hand but goes to show how poor your comprehension skills are, or how poor your memory is – or both.
Hardened steel begins to melt around 2700 F degrees. The hardened steel assemblies in the WTC towers were tested and rated to withstand a great amount of heat, over two hours at 2,000 F degrees with no evidence of structural failure. Jet A-1 fuel in an open air burn does not get hotter than 608 F degrees. Most of the jet fuel burned off in a giant fireball leaving only small office fires behind. Office fires that are hotter than 1290 F will shatter windows automatically, burn with bright flames and white smoke. This was not the case with 911. Oxygen starved fires burn black and are much cooler, around 840 F degrees so the evidence shows very low burning fires that could not possibly weaken any of the steel. Further, what is amazingly SELF-EVIDENT is that PEOPLE cannot exist in raging fire so the presence of people standing in the crash zone itself tells us the fire is dying out and is around 500 F degrees at the most.
All three fires were asymmetrical and asymmetrical fires do not produce symmetrical collapses, they cause buildings to fall over on their side. That did not happen.
Buildings that are damaged on their sides do not produce symmetrical collapses. REAL collapses produce pancaked floors. This also was not the case with 911. It wasn’t the fires, it wasn’t the jet fuel, it wasn’t damage, and no pancaked floors. When you eliminate fire temperatures and you have no pancaked floors then the only force on earth that can produce what transpired on that day is controlled demolitions.
And to beat a dead horse, as Boris said, I was not in the Air Force pumping gas, I was in the Marine Corps, in VMFA-451 doing advanced classified avionics on the FA-18 Hornet, a job that most people will readily admit takes brains. And for your reader’s information, a real “terrorist” would never turn off the IFF transponder because when that is turned off it sends a signal to the tower. The tower then informs the pilot that they are being tracked on traditional radar and to turn their IFF back on. If there is no response then an interceptor is launched which will then wag wings in front of the nonresponsive plane and escort it to the ground. This happens in rare cases where the IFF goes bad in flight. If the plane does NOT respond to the wag then it is treated as hostile. In secure areas like Washington D.C. such an action would force the interceptor to shoot down the hostile plane. A “REAL” terrorist would never send a signal to ATC because that could possibly get them shot out of the sky and steal away precious time from their mission. A real terrorist, intent on slamming their plane into a building, wouldn’t spend – HOW MUCH TIME ADMIN? – flying around in the sky.
What a load of old cods wallop…
I can’t believe that in 2008 there are still people who bring the “steel melting point” argument.
A steel building doesn’t start collapsing when its frame MELTS. A steel building can collapse when a critical section of its frame loses its elasticity, hardness and other structural characteristic required to keep the balance between forces static.
The consequence is that a steel frame will yield to the weight of the above structure after it stops having the capability to support it – this happens much, much earlier than its melting point.
But of course, no nutjob conspiracy theorist who knows a thing or two of construction science STILL beats this dead horse – only the ones any without technical knowledge who keep repeating the idiocies of other loonies.
Ken, your car engine doesn’t melt all right, and your car doesn’t fall apart, because your engine is not designed to have to hold several thousand tonnes of floors on top of it.
…but wait, what do my poor eyes have to read…
STILL with the stories of the “black-smoke-means-low-temperature-fire”, “most jet fuel was burned in the fireball”, ecc.? Seriously, what’s the point, in 2008, to have to talk with someone who ignores basic knowledge to the point of still bringing those issues, already debunked into oblivion years ago?
In 2008, the tecnical, factual knowledge behind the core events of 11/9 terrorist attacks is widely known. All conspiracy theories are debunked, and only ignorants and fanatics shamefully keep sticking to them. Learned persons without ideological prejudices have made their mind since a long time.
Perhaps it’s time for you guys to grow and get over it: being associated to the leaders and spokeman of the “truth” movement must be embarassing enough.
Hebrand,
Where exactly does Ken state that steel needs to melt in order to a steel structure to become deformed or collapse?
And no, in my opinion, it takes a nutjob to believe that an assymetrical thermal stress such as that caused by a random fire could cause a symmetrical methodical failure of a structure. And it is in fact the official story of 9/11 – which happens to be several mutually exclusive stories – which has been debunked, quite thoroughly too. So it looks like it is you, Hebrand, who needs to make a decision as to whether you want to follow the people who have got logic and science on their side, or whether you choose to side with those who have nothing but blind faith to justify their views.
Ken talks of “temperature resistance tests of steel assemblies”, a statement which I often read in cospiracy theorist rants, but that no evidence was never produced about that; and a statement not backed by any evidence can be rejected without evidence.
