|
|
|---|
Showing posts with label 9/11 controlled demolition debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11 controlled demolition debate. Show all posts
Monday, October 4, 2010
Debunking Screw Loose Change: The Movie
A detailed rebuttal to the film Screw Loose Change- Not Freakin' Again Edition.
Note: This critique only addresses the WTC, as many issues about the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the hijackers are geniuely misrepresented in Loose Change.
Related Info:
Constructive Criticism of the Films Loose Change 2nd Edition and 9/11 Mysteries
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
An Open Letter To Ryan Owens
Mr. Owens,
Let me start off by saying that the purpose of this message is not meant in any way to insult you as a researcher or as a person in general. The purpose of this message is meant to simply inform you of errors that you have made in your 9/11 research, and my sincere hope that you will correct such errors. This is not meant to be an argument of any kind, but merely one researcher offering advise to another researcher.
That being said, the reason for this message is largely due to a post you made on your Youtube channel, in which you claimed that if any 9/11 truther could point out anything you got wrong in any of your videos, you would either remove the video or fix the mistake.
I was initially shocked by this statement, as I had done essentially this with my updated "9/11 Un-debunked" series. To date, you have not responded to my videos at all.
I am well aware of how popular your videos are, as many of them are featured on prominent debunker sites. In fact, your work is apparently so good that the government itself is using your videos to discredit the Truth Movement. However, as popular as your videos are, I have found many errors in them.
Now, I happen to agree with many of your videos and their conclusions. For example, you have done a very correct debunking of Pentagon-no-plane theories. However, videos in which you discuss WTC collapse theories are greatly at issue. There are several dozen points I could raise here, but this would just undoubtedly lead to nothing but continuous debating back and forth. So, for this post I have simply listed the problems that I truly think are incorrect, and I feel that you should keep your word that you will fix these mistakes. But of course, if there are any points you believe that I have gotten wrong, feel free to point out where I am incorrect. For each point I will list one of your videos, a claim in that video, followed by my reasons why the claim is wrong on some level. I shall list a problematic claim as either False, Most likely false, Misleading, or possibly a combination of these three.
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
Claim 1: The puffs of ejected dust were caused by pancaking floors.
Most likely false: Debunkers such as yourself have argued for years that these ejections were caused by pancaking floors falling onto one another. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that many of these ejections were isolated below the demolition wave. The video you show from the NOVA program shows a scenario in which the floors remain intact as flat plates, thereby allowing the pressure to be built up without allowing air to escape anywhere except the windows. But this obviously would not have been the case for the floors collapsing in the Twin Towers, as they were clearly pulverized before they had reached the areas of the ejections below the collapse front. To create the ejections below and at the collapse front, the floors would need to continuously fall as flat plates, as demonstrated by the NOVA simulation. If the floors broke apart as they fell, the falling mass would allow the pressure to be released upward. NIST’s “piston theory” is clearly contradicted by this. What’s more, Dr. Crockett Grabbe has calculated that the horizontal ejection rate of the puffs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers, making it highly unlikely that these ejections were caused by compressed air. Physicist David Chandler has also demonstrated that some of the ejections are in fact not coming out of windows at all, but out of the steel corner columns of the Towers. I would therefore ask you to reevaluate this claim, as evidence strongly goes against it.
Claim 2: The squibs shooting out of the southwest corner of WTC 7 were actually window blinds.
Misleading: While I do agree that the ejections at the southwest corner of WTC 7 are not squibs, your video fails to address the squibs that evidently are shooting out of Building 7 on the north face near the west side. NIST’s piston theory involved a scenario where the floors compressing air created the squibs shooting out of the Towers (see claim 1). But this explanation does not work for the squibs shooting out of the north face of Building 7, as these squibs formed at a time when the floors essentially did not move relative to one another. What’s more, these squibs are not addressed at all in NIST’s final report on Building 7. A search of their 729 page report turns up not a single mention of the word “squib” or “puff.” And the issue is also not addressed at the FAQ section for Building 7 on NIST’s website. I would therefore ask you to at least acknowledge the apparent squibs shooting out of the north face of WTC 7, as these ejections are far more visible than the false ejections you point to in your video. The official investigators have offered no explanation for the ejections, so the ejections are therefore still an unexplained phenomenon in the collapse of the building.
Claim 3: Explosions were not heard at the base of the buildings or from far away.
