9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

Hope you recognize that the owner of that flowchart holds views contrary to yours on 911.....

a reply to: Nothin

Going to answer any questions directed at you? Or just completely ignored honest and open debate? Typical conspiracists, post a sight gag instead of engaging in debate?

I still think you are a fizzle no flash bomb kinda person?

a reply to: neutronflux

He's still trying to figure out that math question I think.

I tried to help him with examples.

a reply to: Salander

Actually, it was proven. Good old Zack Moosecow, was tried and convicted by a jury of his peers based on the evidence presented in a court of law.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

No! If your are saying individuals independent of the government that gave an account of a jet hitting the pentagon are not credible, then its your job to provide the proof. Not theirs.

After all the peer reviewing and wide spread scientific support of the NIST conclusions, it's your job to discredit the peer reviews and journal publications.

So, please start listening the peer reviewed material. List how the peer reviewed materials are wrong, and why.

No sir. Those people you refer to, whoever exactly that is besides various pentagon employees with that bias, have the obligation to prove their claims.

My skepticism is justified because they offer no proof, AND all the circumstantial evidence contradicts their claims.

The FDR data, withheld by the government for about 5 years, contradicts the official story. The several frames from the parking lot video contradict any claim it was an airliner.

a reply to: Salander

Then what you are saying is a false narrative, and you need to prove otherwise. I think your stand is not credibility. So the burden of proof is on you to prove your statement.

If this goes to the Mod. I am just using your logic against you.

I guess the civilian accounts of a large commercial jet hitting the pentagon still stands. Since I can just simply say you are not credible without having to provide a logical and fact based argument.

Again, you got any evidence or facts to discredit the individuals not affiliated with the pentagon on their accounts a large jet hit the pentagon. To say they are not credible without proof is slanderous.

a reply to: Salander

Do I really need to link and quote from the Scientists for 9/11 truth article that shows the flight recorder data was legitimate and backs the official narrative again? Got any evidence to discredit their view?

a reply to: neutronflux

That member refuses to introduce any evidence of his own.

a reply to: D8Tee

Is that kinda what AE 9/11 Truth has been into of late? They back off from pushing any theories easily debunked to there is not enough evidence for any given theory? Amazing conspiracists can't theorize by themselves?

Anything to stay relevant... eye roll

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

And as far as I've been able to find NIST has never offered any evidence that this should have happened. No models, no mockups using shotguns to simulate the explosion or anything like that. Losing the fireproofing is a requirement for their hypothesis and is therefore assumed to have happened.

Ok. I can see that there are two theories of dislodgement. The first theory was that shrapnel dislodged it, and that is the one that never held up under tests.

I see now there is a second one, that the shock of impact itself shook the fireproofing loose by exceeding its acceleration limit. That's actually somewhat plausible.

I'll even volunteer this report I managed to dig up by an inspector prior to the WTC attack where he pointed out that a lot of the fireproofing had been sprayed on without cleaning rust away first, further weakening its ability to hold on.

www.fireengineering.com... wtc-towers.html





However, now we're talking about the core. I was talking about the horizontal trusses. It's easy to believe the horizontal trusses would fail because they're so weak anyway. If they failed, the supports in the outer walls would buckle because nothing is bracing them.

However, as we can see here, the core structure was a classic high rise build. It didn't have fragile horizontal supports. In order for it to fail, we pretty much need to see a situation where the vertical columns fail directly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

So you going with a few induced failure points by thermite?

Floor by floor CD by thermite?

Cite what and who's research proves thermite.

If AE 9/11 Truth is pushing thermite, why come up with the fantasy of fizzle no flash bombs. Is there a bigger truth group and are they pushing thermite?

Seems you are creating straw man argument? Arguments not supported or abandoned by the truth movement?

I thought I had linked you to his original paper, rather than some kind of rehash site. If that is not the case, then I guess I will look it up again.

People often get confused over the difference between "Thermite" and "Nanothermite"

The difference is what I like to call the "menthols in Pepsi" effect. The mythbusters explain this effect very well in this video if you are interested:

www.youtube.com...

Just like a granulated menthol, nanothermite is broken into tiny bits giving it a lot more surface area. With more surface area, the reaction happens much much faster. This means it burns for a much shorter time, but also at a much higher temperature than normal thermite. And I'm not certain, but I suspect it probably doesn't leave a lot of residue because the reaction is likely to be more complete.



But yes I disagree with some members of the truth movement who think there was a need to rig every floor. Getting a hammer effect would require at least a few feet of falling at near free fall speed to get it started.

If the official story is that the core columns failed first, then it's harder to explain the suddenness. As the steel reaches a point where it offers not enough resistance, it should still at that moment be offering a lot of resistance. Not enough to stop the fall, but enough to slow it. They should have been bending.

