9/11 Conspiracy Debunkers

a reply to: D8Tee

www.reddit.com...

All bought and paid for science to support a political agenda, in my "opinion". It's really laughable that people are rope into accepting snake oil science.

Any real architect or engineer can read the NIST Report, and see that the NIST Report stops in the beginning of the onset collapse and doesnt discuss or show their models of their pancake collapse.

I guess it's all a big secrete. How on earth can any real scientist except a half farce report, and call it Peer review?

A&E has written many technical papers against the NIST Report, and the fact is, I have never seen any of their papers debunked. Only ridiculed by seasonal debunkers.

a reply to: Informer1958

A&E has written many technical papers against the NIST Report

Pick one, make a thread about it?

a reply to: D8Tee

Pick one, make a thread about it?

I am blocked from making any 911 threads, perhaps you can.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

Pick one, make a thread about it?

I am blocked from making any 911 threads, perhaps you can.

Seriously blocked from making 911 threads? Why and can you ask to have the block lifted?

Pick a paper and lets have a look at it?

a reply to: D8Tee

Seriously blocked from making 911 threads?

Yes.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

Seriously blocked from making 911 threads?

Yes.

Not going to say why?

a reply to: D8Tee

Not going to say why?

I do not know why, perhaps you can ask a Mod?

The last time I tried, was 6 months ago and I was block.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: PublicOpinion

You are about as bling as they come. I think I cited the one scientific journal article that AE 9/11 Truth was able to publish in a non peer reviewed journal. Other than the fraudulent Bentham thermite paper.

The vast and overwhelming majority of peer reviewed and published journal research articles in the hundreds supports the NIST conclusions.


Can you cite other AE9/11Truth and Conspiracy Movement research that was able to meet the requirements of scientific/engineering journal/peer reviewed publishing.

Name one university, college, engineering firm that doesn't support the NIST conclusions. Name one group that solely represents practicing structural engineers / architects that don't support the NIST conclusions.

AE 9/11 Truth is not solely a collection of structural engineers and architects. They don't care if an individual has a PHD in English. They just want to push the "educated" part. Just one of the many tricks AE plays.

Credible groups don't play tricks. They seek legal action and publish in journals. Not conspiracy hack gossip columns next to big foot articles.

There are some credible phsyicists who have serious questions.

www.journalof911studies.com...

Mostly about the physics of the "hammer effect". How the building could collapse for the first 3 meters with no resistance at all.

Same as I was asking earlier. How would the supports go immediately from being strong enough to hold up the weight above them, to offering zero or near zero resistance to the weight above them?

It's more plausible for there to be a transition point, where they offer some resistance, but not enough.

Once there was a hammer effect, collapse would be inevitable and pretty rapid. Of course.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

You can watch a closeup of the northtower collapse right here:

www.youtube.com...

It starts at the 30 second mark.

The spire starts moving at about exactly the same time as the walls. Indicating that the core did not lag behind the falling walls. It all fell together.

It's harder to find good footage of the South Tower collapse. I'm pretty sure I saw it once long ago, but can't seem to find it anymore. If you are able to find a good clip of it, please post it.

So we face a conundrum. If the walls fall first, the trusses will pull in on the walls because they are moving downward away from the core. If the core falls first, the trusses will pull in on the walls because it is moving downward away from the walls.

Yet neither thing happens.

However, I was pretty sure that the official story is that the core collapsed first. Being in the middle of the building it would get the hottest. The outer walls have better access to the outside air to conduct heat away from themselves, so the inner portion would reach that critical 1500 degrees sooner.

Also the core above the impact site appears to have remained somewhat intact during much of the fall, evidenced by the way the spire tilts slightly sideways, rotating on an axis that indicates it is still part of a solid object that extends downward to below the visible roof. If the walls pulled the core down with them, by pulling on the trusses, I would think they would have ripped it apart also. But if the core failed first, and pulled in the walls at the impact site with it, the walls would fall with no resistance for the first few meters, getting our hammer effect started uniformly.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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?

It's impossible to confirm or disprove, because the residue is in all cases identical to residue that can be left by welding.

Indeed this is the chief objection to David Jones' theory. Despite finding the residues he found it has been impossible to conclusively rule out the possibility it might be material left over from the welding that took place in the original construction, even though it is exactly the residue that ought to have been left by nano-thermite.


Actually proof would require having kept the crime scene intact. Which didn't happen. Someone for ..... I don't know why...... decided it was better to recycle all the scrap metal rather than transport it somewhere and preserve it for future generations.

Historically valuable evidence is, of course, worth much less than scrap metal.