False: This issue is thoroughly addressed in the video Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible, which shows that the Towers did produce noises consistent with the roar of explosions continuously progressing down the buildings. It also shows that the noises, described as explosions by witnesses, were heard from far across the city. And sounds indicative of explosions have also been found in videos of WTC 1’s collapse and WTC 7’s collapse. Your claim that explosions cannot be heard in any of the videos of the WTC’s collapse is therefore wrong, and I would ask you to either rephrase this statement or remove it entirely.
Claim 4: The controlled demolition of the WTC buildings would have left behind remnants of the explosives used in the debris pile.
Misleading: In your video, you feature a statement made by Brent Blanchard of Protec. He has often claimed that objects such as det cord would have been found everywhere in the debris. However, he has also stated that controlled demolitions can be engineered to be radio controlled, which would eliminate the necessity of det cord. Wireless detonators have been commercially available for decades. And other parts of the explosives would also not necessarily be found, as pointed out by an explosives technician formerly from Controlled Demolition, Inc. He points out that explosives can be engineered to be self consuming, and therefore would not be found in the debris. Because of this, I would ask you to either add a disclaimer to your video, or remove this claim entirely.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
Claim 1: The core of the South Tower survived the collapse.
Misleading: While a section of the core did survive the collapse, video evidence appears to show that the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns. You should make this clear in your video, as it contradicts the official explanations since the South Tower initially collapsed to the east.
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist
Claim 1: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have accused Charles Burlingame of being “some kind of terrorist.”
False: Of all your videos, this is the only one I have a particular personal problem with. Although it may be implied in Loose Change (which I don’t really think it is), it is incorrect of you to imply in your video that members of the truth movement in general believe this. You are right in saying Charles Burlingame did not work in the Pentagon when Loose Change claims he did. I have nothing against that. But the claim that he was actually one of the conspirators has never been a direct claim of any prominent member of the movement, and I would ultimately ask that you either remove this video entirely, or redo it.
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: Building 7 was “less than 300 feet from the North Tower.”
False: The distance between the north face of WTC 1 and the south face of WTC 7 was actually about 107 meters, or 350 feet. You should correct this as it is a false statement and therefore also misleading to those who watch your video.
Claim 2: The structural damage to Building 7 contributed to the collapse.
False/Misleading: Although you do not specifically state in your video that the damage contributed to the collapse, you do, at the very least, imply it very strongly. But the official NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 states that the structural damage played no role in initiating the collapse of the building. What’s more, new evidence has been presented which shows that the damage to Building 7 was not as severe as previously thought. I have no fault with you showing pictures of damage to Building 7, but you should make it clear in your video that the official explanation states that this damage did not contribute to the collapse. Otherwise, your video will mislead those do not know what the actual explanation is for Building 7’s collapse.
Claim 3: The fires in Building 7 were fed by a series of diesel generators.
False: Again, according to the official investigators at NIST, the diesel tanks did not play a role in the collapse. NIST states they found no evidence that the fuel lines contributed to the collapse, and that the building had only normal office fires. You need to clarify this, as it is simply not the official story for what happened to the building.
Claim 4: The collapse of Truss 1 initiated the collapse of WTC 7.
False: According to the NIST report, Building 7’s collapse was initiated by the failure of a girder connecting column 44 to column 79, which led to the collapse of column 79, and then the rest of the building. NIST does mention the collapse of the trusses in their report, but they do not claim that any of them failing initiated the “progressive collapse.” As you state in your video, this led to a “vertical” collapse to the roof. NIST claims it was an “east to west” progressive collapse. You should replace your current claim about the trusses with the official explanation about column 79.
Most of the claims you make in this video are incorrect, but admittedly this was before the report was released. However, now that the official report has been released, you should remove this video entirely, as it will undoubtedly give people unfamiliar with 9/11 the wrong ideas about what is supposed to have caused the building to collapse.
9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained
Claim 1: The “aluminum” from Flight 175 could have been heated to 1800°F.
Most likely false: The idea that the fires in the South Tower could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely. It is very difficult for a diffuse hydrocarbon fire to reach these sorts of temperatures. Thomas Eager, who supports the official story and therefore cannot be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist,” has written that:
“In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types…. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C [1832°F]…. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.” -Thomas Eager
One thing that we must agree on is that the fires in the South Tower were clearly weaker than the fires in the North Tower. Also, NIST has no evidence for these kinds of temperatures in either building. The idea that the fires in WTC 2 could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely which, as we will see, essentially refutes the entire notion of your video.