The outer wall near the worst fire started bowing inward, but still held for a while.



The hammer effect makes a lot more sense if the horizontal trusses had failed first. Then the buckling of the outer columns could have been very sudden. Perhaps even instant.


Looking at this version of the same image, but at the moment of collapse, it kind of looks like that is what happened.




For the collapsing core columns to have been pulling those inward (by pulling on the horizontal trusses), the core of that floor would have to already be falling to a lower level. Which would be odd if collapse began due to a failure on the same floor as the fires. Or.... maybe the collapse was intiated on a floor below the fires, causing the supports on that floor to fall and pull on the horizontal trusses?


And it does look like they're being pulled inward, not just buckling from the weight above them (although I'm sure that is contributing.)

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Here is a video clip of the inward bowing and failure of WTC 2


www.metabunk.org...

The inward bowing was not spontaneous or sudden. It almost looks like the out walls of the tower were breathtaking, then the vertical columns failed in one final inhale.

So? From the clip in the link. Where was the thermite placed, when was it detonated, how long did it burn, how was the CD system not displaced during the jet strike, how did the ignition system survive the fires, and where are the cut columns?

No proof in the metallurgy that the colums were attacked and cut by a chemical process to create failure.

How much thermite would have to be used to even be detectable in a 500,000 ton building.

How long were the columns and debris in a hot, steamy, toxic soup that would destroy any trace evidence of thermite?

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

On a horizontal cut for a vertical column, I would also think that thermite burns slow enough that the pressure of the structure would push and weld the molten metal together.

If the cuts were slow and on vertical columns, then the structure would more or less settle down in place.

How would thermite be able to cut and remove enough structure to transfer static load to a dynamic load?

Either two or three feet of numerous vertical columns must be blown out to get the structure to slame down on its self?

Or the vertical columns to buckle, which would cause the structure to slame into itself.

If you don't damage the vertical columns, not sure a floor falling onto another floor would would cause building collapse. Also, how many charges would it take to drop one tower floor?

So how many charges needed to change the static structure into a falling structure? What would the placement of the charges be?

If charges worked on the core to pull the outer columns in by floor trusses, it would not just be one cut per column. You would need to remove whole sections of the core to get it to drop and pull? Wrap columns in two or three feet of thermite? So you would not be talking about cuts. You are applying thermite in wraps by the feet? On numerous columns? The timing and inconsistent burn times would be almost impossible to control for a symmetrical collapse?

And to have the placed wraps coincide with the damage caused by the jets?

a reply to: neutronflux

Finally. If you dropped the core to cause inward bowing, the bowing would not be seen only on the circumference of one or two floors. The pull from the dropped core would be seen in ever floor above the damage core section.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Fire proofing at WTC always had problems with adhesion - was found if steel was dirty, greasy or rusted fire proofing
would not adhere

Also if steel was painted the fire proofing would not adhere - found that fire proofing would only have 1/2 to 1/3
adhesion versus unpainted steel

Was found that building movements would over time dislodge the fire proofing - for example the swaying of the
building during winter storms would dislodge the fire proofing . Every spring building engineers had to inspect and
reapply the fire proofing which peeled off during winter

Also the movement of sir through duct work would dislodge the fire proofing

You mentioned the horizontal web trusses - these proved to be problem in applying the fire proofing
because of the numerous angles

Fire proofing at WTC was applied by spraying from hose

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

On the nanothermite? Have they ever tested for nanothermite by burning the dust in an inert atmosphere? Who has been able to reproduce the results of the experiments?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Here is a video clip of the inward bowing and failure of WTC 2


www.metabunk.org...

The inward bowing was not spontaneous or sudden. It almost looks like the out walls of the tower were breathtaking, then the vertical columns failed in one final inhale.

So? From the clip in the link. Where was the thermite placed, when was it detonated, how long did it burn, how was the CD system not displaced during the jet strike, how did the ignition system survive the fires, and where are the cut columns?

No proof in the metallurgy that the colums were attacked and cut by a chemical process to create failure.

How much thermite would have to be used to even be detectable in a 500,000 ton building.

How long were the columns and debris in a hot, steamy, toxic soup that would destroy any trace evidence of thermite?

Is the clip you posted sped up? The inward collapse looks pretty sudden. Like the walls are being dragged inward by an internal collapse that pulls them in by pulling on the horizontal trusses.


As for the chemical process, there was evidence that suggested nano-thermite. But it could also be attributed to other things. Most of it could, anyway. I think the phosphate was the part that was hard to explain by other means, but I'll need to go back and check that.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

On a horizontal cut for a vertical column, I would also think that thermite burns slow enough that the pressure of the structure would push and weld the molten metal together.

If the cuts were slow and on vertical columns, then the structure would more or less settle down in place.