On the other hand, steel start to lose shape at 350°C and softens already at 500°C. A proof is, among many, a written document from Italian Firefighters:
http://www.vigilfuoco.it/speciali/sicurezza/sicurezza_insieme/attivita_studio/pdf/res_fuoco.pdf
Flashfire caused by combustion of simple households appliances can easily exceed these temperatures, and can even reach up to 1000°C, as certified by the same document, many videos and experiments.
So, fact is that steel can soften at the given range of temperatures, and a fire like that could have generated such temperatures.
As for your objection, it is not clear to me the definition of “_asymmetrical_ thermal stress” and “symmetrical methodical failure of a structure”.
The rest of your post is just empty propaganda.
The worlds’ most famous engineers architect don’t raise an eyebrown at what happened, while the so-called “architets and engineers for truth” are mostly a bunch of loonies who believe in extreme nutjob theories (such as laser rays or “high frequency radiation” theory of Paul Robert Kenyon, or the “mini-nukes” of Charles Pegelow).
All these views debunk each other, while the version studied by NIST is solid and universally accepted. Can’t you “truthers” even agree on one, detailed version of the facts and try to defend it against any inconsistencies?
Your collective views are reciprocally inconsistent, lack coherence and especially lack the most important characteristic of a scientific theory: Refutability.
Hebrand,
I can find a number of faults in your logical narrative, but allow me to specifically just point out the major one. You state, “Your collective views are reciprocally inconsistent, lack coherence and especially lack the most important characteristic of a scientific theory: Refutability.” But that is certainly not the case. The truthers’ theories can be refuted by one thing: a coherent narrative backing up the officially accepted hypothesis (one hypothesis, one narrative).
Yes, the truthers’ do not have a consistent narrative, nor do they have to as long as they agree that the official theory is bunk. Which they do. And for a good reason (or, rather, a number of good reasons). See, we don’t have to know what happened – nor can we, given that we do not have the means to conduct a proper investigation and those who have the means and the responsibility opt to engage in a coverup instead. But we do know that the story we have been told is not true, can not be true and was devised to be a coverup.
Fine, you recognize the inherent asymmetrism between the two viewpoints.
But the problem is that the towers indeed fell, so to confute the standing version you can’t limit yourself to show its inconsistencies – you must necessarily explain the event in a different way which is more adherent to facts than the existing one.
You don’t need to detail it in depth, just make a series hypothesis which are not in conflict with the data we have. Go ahead and try.
–
But we are swaying from the discussion here. So again, what is wrong with the mechanical and thermal weaking of the towers’ steel structure, both by the impact of the plan and the fire that, started from the fuel, extendede to the offices and interiors?
weaking –> weakening
1) Yes, there certainly is an asymmetry here. Those proposing a hypothesis need to prove it; those seeking to disprove do not need to pose an alternate hypothesis.
2) Yes, the towers did indeed fall. No, I do not have to be able to explain why in order to knock down a nonsensical explanation. That said, a controlled demolition hypothesis makes sense, as does a compression wave one. The officially promoted progressive collapse hypothesis, however, does not.
3) The thermal effect of the fire that was observed was not sufficient to cause collapse. Were it more profound (i.e., were the fire much hotter or longer-lasting or, rather, both) collapse would have become possible but the sequence of that collapse would have looked much different. It would have most likely been gradual and symmetrical as opposed to sudden and straight down – which, coincidentally, happens to be the path of most resistance.
A reconstruction of how things went can and must be built anyway. This is done by examining the facts and informations that we have at hand. The hypothesis that better fits them is chosen as the most probable one – this is how science works.
NIST and other independent commissions have done just that.
You cannot escape by saying “we are just asking questions”, when in fact you are already providing an alternative answer, without detailing further your alternative hypothesis.
In the end, you bring forward the hypothesis of the controlled demolition based on SUBJECTIVE, non-professional impressions.
On the other hand, I have shown and can show evidence and statements of firefighters, structural engineers, and other professionals who think otherwise, and motivate their views with facts, some of them I already presented.
—
So, for the third time I ask you: what is wrong with the mechanical and thermal weaking of the towers’ steel structure, both by the impact of the plan and the fire that, started from the fuel, extendede to the offices and interiors?
Leaving the office, 9pm here.
Hebrand,
Please pay attention. As I stated above, any thermally induced sequential collapse would have proceeded differently from what was observed. On top of that, the source of heat (fire) failed to exhibit signs of being sufficiently hot – no widespread window breakage, flame color and composition indicating oxygen-deprived burning, etc. In fact, FEMA has failed to find any significant amount of intact column segments that have experienced temperatures in excess of 250C. That tells you that thermally-induced collapse is just a not a theory matching the facts.
I just posted a long comment that doesn’t appear yet. Is there a limit to the number of characters you can include in a single comment?
Your point: fire not hot enough.
Your evidence: no widespread window breakage, FLAME COLOR (sigh…), and not enough intact column segments which show to have been exposed to temperatures over 250C.