Claim 2: Aluminum glows “light orange” at 1800°F.
Misleading: Although aluminum does glow light orange at 1800°F, the color of the material at the front indicates that, if it was aluminum, it was heated to temperatures higher than this.
So even if this material was aluminum, it would still need to be explained what heated it to over 2000°F to get to glow that bright. You should make this clear in your video.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: The fires burned up to 1800°F.
Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Molten Metal Explained.”
9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition
Claim 1: Controlled demolitions create bright flashes in a building.
Misleading: Bright flashes do not always occur in controlled demolitions, as these videos show:
Therefore, I would ask you to either add a disclaimer to your video, or remove this claim entirely.
Claim 2: The demolition waves are explained by pancaking floors.
Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.”
Claim 3: Cameras did not pick up any sounds of explosions.
False: See Claim 3 for “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible,” and also this video.
Claim 4: The South Tower’s core survived the collapse.
Misleading: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed.
Claim 5: The initial antenna drop of WTC 1 as seen from the north was actually an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the antenna to the south.
Most likely false: This video features a more westward shot of the North Tower’s collapse at minute 6:13. The antenna did rotate south seconds later, but the initial motion was almost entirely vertical. You should clarify this in your video.
Claim 6: Building 7’s collapse started with the failure of its three large trusses.
False: See Claim 4 for “9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained.”
Claim 7: Explosives would have caused the buildings to collapse at free-fall speed.
Most likely false/Misleading: In fact, it has been a misconception by both sides of the argument that controlled demolitions cause a building collapse at the rate of free-fall. Explosives rarely if ever cause a building to collapse at free-fall acceleration. The question that should really be asked is, “did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with buildings destroyed with explosives?” And it turns out that they did. You should either add a disclaimer to your video or remove this statement entirely.
Claim 8: Controlled demolitions cause a building to collapse into its own footprint.
Misleading: Although demolitions usually do this, it is not strictly true that it always happens, as this video shows at minute 8:32. As for Building 7, the fact that it fell somewhat outside its footprint may have been caused by the simple fact that it was a particularly large building. No demolition company had ever demolished a building the size of WTC 7 before, so who’s to say how compact the debris pile would be if the building were brought down in a classic demolition fashion? The buildings it damaged were quite close to it. As this video shows at minute 7:42, buildings brought down by classic controlled demolition methods can fall outside their footprint. But the fact is, the debris from WTC 7 was almost entirely within the footprint of the previously standing building.
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
Claim 1: The elements noted by Dr. Jones were found in common materials in the WTC.
Misleading: Although the elements you list were abundant at the WTC, what you fail to note is that these elements were found in the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, not the dust itself. The spheres show that the chemicals were formed due to melting and/or vaporization, which is due to surface tension. This indicates that the various chemicals found in the spheres were melted at the same time, forming spheres. The spheres found had the chemical signature of FE, AL, K, SI, and various additives and variations of thermate. Different aluminothermic reactions have different properties; some are faster reacting, like sulfur which reduces the melting point of steel. The idea of the spheres forming from an office fire is virtually impossible. Iron cannot melt in office fires and the melting points of these metals are so different that there would be a sizeable time delay from heating WTC common materials. Then they also have to cool together at the same time to form a sphere. Thermate, however, provides the solution to this question because the reaction is very fast. No other mechanism is known to provide spheres such as these. You should therefore clarify your statements about the elements that Dr. Jones has found.
Claim 2: The elements were not found in their correct quantities.
Misleading: In this case you are confusing Steven Jones arbitrary usage of the word thermate with military grade Thermate-TH3, which is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur. There are a wide variety of different types of thermite, thermate, and other aluminothermic reactions. So your figure of sulfur making up 2% of thermate is based on only one specific type of thermate. Also, it should be noted that the sulfur likely did not come the gypsum wallboard, as demonstrated here. You should correct this statement or add a disclaimer.
Claim 3: Barium nitrate and aluminum oxide needed to be found but weren’t.
False: As I have already demonstrated, barium nitrate does not have to be found. And as for the aluminum oxide, oxides of aluminum are common in the environment, and probably a major form of the aluminum found in the WTC dust. Because the thermite reaction generates aluminum oxide as an aerosol, it tends to disperse rather than clumping with the iron-rich initially-liquid residues. Note that the composition of residues of known thermites is a good match for the ignition residues that Jones, et. al. examined from the red-gray chips. So therefore, aluminum oxide also does not need to be found. You should correct these claims in your video.