How would thermite be able to cut and remove enough structure to transfer static load to a dynamic load?

You need to look at the link I posted about "Menthol in Pepsi" effect.

Nanothermite has the same chemical composition as normal thermite, but it behaves very differently due to its granulated nature.

There is nothing slow about it. Nothing at all.

Either two or three feet of numerous vertical columns must be blown out to get the structure to slame down on its self?

Or the vertical columns to buckle, which would cause the structure to slame into itself.

If you don't damage the vertical columns, not sure a floor falling onto another floor would would cause building collapse. Also, how many charges would it take to drop one tower floor?

So how many charges needed to change the static structure into a falling structure? What would the placement of the charges be?

If charges worked on the core to pull the outer columns in by floor trusses, it would not just be one cut per column. You would need to remove whole sections of the core to get it to drop and pull? Wrap columns in two or three feet of thermite? So you would not be talking about cuts. You are applying thermite in wraps by the feet? On numerous columns? The timing and inconsistent burn times would be almost impossible to control for a symmetrical collapse?

And to have the placed wraps coincide with the damage caused by the jets?

And yet the posted link looks very much like they are being pulled by the trusses.

You don't need to remove a colum, just have the columns on one or two floors break outward.

So if your vertical column started like this: | Have it break like this: >

Weaken it at the top, bottom, and middle so it collapses like a xylophone.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

On the nanothermite? Have they ever tested for nanothermite by burning the dust in an inert atmosphere? Who has been able to reproduce the results of the experiments?

Thermite reaction doesn't rely on oxygen from the air.

a reply to: Salander

The FDR data, withheld by the government for about 5 years, contradicts the official story. The several frames from the parking lot video contradict any claim it was an airliner.

Riddle me this:
If the big bad government planned and pulled off 911 with such attention to detail as to hide all the contradicting evidence for 16 years,
Why would they release FDR that contradicts the OS ?
Especially the FDR data!
A couple of mouse clicks and key strokes and you have perfect data.

Your belief makes no sense.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The contraction of drooping floors trusses when cooling is what caused the pull on the outer vertical columns.

Three cuts for each column attacked in the core by thermite? Sounds like it's more about removing enough steel to create a gap in the vertical core columns to get the core to drop a certain amount to initiate a dynamic load to use the floor trusses to pull on the outer columns.

The biggest obstacles to nanothermite to drop the core of the WTC towers to use the floor trusses to pull in the outer columns.

The most damning and proof it was not the core that dropped first. There would not be just an initial buckling on the perimeter of just one or two floors. A dropped core would result in visual evidence of all floors pulling in on the outer vertical columns above the cut in the core. Not just seen in one ring around the perimeter of the building.

You need to cite the most convincing evidence for the present of nanothermite, not just say somebody published a paper saying it was there.

Steven Jones was asked to test the WTC dust in an inert atmosphere? Show where that was done. I didn't think he ever conducted the experiment that would show there was enough oxidizer In the WTC dust to cause combustion of any kind of thermite.

You need to list the individuals that could reproduce the experiments for thermite?

Or is all the evidence for any kind of thermite just speculation?

If there is only speculation of any kind of thermite vs actual proof, citing speculation as evidence is on par for the conspiracy movement. Pretty much what kills the credibility of the truth movement for a majority of people.

Being theoretically possible is not physical proof it occurred.


So? Please don't just link to thermite speculation. Can you take what you have learned and make it into a convincing argument for the confirmed presence of nanothermite?

a reply to: neutronflux

It has been proven the vast and overwhelming majority of architects, physicists, and structural engineerings agree with the NIST conclusions. Those communities peered reviewed the NIST conclusions!

And how does that explain the amount of debunking going on, care to put something up in support of your wild claim?
Gallileo was one of very few people as well, who stood up for truth against an overwhelming mass of ignorant zealots.

In his letter, Mr. Ketcham makes it clear that he did not contribute to NIST’s World Trade Center investigation. In fact, it wasn’t until last August that he began reading the NIST WTC reports and watching documentaries challenging NIST’s findings. The more he investigated, he writes, “the more it became apparent that NIST had reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing, and denying the evidence.”
Mr. Ketcham closes his stunning 500-word rebuke by calling upon NIST to “blow the whistle on itself now” before awareness of the “disconnect between the NIST WTC reports and logical reasoning” grows exponentially.

Former NIST Employee Speaks Out with LTE in Europhysics News

You just ignored the "Spanish Inquisition" in favor of your narrative, how's that intellectual dishonisty working out for you?

You don't care about honest debate. You just proved you haven't studied this thread!

Moving on. Go for the mistakes in their work or don't, but shallow attacks are just shallow shill-shells after all.


a reply to: D8Tee

That's your evidence for the alleged fact, that all A&E911 folks are idiots? Giggles and zealots... try again?