Wouldn't want future generations to be educated about how precisely the building fell and how vulnerable our skyscrapers can be to getting hit by planes. Better to fan the flames of controversy by eliminating the evidence so that people can only guess

Including NIST, who can only claim to have proposed a plausible model of collapse. Some who don't know any better might take their narrative as being "authoritary" and certain, but that is a misinterpretation. Nothing in their report would stand up to peer review if not for the corroborating evidence of foul play (ie. Terrorists seen boarding planes.... etc...)


It's not intellectually honest to demand for either side to totally prove itself. All we can do is compare narratives, and see which one is a better fit.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

decided it was better to recycle all the scrap metal rather than transport it somewhere and preserve it for future generations.

There is a huge chunk of it 1.5 miles from my house as a memorial.

You seem to ignore all the sections that were set aside for detailed examination by experts.
Google it.

a reply to: samkent

You seem to ignore all the sections that were set aside for detailed examination by experts.
Google it.

The fact is, there was no investigation into anything about 911 until 18 months later, and it was the Jersey Girls who got that ball rolling.

By then, most of the WTC debris was already gone. Yes, a few pieces were saved for memorials.

Are you assuming that we remove the memorials, and what gives scientist that legal right?

Furthermore, what judge in America would risk his or her career in doing such a thing?

I should be clear in stating that I think the buildings were hit by planes AND taken down by controlled demolition. Both.

I think the conspirators would not have wanted to leave anything to chance. And I don't think they were primarily government. Maybe a few of them were.

The government is only circling its wagons because it doesn't like to be criticized, and it needs the war effort in Afghanistan to be as popular as possible. But really if there was any direct government involvement it would just be a few people, without the knowledge of their peers.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Really? You don't understand vertical columns. Vertical columns are strong due to being perpendicular to the foundation. The load is distributed straight through the soild material to the foundation. As soon as the contracting trusses pull the vertical columns in just enough to bow to a critical point of strain, the load was not transferred to the foundation any longer. The load was transferred to the bend in the vertical column, thus it buckled. Any scientific person claiming not to under stand that a vertical column gets its strength form its material, and is at its strongest when perfectly straight and perpendicular to the foundation is a fraud.

a reply to: neutronflux

The load was transferred to the bend in the vertical column, thus it buckled.

Is that your "opinion" or is that NIST "opinion"?

The reason I asked is because you show no evidence to support that claim.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The walls did not fall first. A one or two story tall section around the perimeter of the building bowed in first. When the bows in the vertical columns prevented the columns from transferring the load of the building to the foundation, the vertical columns buckled. What is seen with the tower is it fell as the portion above the buckling collapse into the building. The tower and section of building above the buckling fell as one unit.

Again, if the core fell first, there would have been buckling visible on every floor above the gap in the core.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

The load was transferred to the bend in the vertical column, thus it buckled.

Is that your "opinion" or is that NIST "opinion"?

The reason I asked is because you show no evidence to support that claim.

It doesn't mater. Can you prove otherwise. Is it just you opinion you never talked about orange jail suits.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: neutronflux

The load was transferred to the bend in the vertical column, thus it buckled.

Is that your "opinion" or is that NIST "opinion"?

The reason I asked is because you show no evidence to support that claim.

If you are so familiar with the NIST reports and have been debating them for 10 years, why do you have to ask that?

a reply to: Informer1958

If there is an unintended bend in a vertical column, how is the load of the building transferred to the foundation as designed. You don't understand strain, load, and angle.

A metal lifting eye that can lift a specific load when pulled straight up might break if pulled at a 45 degree angle.


The ability to handle load decreases as angle increases from being perpendicular to the load if the device is tall and thin relative to hight.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Think about vertical columns. A column 200 feet tall and a foot square perpendicular to the ground. Put a load straight on top. It's supported by a 200 feet of material. Start transferring the load at an angle, the load is "seen" less by 200 foot column. And is "seen" more by the foot square dimensions. 200 feet of material vs a foot of material?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

Not going to say why?

I do not know why, perhaps you can ask a Mod?

The last time I tried, was 6 months ago and I was block.

Try again, it appears you are unblocked now.

a reply to: neutronflux

You don't understand strain, load, and angle.

From my understand by you, no one does on ATS.

If there is an unintended bend in a vertical column

What column are you talking about?

how is the load of the building transferred to the foundation as designed.

from the middle core column.

A metal lifting eye that can lift a specific load when pulled straight up might break if pulled at a 45 degree angle.

Looks to me you are cherry picking nonsens from: www.fema.gov...

Seriously, you have absulutly no idea what you are rambling about.