Update: As it turns out, the USGS apparently did report finding traces of aluminum oxide in the WTC dust. Therefore, the claim that aluminum oxide was not present in the dust should be removed entirely from your video.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
Claim 1: The molten metal would have solidified and would not have still been molten 6 weeks later.
Misleading: The presence of the pools of molten metal after a thermate reaction would seem to indicate a continuous chemical reaction occurring in the pile, as documented by the peer-reviewed paper Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Material. You should clarify this in your video.
Claim 2: Temperatures of up to 1342°F were recorded in the debris piles.
False: Actually, the NASA thermal images show that temperatures of about 1377°F were recorded in the debris. But there are other studies which indicate even higher temperatures than this. According to the R. J. Lee report, lead had apparently become hot enough to volatilize (boil) and vaporize.
“The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.” –RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature, 2004, page 12
Although the word “vaporize” was never used in the final version of the report, the 2003 version of this passage explicitly referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Study, 2003, page 5)
Lead does not boil and vaporize until it reaches temperatures of 1749°C [3180°F]. As the report indicates, therefore, the temperatures must have been not merely high, but extremely high. Other evidence also indicates the temperatures were far hotter than anything normal fires could cause. You should address these issues in your video or delete the claim entirely.
Claim 3: The initial fires were burning at 1800°F.
Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Molten Metal Explained.”
Claim 4: Pictures show glowing metal not flowing and is therefore not molten.
False: Close-ups of the crane shot show that molten metal is flowing off.
Claim 5: The pools of molten metal seen by the first responders and clean-up workers were pools of molten aluminum.
Most likely false: This argument is contradicted by the fact that pools of molten metal were also found in the debris of Building 7 as well. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it was also not clad in aluminum like the Towers were. But what’s more, the fact that the molten metal remained reddish-orange six weeks after the attacks indicates that the metal had fairly low heat conductivity and relatively large heat capacity. Therefore, it is more likely that the metal was steel or iron rather than aluminum. You should remove this claim and correct it in your video.
9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim
Claim 1: The planes that hit the Towers were travelling at 490 and 590 miles per hour.
Misleading: The speeds you claim the planes were going at seem to come from the FEMA report. However, the NIST report states that the planes were travelling closer to 440 and 540 miles per hour. You should reevaluate this claim and fix it.
Claim 2: Building 7 was heavily damaged by falling debris.
False/Misleading: See Claim 2 for “9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained.”
Claim 3: There are many examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fires.
Misleading: As this video shows, your comparison of the WTC buildings with smaller steel structures is highly misleading. All I have ever seen debunkers compare the WTC buildings to are smaller steel structures that have collapsed from fire, but never other skyscrapers that have not collapsed from fire. You do feature the Windsor Tower, but ultimately its partial collapse supports our side of the argument. Others have attempted to show that other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the fires in the WTC. I have shown these claims to be incorrect and unfounded. Unless you can make better arguments, I would recommend removing the entire video, as it is highly misleading.
9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact
Claim 1: The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 180 mph, being also low on fuel.
Most likely false: For this particular statement, you offer no link or source. As this video shows, there were numerous pre-9/11 studies which showed that the buildings were built to withstand a 707 travelling at 600mph and filled with fuel. Even the Port Authority stated that the buildings could withstand a 707 going at 600mph. From the NIST report:
“An additional load, stated by the Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the Towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the Towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600mph.” -NCS NCSTAR1, p. 6
Claim 2: The planes were travelling at 490 and 590 mph.
Misleading: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: The ‘First Time in History’ Claim.”
Claim 3: Because the wingspan of a 767 is greater than that of a 707, a 767 would have severed more columns.
Most likely false/Misleading: Admittedly, the wings of a 767 are longer. However, there is another difference between the wings of these two planes, which are the engines attached to them. A 707 has four engines, while a 767 only has two. The engines of an airplane are undoubtedly the most solid part of the plane. The wings themselves are merely made of aluminum, and once they impacted the perimeter columns, it would have been more difficult to severe the thicker core columns. The planes’ engines would do quite a bit more damage than the wings once they started impacting core columns. Even if the wingspan of a 767 is larger than a 707, I think we can agree that a plane with four steel and titanium engines will do more damage than a plane with only two.