You offer no significant evidence backing your claim.
—
You will excuse the wall of text, but when a topic is addressed seriously it takes some time – and I’m not in for pub talking or recounting hearsay.
—
As for the broken windows, in the various debates I had on the subject I never encountered this objection; also, I am not aware of the size and composition of the windows at the Twin Towers, any serious analysis should start from there.
Beside that, your impression doesn’t cite any reference or source that could help to establish a direct correlation between characteristic of the blaze, type of windows and heat of the fire.
I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, but what you brought so far is not enough to constitute an evidence. Perhaps you can quote, or refer to, other websites that detail this is issue further.
–
Temperature of the fire judged by flame color and composition is a joke. Seriously, this is further proof of how conspiracy theorists don’t do any proper research and do not seem to care about the veridicity or truthfulness of the “proofs” they convey, as long as they appear to back their claims.
-I already presented a document from the Italian Firefighters, stating that fire that engulfs normal household material can reach temperature of 1000°C, in the phase called flashfire. Also check those two videos as evidence:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/682670/from_living_room_to_inferno_in_under_2_minutes/
Notice how some items catch fire just from heat irradiation, not by direct contact with the flames. Now imagine a much bigger office filled with similar items, like, a square with 64 meters of side. You got the picture.
I am still unable to post the second part of my answer…
Well, there may be a limit, but it definitely looks like you can post a few characters in a row. Use the “Back” button to browse back to the text and break it up into smaller chunks.
I tried that as well, and didn’t work.
The first chunk is visible only to me, with the “awaiting moderation” tag. This could be due to the amount of links included. I will try to strip the links off and repost.
Your point: fire not hot enough.
Your evidence: no widespread window breakage, FLAME COLOR (sigh…), and not enough intact column segments which show to have been exposed to temperatures over 250C.
You offer no significant evidence backing your claim.
—
You will excuse the wall of text, but when a topic is addressed seriously it takes some time – and I’m not in for pub talking or recounting hearsay.
NOTE: I stripped all the video links to go around the moderation algorithm. Will eventually post them one by one.
—
As for the broken windows, in the various debates I had on the subject I never encountered this objection; also, I am not aware of the size and composition of the windows at the Twin Towers, any serious analysis should start from there.
Beside that, your impression doesn’t cite any reference or source that could help to establish a direct correlation between characteristic of the blaze, type of windows and heat of the fire.
I’m not saying this isn’t an issue, but what you brought so far is not enough to constitute an evidence. Perhaps you can quote, or refer to, other websites that detail this is issue further.
–
Temperature of the fire judged by flame color and composition is a joke. Seriously, this is further proof of how conspiracy theorists don’t do any proper research and do not seem to care about the veridicity or truthfulness of the “proofs” they convey, as long as they appear to back their claims.
-I already presented a document from the Italian Firefighters, stating that fire that engulfs normal household material can reach temperature of 1000°C, in the phase called flashfire. Also check those two videos as evidence:
Notice how some items catch fire just from heat irradiation, not by direct contact with the flames. Now imagine a much bigger office filled with similar items, like, a square with 64 meters of side. You got the picture.
-as for the SMOKE COLOR suggesting the temperature of fire, this is just joke. This statement is wrong because it fails to take into account the following chemistry concept: smoke can have different colors depending on the compound which results from the combustion.
In the chemical reaction balance, since matter can’t be created nor destroyed (unless we’re considering nuclear chemistry of course) the elements who were before in the shape of fuel (oil, kerosene, paper sheets, floor plastic tiles, air conditioners, office furniture, painting, ecc.), due to the heat and eventual oxidising (generally oxygen), they recombine and create new volatile substance and unleash other energy under the shape of irradiated heat, that provide further fuel and expands the fire (the last consequence happens only if the self-alimentation treshold is reached).
Hence, the leftovers are just a compound of the elements previously existing. Basic eleemnts present in offices that determine the black color include almost certainly the most common element in our planet, carbon. An example of the color of carbon can be found in the liquid of house heaters, that over the years acquires carbon from the iron alloy which composes them; also you can check pencils. Carbon composites from combustion make no exception and are black.
Following, I provide a series of photos fires with black smoke that aren’t exactly small or cold (you don’t need to know Italian, just watch the photos):
BOTTOM LINE: Black smoke is NO sign of oxygen-deprived burning (where did you heard that, and what material do you have to back up your claim in the first place?)
–
Your third argument is based on the fact that not enough columns have been found showing the signs of extreme temperature (care to provide the source?); this is an argument based on lack of evidence, hardly a conclusive proof – the columns in question might just have been destroyed in the collapse.
Besides, roughly 200 persons jumped to their deaths to escape the heath of the fire – what does that tell you about the intensity and heat of that?