Claim 4: Fires were not taken into consideration when the Towers were built.
Most likely false: To back up this claim, you provide a quote from Leslie Robertson, who you incorrectly state was the chief structural engineer for the WTC. In fact, John Skilling is more likely to have been the lead engineer for the Towers. In a 1993 Seattle Times article, Skilling was described as the head structural engineer. Robertson was not mentioned there, nor in an article in the Engineering News-Record that discussed the design in 1964. In City in the Sky, Robertson is called the “rising young engineer with Skilling's firm” (p. 159). In Men of Steel, Robertson is referred to during the design phase as “one of the up-and-coming engineers on [Skilling’s] staff,” Skilling’s “young associate,” whom Skilling “assigned… to help him prepare a proposal” to the Port Authority’s board. Skilling’s firm was named Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Clearly, Skilling was a senior partner at the firm and Robertson was his subordinate. Therefore, the claim that Robertson was the chief engineer for the Towers is almost certainly false. John Skilling, however, stated that the buildings could have survived severe fires from a plane crash.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.” –John Skilling, Lead structural engineer for the WTC
You should address these facts and correct your statements about the WTC design parameters and Leslie Robertson’s position in the construction of the buildings.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Small or Oxygen-Starved Fires
Claim 1: Roughly 7000 gallons of fuel remained in each of the Towers after the initial impacts.
Misleading: This appears to only be true of the North Tower, as NIST claims that approximately 6947 gallons of fuel remained in WTC 1, while only 5932 was in WTC 2. However, the idea that all this fuel remained within the impacted areas is contradicted by the FEMA report. In NIST’s most detailed quantitative report, NCSTAR 1-5F Computer Simulation of the Fires, the jet fuel estimates are provided for each of the impact floors, supposedly accurate to the gallon. In the report, it is stated that NIST used FEMA’s assumption that half of the fuel that the remained within the Towers flowed away from the impact zones. It states:
“Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present the predicted fuel distributions from the impact analysis. Of the total amount of fuel distributed to each floor, only 40 percent was used in the simulations. The reasoning behind this estimate followed that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study (McAllister 2002). It has been estimated by various forms of analysis (Zalosh 1995; Baum and Rehm 2002) that roughly 20 percent of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs that were observed outside of the buildings within seconds of impact. The authors of the FEMA report suggested that half of the fuel not consumed in the fireballs could have flowed away, presumably down the elevator shafts and stairwells based on eyewitness accounts. Some additional discussion of the fireballs may be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.
The jet fuel consumption estimate put forth by the FEMA team was used in the model because (1) no evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate, and (2) the simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.” -NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, page 56
So, ultimately NIST assumes that half of the fuel in each of the buildings flowed away from the impact points, and therefore did not contribute to the fires that supposedly caused the buildings to collapse. That leaves 3474 gallons of fuel contributing to the fires in WTC 1 and 2966 gallons of fuel contributing to the fires in WTC 2. Of course, even considering that all the fuel NIST claims remained in the buildings stayed at the impact points, the amount of fuel in either Tower would have fit into an above ground swimming pool, hardly a large amount in ratio to the rest of the buildings. You should clarify these facts in your video and fix your statements.
Claim 2: Photographs show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed in fire.
Most likely false: The pictures you show of WTC 7 show a large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face. But this smoke was likely caused by a negative low air pressure acting on the building’s south side. This had the effect of drawing smoke up from the still burning WTC complex and causing it to cling to Building 7. Photos show that the exact same thing happened to the North Tower after the South Tower collapsed. Therefore, I would ask you to remove this claim from your video, as it is most likely incorrect. Also, it should be noted that, regardless of how big the fires were, there is serious doubt that the floors had enough combustible fuel and energy to reach the temperatures NIST claims the fires reached. Dr. Frank Greening, another supporter of the official story, has written that:
"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening
In light of these errors, I would strongly encourage you to keep your promise and fix them. As the anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it would be best of you to keep your other promise that you will not allow the history of 9/11 to be "distorted or rewritten." Real progress has been made in the name of 9/11 truth, and it would be regrettable if the errors in your videos misrepresented this progress.
With all due respect,
Adam
Let me start off by saying that the purpose of this message is not meant in any way to insult you as a researcher or as a person in general. The purpose of this message is meant to simply inform you of errors that you have made in your 9/11 research, and my sincere hope that you will correct such errors. This is not meant to be an argument of any kind, but merely one researcher offering advise to another researcher.