–
You see, subjective impressions are what they are – as per topic of the original blog post – and actual dynamic of an event CAN go against common sense and initial intuition. Thousands of years ago people explained with gods phenomens they couldn’t explain, like significant astonomical events. You can’t base a STRONG conclusion (“it was an inside job”) based on simple, non-documented claims.
You have not the means to do that? Then let the professionals do the job. And please, don’t tell me that ALL the structural engineers from all the different countries who worked on the different analysis were all part of the “big conspiracy” – that just doesn’t hold water.
Another mistake of conspiracy theorists is the so-called “fallacy of unrelated cause”. If A implies B, and you see B, it doesn’t mean that it was A that caused that – it could have been C, or D, given that also C and D imply B.
After all, when I travel by train I sometimes notice that all crossing gates are _suspiciously_ lowered! Is this a conspiracy as well?
Link1:
link to the video “from living room to inferno in under 2 minutes”
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/682670/from_living_room_to_inferno_in_under_2_minutes/
Link2:
link to a youtube video from nist showing something similar
Ok, I can’t send the other links until the moderator approves them. This makes presenting evidence much harder.
Herbrand,
There’s plenty of links on my sites and elsewhere illustrating all that I have cited. There is not one model I have seen anywhere explaining the collapse observed – it’s dynamic progression – in light of the official theory.
I think that pretty much sums it up.
“Yes, the truthers’ do not have a consistent narrative, nor do they have to as long as they agree that the official theory is bunk.
Yes, the creationist do not have a consistent narrative, nor do they have to as long as they agree that the evolution theory is bunk.
It always amazes me how much truthers sound like creationist.
This is not about who sound like whom, Admin! The evolutionary theory is something which is, at the very least, plausible. The official theory of 9/11 is something that is not plausible. Herein lies the major difference.
Boris,
please do not evade my observations – let’s stay on topic. If you have something to answer to my points OTHER than subjective impressions, do it rather than sending me to browse your website.
As for the not plausibility of the “official” 9/11 explanation, this is entirely your opinion – based on opinions, not facts.
Herbrand,
What am I evading? This is not a forum for massive presentations – things I mention are well-documented, all you have to do is go check them out.
You are evading my debunking to the following questions:
-no widespread window breakage;
-FLAME COLOR and SMOKE COLOR as signs of low-temperature blaze;
-not enough intact column segments which show to have been exposed to temperatures over 250C.
I am not evading your statements at all (the choice to call it “debunking” is your choice). What are the sources you are using?
Herbrand, have you ever taken a fire course? I would imagine not because you speak like a child who has never fought a real fire. Several times you mention “flashfires” but you must be a retard because a flashfire is what happens in an enclosed space where flammable gasses build up to cause a huge explosion. You’re not going to have that with a wide gaping hole in the building dumbass. The firemen themselves reported only SMALL FIRES that could be knocked down with only two lines of hose. In the case of WTC 7 you’re not going to get a symmetrical collapse from a fire so weak it could barely make it over to the other side of the building. In the real world, buildings that are damaged on the side… fall over on their side.
What about the lack of pancaked floors Herbrand? What about the countdown reported by numerous eyewitnesses? What about the fact that you don’t shut down electricity when you install internet and tv cable? What about the tremendous amount of false evidence planted to deceive such as phony passports and reports of devout Arabs drinking heavily in stripper bars? Completely absurd! Are you another Dubya supporter still waiting for WMD? Are you still expecting in this day and age to convince ANYONE that Dick and Dubya are capable of telling the truth?
Boris,
I am glad that you asked. You can consider my points as “frozen” until you to browse the sources which motivate them.
My sources are as follows (I will not include direct links, due the aforementioned linking problems):
-the notorious document NRCC-42466 of the National Research Council of Canada, “Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers” (you can google NRCC-42466, it’s the first result). It features an interesting table at pag.8, “Variation of strength and Modulus of Elasticity of Structural Steels of with Temperature”.
-the fire curve for cellulose materials (ISO 834 curve); you can google “ISO 834 curve” to read it, it is the model commonly used to model fires in civil buildings in normal ventilation conditions.
-the document from the Italian Firefighters, “La Resistenza al Fuoco delle Strutture d’Acciaio Dotate di Rivestimenti Protettivi (“Fire Resistance of Steel Structure with Protective Coating”). Ok, this is a bit unfair to quote as it’s an 80 page pdf in ITALIAN where CTRL+C is disabled for copyright reasons
It presents detailed modeling and subsequent test on steel structures with various degrees of fire resistance insulation, consistent with the other documents I quoted above; I linked this previously in my post.
-informations about the color of smoke in connection to the substance involved in the combustion is common chemistry knowledge, even browsing wikipedia for “fire” and “smoke” will bring enough resources to back up my claim.