That being said, the reason for this message is largely due to a post you made on your Youtube channel, in which you claimed that if any 9/11 truther could point out anything you got wrong in any of your videos, you would either remove the video or fix the mistake.
I was initially shocked by this statement, as I had done essentially this with my updated "9/11 Un-debunked" series. To date, you have not responded to my videos at all.
I am well aware of how popular your videos are, as many of them are featured on prominent debunker sites. In fact, your work is apparently so good that the government itself is using your videos to discredit the Truth Movement. However, as popular as your videos are, I have found many errors in them.
Now, I happen to agree with many of your videos and their conclusions. For example, you have done a very correct debunking of Pentagon-no-plane theories. However, videos in which you discuss WTC collapse theories are greatly at issue. There are several dozen points I could raise here, but this would just undoubtedly lead to nothing but continuous debating back and forth. So, for this post I have simply listed the problems that I truly think are incorrect, and I feel that you should keep your word that you will fix these mistakes. But of course, if there are any points you believe that I have gotten wrong, feel free to point out where I am incorrect. For each point I will list one of your videos, a claim in that video, followed by my reasons why the claim is wrong on some level. I shall list a problematic claim as either False, Most likely false, Misleading, or possibly a combination of these three.
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible
Claim 1: The puffs of ejected dust were caused by pancaking floors.
Most likely false: Debunkers such as yourself have argued for years that these ejections were caused by pancaking floors falling onto one another. But this claim is contradicted by the fact that many of these ejections were isolated below the demolition wave. The video you show from the NOVA program shows a scenario in which the floors remain intact as flat plates, thereby allowing the pressure to be built up without allowing air to escape anywhere except the windows. But this obviously would not have been the case for the floors collapsing in the Twin Towers, as they were clearly pulverized before they had reached the areas of the ejections below the collapse front. To create the ejections below and at the collapse front, the floors would need to continuously fall as flat plates, as demonstrated by the NOVA simulation. If the floors broke apart as they fell, the falling mass would allow the pressure to be released upward. NIST’s “piston theory” is clearly contradicted by this. What’s more, Dr. Crockett Grabbe has calculated that the horizontal ejection rate of the puffs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers, making it highly unlikely that these ejections were caused by compressed air. Physicist David Chandler has also demonstrated that some of the ejections are in fact not coming out of windows at all, but out of the steel corner columns of the Towers. I would therefore ask you to reevaluate this claim, as evidence strongly goes against it.
Claim 2: The squibs shooting out of the southwest corner of WTC 7 were actually window blinds.
Misleading: While I do agree that the ejections at the southwest corner of WTC 7 are not squibs, your video fails to address the squibs that evidently are shooting out of Building 7 on the north face near the west side. NIST’s piston theory involved a scenario where the floors compressing air created the squibs shooting out of the Towers (see claim 1). But this explanation does not work for the squibs shooting out of the north face of Building 7, as these squibs formed at a time when the floors essentially did not move relative to one another. What’s more, these squibs are not addressed at all in NIST’s final report on Building 7. A search of their 729 page report turns up not a single mention of the word “squib” or “puff.” And the issue is also not addressed at the FAQ section for Building 7 on NIST’s website. I would therefore ask you to at least acknowledge the apparent squibs shooting out of the north face of WTC 7, as these ejections are far more visible than the false ejections you point to in your video. The official investigators have offered no explanation for the ejections, so the ejections are therefore still an unexplained phenomenon in the collapse of the building.
Claim 3: Explosions were not heard at the base of the buildings or from far away.
False: This issue is thoroughly addressed in the video Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Controlled Demolition IS Possible, which shows that the Towers did produce noises consistent with the roar of explosions continuously progressing down the buildings. It also shows that the noises, described as explosions by witnesses, were heard from far across the city. And sounds indicative of explosions have also been found in videos of WTC 1’s collapse and WTC 7’s collapse. Your claim that explosions cannot be heard in any of the videos of the WTC’s collapse is therefore wrong, and I would ask you to either rephrase this statement or remove it entirely.
Claim 4: The controlled demolition of the WTC buildings would have left behind remnants of the explosives used in the debris pile.