As for the 1st and 3rd point of your critic, they can hardly be an evidence of conspiracy for the reasons I brought up, which are:
-lack of detailed analysis on breaking of windows which takes into account the characteristic of the windows and the factors to cause their breakage (honestly, I don’t even know how feasible would it be to model something like this);
-lack of columns showing exposure to extreme temperatures. I don’t know if you are still trying to prove that the fires were “not hot enough”, but again you are not bringing any source showing this lack of burned columns, and/or ignore the fact that the ones involved might simply have gone destroyed in the collapse. I am not too knowledgeable on the subject of debris identification of WTC, but is it even possible to tell at which floor a given column debris once stood? Again, you should strengthen your point here.
Corrected link to my website.
Ken, you are the typical portrait of a 11/9 conspiracy theorist: rude, vague, uncivil and blindly intolerant. In just one post you managed to commit the following logical fallacies: ad hominem, red herring, false dilemma, ignoring a common cause; of course I include this only for readers entertainment as I don’t expect you to understand what this means.
Your post shows lack of understanding of the very basic informations on the 11/9 attacks and total lack of interest on discussion; hence I will refuse to answer any message of yours until you will be able to convey your toughts in a civil, rational manner.
If this was my forum or blog, posts like yours would be moderated.
Herbrand,
So what you’re really ADMITTING is that you cannot answer my questions because to answer them, debunks your so-called debunking and proves you care nothing for the truth. So-called debunkers love to play with figures with lies about how metal reacts at low temperatures, lies that physics has already disproven and then they ignore facts which poke holes in their “theories.” There is a word for people who cannot take a fight, blatantly lie, or run away… it is COWARD.
So-called debunkers cannot handle:
The lack of pancaked floors – that should be present, had this been a real collapse.
The numerous witnesses at the demolition of WTC 7 that heard a countdown to destruction.
The fact that the black box released by the government contradicts their own explanation and shows the plane NOT hitting the light poles but coming straight in to the pentagon.
The fact that you do not shut down power to install internet and television cable.
The fact that there WAS NO flashfire present only small office fires running out of material to burn.
The FACT that survivors in the impact area disprove the “raging inferno THEORY.”
The planted evidence and the reports of devout Arabs acting out of character for someone supposedly planning on flying into a building the next day.
The fact that a REAL terrorist would never turn off their transponder because that would immediately alert ATC.
The fact that buildings damaged on their side collapse on their side – but not with 9/11.
The fact that the government has lied from day one and has NOT released the pentagon camera footage to this day.
In addition to COWARD add TRAITOR to the list of words used to describe “debunkers” because what you really are is the mouthpiece for serial killing scum. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Ken,
thank you for further showing us what kind of fanatics, bad-mannered, foam mouthed, irrational people compose the bulk of 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
You can keep your pointless personal attacks for yourself, I don’t lower myself to the point of debating the likes of yours. From now on, and until you show some sincere will of communicating, I will ignore your posts.
admin, I honestly think there is no point in letting this kind of thugs to post on your blog.
Herbrand,
You ignore what you cannot answer. Because to answer is to acknowledge my TRUTH. In addition to your many lies you run to Admin asking him to ruin and damage his blog’s shred of credibility by censoring it? And all a reader has to do is look up and read the insults and insinuations that you’ve left behind to see your own hypocrisy.
If the title COWARD offends you… then don’t be one. If the title TRAITOR offends you… then stop being the mouthpiece of domestic enemies of the USA. 911 was an inside job and anyone reading this page and my previous posts can easily see that in the questions themselves and the facts that are NOT being addressed.
The questions are on the table.
The facts are there for all to see.
The holes in the so-called debunkers “THEORIES” are big enough to fly a plane through.
Whether you attempt to answer them (and that would truly be comedy) or not, the people reading this realize what type of person you are.
You’re the same type of person that NIST is filled with and we all know how laughable they are.
You’re the same type of person that gullibly sucks up whatever BushCo. says as truth.
You’re the same type of person that cannot handle REAL debate.
“admin, I honestly think there is no point in letting this kind of thugs to post on your blog.”
He does one very important thing, and that is he so potently demonstrates the ignorance, gullibility and paranoia of the 9/11 crack pots. If I were the suspicious type I would think he is a hired plant to discredit the truthers.
He likes to call others cowards but he will not let his own crazy conspiracy theorist point of view known to people who employ him.
The only issue I have with him is I suspect he has some mental problems, both physical and psychological.
Thanks, I agree with the therapeutical value on casual onlookers of reading this kind of rants. I had my share of conspiracy theorist websites and forums in my country, but I’ve never seen before such level of intensity – is this the average in the U.S.?
Luckily, nowadays in Italy 11/9 conspiracy theorism is practically dead – the same group which provided you the picture of the thermal lance cutting, a group comprised of many professionals in various technical areas, has very effectively debunked their claim in such a way that only the hard-core nutters are left on the barricades – to the point that the casual onlooker can easily see them for what they are.