Misleading: In your video, you feature a statement made by Brent Blanchard of Protec. He has often claimed that objects such as det cord would have been found everywhere in the debris. However, he has also stated that controlled demolitions can be engineered to be radio controlled, which would eliminate the necessity of det cord. Wireless detonators have been commercially available for decades. And other parts of the explosives would also not necessarily be found, as pointed out by an explosives technician formerly from Controlled Demolition, Inc. He points out that explosives can be engineered to be self consuming, and therefore would not be found in the debris. Because of this, I would ask you to either add a disclaimer to your video, or remove this claim entirely.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
Claim 1: The core of the South Tower survived the collapse.
Misleading: While a section of the core did survive the collapse, video evidence appears to show that the remaining core of the South Tower included neither north nor west columns. You should make this clear in your video, as it contradicts the official explanations since the South Tower initially collapsed to the east.
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist
Claim 1: Members of the 9/11 Truth Movement have accused Charles Burlingame of being “some kind of terrorist.”
False: Of all your videos, this is the only one I have a particular personal problem with. Although it may be implied in Loose Change (which I don’t really think it is), it is incorrect of you to imply in your video that members of the truth movement in general believe this. You are right in saying Charles Burlingame did not work in the Pentagon when Loose Change claims he did. I have nothing against that. But the claim that he was actually one of the conspirators has never been a direct claim of any prominent member of the movement, and I would ultimately ask that you either remove this video entirely, or redo it.
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: Building 7 was “less than 300 feet from the North Tower.”
False: The distance between the north face of WTC 1 and the south face of WTC 7 was actually about 107 meters, or 350 feet. You should correct this as it is a false statement and therefore also misleading to those who watch your video.
Claim 2: The structural damage to Building 7 contributed to the collapse.
False/Misleading: Although you do not specifically state in your video that the damage contributed to the collapse, you do, at the very least, imply it very strongly. But the official NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7 states that the structural damage played no role in initiating the collapse of the building. What’s more, new evidence has been presented which shows that the damage to Building 7 was not as severe as previously thought. I have no fault with you showing pictures of damage to Building 7, but you should make it clear in your video that the official explanation states that this damage did not contribute to the collapse. Otherwise, your video will mislead those do not know what the actual explanation is for Building 7’s collapse.
Claim 3: The fires in Building 7 were fed by a series of diesel generators.
False: Again, according to the official investigators at NIST, the diesel tanks did not play a role in the collapse. NIST states they found no evidence that the fuel lines contributed to the collapse, and that the building had only normal office fires. You need to clarify this, as it is simply not the official story for what happened to the building.
Claim 4: The collapse of Truss 1 initiated the collapse of WTC 7.
False: According to the NIST report, Building 7’s collapse was initiated by the failure of a girder connecting column 44 to column 79, which led to the collapse of column 79, and then the rest of the building. NIST does mention the collapse of the trusses in their report, but they do not claim that any of them failing initiated the “progressive collapse.” As you state in your video, this led to a “vertical” collapse to the roof. NIST claims it was an “east to west” progressive collapse. You should replace your current claim about the trusses with the official explanation about column 79.
Most of the claims you make in this video are incorrect, but admittedly this was before the report was released. However, now that the official report has been released, you should remove this video entirely, as it will undoubtedly give people unfamiliar with 9/11 the wrong ideas about what is supposed to have caused the building to collapse.
9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained
Claim 1: The “aluminum” from Flight 175 could have been heated to 1800°F.
Most likely false: The idea that the fires in the South Tower could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely. It is very difficult for a diffuse hydrocarbon fire to reach these sorts of temperatures. Thomas Eager, who supports the official story and therefore cannot be accused of being a “conspiracy theorist,” has written that:
“In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame…. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types…. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C [1832°F]…. But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio.” -Thomas Eager
One thing that we must agree on is that the fires in the South Tower were clearly weaker than the fires in the North Tower. Also, NIST has no evidence for these kinds of temperatures in either building. The idea that the fires in WTC 2 could have reached 1800°F is extremely unlikely which, as we will see, essentially refutes the entire notion of your video.
Claim 2: Aluminum glows “light orange” at 1800°F.
Misleading: Although aluminum does glow light orange at 1800°F, the color of the material at the front indicates that, if it was aluminum, it was heated to temperatures higher than this.
So even if this material was aluminum, it would still need to be explained what heated it to over 2000°F to get to glow that bright. You should make this clear in your video.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: The fires burned up to 1800°F.
Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Molten Metal Explained.”
9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition
Claim 1: Controlled demolitions create bright flashes in a building.