This of course came at the price of many hours of hard work, but I think that in the end if was worth.
Admin,
Ken has a blog where he publicly discusses his views on my things including 9/11. As it happens, so do I. At any rate, accusing Ken of being secretive on the issue is about as ludicrous as one can get. That sets us apart from people like you, Admin.
Now that we are on the subject, I do have to say that I find Ken’s apriori accusatory approach inappropriate, and the same goes for his general tone on this thread. But his arguments are generally sound.
Herbrand,
Just looked at the NRCC-42466. The paper does not even attempt to explain the main characteristics of how the WTC collapses proceeded (speed, symmetry, etc.) It likely is not very well put together – but I don’t even have to bother with it as it omits critically significant factual details. Failure to address those details makes it utterly irrelevant.
Boris,
we are talking about what started the collapse, not the way it went on.
I simply pointed out that steel loses many of its characteristic that allow it to sustain a building’s weight when exposed to high temperature, and that the fire started from the aircraft fuel and extended to the WTC interiors was hot enough to cause that.
Do you have any reason to refute this explanation, and providing a better, more credible one?
What are those “critically significant factual details” about? And if (and only if) they are about explaining what made the structure fail, would you care to provide them yourself?
Herbrand,
The way the collapse went on is directly tied to the cause of the collapse. That is the point you fail to consider.
Now, the way it went on is not consistent with the cause theorized in the paper, hence I can reject their theorizing. Though that is not the only way I can reject it.
Boris connected or not, what is wrong with this? I am not failing to consider, it is simply another point of discussion that we are not discussing right now.
Right now we are talking of WHAT STARTED the collapse: please, answer this now and don’t make me ask this a thousand times, unless you can bring evidence of a different cause.
I can add that you reject the cause based on _your personal opinion_ of inconsistency, but this is not the same thins as saying that that cause is impossible.
Are you perhaps saying that as a cause it could be possible? Because, in this case, that would be exactly my point.
Your deduction of inconsistency is a different subject entirely, which we could debate next.
Herbrand,
When events are connected, you can’t talk about the causal event and disregard the consequences. For instance, you can ask, “Could Johnny have died of heart attack?” and the answer would be “Yes”. Yet if Johnny’s body was found with a round hole in his skull, skin burns around the hole and in a puddle of blood then the explanation that he died of a heart attack would be at best inadequate and incomplete – even if he did indeed suffer a heart attack while being pistol-whipped.
Applying an analogous model to the events of 9/11 we have to conclude that no explanation that fails to account for the peculiarities I have mentioned multiple times – the simultaneous failure of multiple elements throughout the structure, the symmetry and rapidity and totality of the collapse, etc. – and explanation that fails to account for those is at best hopelessly incomplete and, more likely, totally irrelevant.
Boris, let’s sort one thing at a time.
My question was:
—
“So again, what is wrong with the mechanical and thermal weaking of the towers’ steel structure, both by the impact of the plan and the fire that, started from the fuel, extendede to the offices and interiors?”
—
Don’t answer me about the way it collapsed. That is ANOTHER topic, REGARDLESS of the fact that yes, it is connected.
You claim, “the way it collapsed is incompatible with a weakening from fire”. I dispute your claim, but this dispute is a DIFFERENT topic.
NRCC-42466 is appropriately called “Role of fire resistance issues in the collapse of the Twin Towers”, it doesn’t talk about everything in the collapse – in just 8 pages that wouldn’t fit.
Let’s keep on topic please.
Bringing a different subject to stray the topic is a logical fallacy called Red Herring, I’m sure you are aware of that. I also noticed that many conspiracy theorists, when cornered, tend to “jump” on other subjects, or just pledge to view “the whole array of events”.
Of course an array of is made of single events, and proceeding one at a time is the best way to go.
“So again, what is wrong with the mechanical and thermal weaking of the towers’ steel structure, both by the impact of the plan and the fire that, started from the fuel, extendede to the offices and interiors?”
Nothing wrong with that in theory. The events observed have failed to display signs that had to accompany such a scenario, hence no such scenario played out.
Fine. This debunks your previous statement,
“The thermal effect of the fire that was observed was not sufficient to cause collapse.”
Which was the goal of my statements.
I praise your willfullness to accept evidence and rational discussion over intuitive concepts. Now, if you wish to debate another subject of your choice which you consider to be a “clear proof” of conspiracy, I am available.
You lost me, Herbrand.
Look, it is not that complicated. If there is recorded evidence disproving a certain hypothetical scenario, then you need either to explain how that evidence and the scenario can be reconciled, dispute the validity of the evidence, or dispose of the scenario. Which one is your choice?
Either of the three, but I guess I’ll stick to the 2nd
Let’s hear the “evidence”, then.
Herbrand,
You already have “heard” it many times. I am sorry, I don’t have time to run around in infinite circles.
You will note Boris’s arguments are based on “Personal Ignorance”.
He can’t see why the towers would fall the way they did. Ergo, there is something fishy in the way they fell. The fault is in his lack of understanding, not in the event itself. His ideas are based on “I Dunno!”
Forget the fact that many more people see no inconsistency in the way the towers fell, including people who know the most on how these and other massive structures are built. When nearly every structural engineer looks at the event and says there is nothing that demonstrate a controlled demolition, you have to wonder. And these are not “Hack” architects like Richard Gage, we are talking about engineers who can PROVE their worth with real world achievements.
Guys like Boris will avoid committing to a detailed hypothesis of what he thinks happened because his lack of education on the subject would soon reveal itself. Best to play dumb and try and create a controversy where there is none…… Well not with people who know the facts of the event and the science behind it anyway.
“Thanks, I agree with the therapeutical value on casual onlookers of reading this kind of rants. I had my share of conspiracy theorist websites and forums in my country, but I’ve never seen before such level of intensity – is this the average in the U.S.?”
Well here in the US the truthers are a small but vocal minority. Only 4.6% of the US think 9/11 was an inside job, and it is getting smaller each day. With the educated class it is smaller still. Most of it is driven by a hate of Bush, when he is gone the truther loons will fade even more.
Conspiracy Theorist Rule No.1: when confronted with competent and informed counterparts, RUN!!
seriously though, I understand that a one-on-one debate of this sort is boring and time consuming. Still, I have yet to read a proper exposition of your view on the collapse backed by proper sources.
I can wait all the time you want, I’m in no rush.
Herbrand,
Jet A-1 burns at 260C-315C in an open air burn. I myself have fought jet fuel fires in both training and real life onboard an aircraft carrier. In training they light a huge tank on fire, let it get nice and hot, check the temperature, and then the students attack it. They fight that fire and put it out. The instructor relights it or it reflashes and they fight it again. They fight that fire all damn day. Amazing thing… an entire tank of STEEL and yet… it doesn’t melt or lose structural integrity. In an accident the jet fuel usually vaporizes and burns off in a huge fireball. We all saw the fireballs. The fireball will leave behind small office fires. Office fires usually top out around 750 degrees C in a normal office fire. You’ll know that it’s 750 C because glass windows shatter at 700C and the flame will be bright red and yellow and the smoke will be white indicating plenty of fuel. This did not occur that day on 911.
Herbrand, every single person in the U.S. military that has ever taken a fire course knows that you are full of crap. They’ve gotten to the front of the fire themselves WITH hoses and they know as I know that you can only stay close to an open air burn of jet fuel for MAYBE a minute or two at the most and that’s WITH water and proper hose control. You fight a fire by getting close, you stay there at the front of the hose until you can stand it no longer, and then you rotate to the back of the hose. That’s at 315C!!!
So when I hear a fireman say in his own words that “we’ve got small isolated pockets of fire that we should be able to knock them down with two lines” then I know about what kind of fire he’s talking about. He’s not talking about “flashfire” and he’s not talking about a “raging inferno.” Then when I SEE with my own eyes, as EVERYONE can, survivors walking around in the crash zone then I KNOW for a fact based upon my own experience in fighting fires that the temperature is well under the maximum for an open air FUEL FIRE. That puts the fire UNDER 315C! If it was hotter than that then people and firemen wouldn’t be up there alive, they’d be crispy critters. To weaken, not melt, I say WEAKEN hardened steel would require hours and hours of heat at least at 750C. At that point, which is the 50% mark, hardened steel loses 50% of it’s structural integrity. So fire played NO REALISTIC, REAL WORLD, REAL PHYSICS part in the 911 crime.
In the 2nd tower hit, the plane came in at an angle and came out the side. It missed the massive core columns almost completely. To say that even ONE core column was damaged is stretching it. To go further, and play devil’s advocate for you, and say that it was damage that caused the building to fall over would have meant that the building would have fallen over on it’s side and not straight down into itself.
Those are two FACTS based upon EXPERIENCE and not your book learning and “debunker” speculation (-blatant lying-).
Now as Boris pointed out, when you see a gun, a smoking corpse with a hole, and eyewitnesses able to say they witnessed a murder then only a blind person or a CRIMINAL would ignore that evidence to argue the validity of a heart attack.
I ask you again: “What fires have YOU fought and what courses have YOU taken and What aviation/military background do you have?” I am a Marine, Honorably discharged, who worked many years on FA-18 Hornets with classified avionic systems in VMFA-115 and VMFA-451 and has served aboard a U.S. aircraft carrier with pride. I’m sure most people would agree that puts me a notch higher than the speculating “debunkers” and their worthless book knowledge. Or do you care to say that the ENTIRE US MILITARY is twisting physics and lying to people about fighting fires? Speak up. I’m sure the DOD is just sitting around waiting for little ole’ you to enlighten them.
A Youtube video is not even close enough to what EXPERIENCE teaches but listen carefully to what these guys say. Notice how far away these low level temperature fires keep them, and they have HOSES! When I went through the course in the 80′s they fought out of open tanks, like a big pit of burning diesel, and it was a lot hotter than it is allowed to get today. Today they like to keep the temperature well under 300C in training. Listen and he will tell you that in a real ship fire you can get temperatures around 2,000 degrees in a main space fire! That is because everywhere you turn on a ship you run into fuel, fuel lines, flammable material, bombs, munitions, phosphorus, and dangerous chemicals. These things are absent in a normal office fire. You “debunkers” love to try and confuse the two very different types of fires shouting “flashfire” and such B.S. I know firsthand what 315C FEELS like from a few feet away. I see those people up there in the damage area of 911 walking around after the fire’s cooled off in the videos. They’re not jumping out of that gaping hole and there is little evidence of an out of control fire. Don’t tell me how hot it is up there from your book knowledge. I KNOW how hot it is up there.
So Boris, I assume you don’t want to continue? I am still waiting for your next argument on the WTC collapse.
Ken, I already stated that I won’t engage in debate someone that is unable to bring arguments without calling me names. Besides in your dissertation you keep a) comparing apples with oranges, and b) making statements without backing them with evidence.
If you want to be taken seriously, do some research as most of us did and bring something more than “I am a marine, trust me” as your only evidence.
Herbrand,
You got that right – I don’t want to continue. The reason for that is that you are unwilling to really read the opponent’s arguments. You give me a whole manuscript to read – and I at least browse through it. You give me a link to a paper in Italian (on an English website) – and I even attempt to make some sense of that even though my knowledge of Italian in non-existent outside of some very rudimentary French. You, on the other hand, seem to be unable or unwilling to just scroll up the page and read my previous comments. That’s your choice, of course, and you are entitled to it, but don’t expect me to go out of my way in order to accommodate you.
Boris,
I just went through the thread one more time; I might have missed something, but from what I could read your only statements on the subject have been:
———–
Please pay attention. As I stated above, any thermally induced sequential collapse would have proceeded differently from what was observed. On top of that, the source of heat (fire) failed to exhibit signs of being sufficiently hot – no widespread window breakage, flame color and composition indicating oxygen-deprived burning, etc. In fact, FEMA has failed to find any significant amount of intact column segments that have experienced temperatures in excess of 250C. That tells you that thermally-induced collapse is just a not a theory matching the facts.
———–
which has already been dealt with, and:
———-
Applying an analogous model to the events of 9/11 we have to conclude that no explanation that fails to account for the peculiarities I have mentioned multiple times – the simultaneous failure of multiple elements throughout the structure, the symmetry and rapidity and totality of the collapse, etc.
———-
but you didn’t further elaborated on this.
Lastly, you said:
———-
There’s plenty of links on my sites and elsewhere illustrating all that I have cited. There is not one model I have seen anywhere explaining the collapse observed – it’s dynamic progression – in light of the official theory.
———-
But obviously I’m not going to browse all your website right now – just point me to the material relevant to the issue at hand and make your statement – we can start from there.
Herbrand,
Here’s a brief overview of why the official story of 9/11 is a farce:
http://pyramid.blog-city.com/911_the_impossible_the_improbable_the_implausible.htm
There’s plenty more but this should suffice.
Read this: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons
Dipshit.
Forgeddaboudit Boris
Debunkers are only confused by the truth. They will dismantle it, thread the bolts, and kick at your nuts to the point that any truth that was there becomes so unpalatible that even Arthur Scheuerman would move on to the next subject. However we seekers of the truth do have one thing going for us, the truth does not change no matter how it is perceived. So who thinks what and which theory or hypothesis pertains to what aspect of such and such of an event or picture or testimony or concrete evidence just doesn’t matter at all. The is evidence everywhere and it needs to be on the table for perusal by all who are interested then brought to an open and independent investigation. Look for the best photographs, best videos, unimpeachable testimony, and real evidence like the melted guns in the NYPD police department museum that came from building 6. These guns were fused to melted concrete, which required temperatures of 2500 to 3000 degrees farenhiet. Debunkers are a little dense, but most of them know , just like George Duhhbya Bu$h, how to use the google and can see them for thmnselves with a little plaque by them telling where they are from…G:
@Ken D. Webber
Hmmm…a tank lying on a deck versus steel holding up a couple hundred tons of more steel, concrete, and other structural materials. Sounds like a great comparison.
@Boris Epstein
Correction…here is a link to an asshat who got nothing right.