Misleading: Bright flashes do not always occur in controlled demolitions, as these videos show:
Therefore, I would ask you to either add a disclaimer to your video, or remove this claim entirely.
Claim 2: The demolition waves are explained by pancaking floors.
Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible.”
Claim 3: Cameras did not pick up any sounds of explosions.
False: See Claim 3 for “9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible,” and also this video.
Claim 4: The South Tower’s core survived the collapse.
Misleading: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed.
Claim 5: The initial antenna drop of WTC 1 as seen from the north was actually an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the antenna to the south.
Most likely false: This video features a more westward shot of the North Tower’s collapse at minute 6:13. The antenna did rotate south seconds later, but the initial motion was almost entirely vertical. You should clarify this in your video.
Claim 6: Building 7’s collapse started with the failure of its three large trusses.
False: See Claim 4 for “9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained.”
Claim 7: Explosives would have caused the buildings to collapse at free-fall speed.
Most likely false/Misleading: In fact, it has been a misconception by both sides of the argument that controlled demolitions cause a building collapse at the rate of free-fall. Explosives rarely if ever cause a building to collapse at free-fall acceleration. The question that should really be asked is, “did the buildings fall in time intervals consistent with buildings destroyed with explosives?” And it turns out that they did. You should either add a disclaimer to your video or remove this statement entirely.
Claim 8: Controlled demolitions cause a building to collapse into its own footprint.
Misleading: Although demolitions usually do this, it is not strictly true that it always happens, as this video shows at minute 8:32. As for Building 7, the fact that it fell somewhat outside its footprint may have been caused by the simple fact that it was a particularly large building. No demolition company had ever demolished a building the size of WTC 7 before, so who’s to say how compact the debris pile would be if the building were brought down in a classic demolition fashion? The buildings it damaged were quite close to it. As this video shows at minute 7:42, buildings brought down by classic controlled demolition methods can fall outside their footprint. But the fact is, the debris from WTC 7 was almost entirely within the footprint of the previously standing building.
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
Claim 1: The elements noted by Dr. Jones were found in common materials in the WTC.
Misleading: Although the elements you list were abundant at the WTC, what you fail to note is that these elements were found in the iron-rich microspheres found in the dust, not the dust itself. The spheres show that the chemicals were formed due to melting and/or vaporization, which is due to surface tension. This indicates that the various chemicals found in the spheres were melted at the same time, forming spheres. The spheres found had the chemical signature of FE, AL, K, SI, and various additives and variations of thermate. Different aluminothermic reactions have different properties; some are faster reacting, like sulfur which reduces the melting point of steel. The idea of the spheres forming from an office fire is virtually impossible. Iron cannot melt in office fires and the melting points of these metals are so different that there would be a sizeable time delay from heating WTC common materials. Then they also have to cool together at the same time to form a sphere. Thermate, however, provides the solution to this question because the reaction is very fast. No other mechanism is known to provide spheres such as these. You should therefore clarify your statements about the elements that Dr. Jones has found.
Claim 2: The elements were not found in their correct quantities.
Misleading: In this case you are confusing Steven Jones arbitrary usage of the word thermate with military grade Thermate-TH3, which is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur. There are a wide variety of different types of thermite, thermate, and other aluminothermic reactions. So your figure of sulfur making up 2% of thermate is based on only one specific type of thermate. Also, it should be noted that the sulfur likely did not come the gypsum wallboard, as demonstrated here. You should correct this statement or add a disclaimer.
Claim 3: Barium nitrate and aluminum oxide needed to be found but weren’t.
False: As I have already demonstrated, barium nitrate does not have to be found. And as for the aluminum oxide, oxides of aluminum are common in the environment, and probably a major form of the aluminum found in the WTC dust. Because the thermite reaction generates aluminum oxide as an aerosol, it tends to disperse rather than clumping with the iron-rich initially-liquid residues. Note that the composition of residues of known thermites is a good match for the ignition residues that Jones, et. al. examined from the red-gray chips. So therefore, aluminum oxide also does not need to be found. You should correct these claims in your video.
Update: As it turns out, the USGS apparently did report finding traces of aluminum oxide in the WTC dust. Therefore, the claim that aluminum oxide was not present in the dust should be removed entirely from your video.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
Claim 1: The molten metal would have solidified and would not have still been molten 6 weeks later.
Misleading: The presence of the pools of molten metal after a thermate reaction would seem to indicate a continuous chemical reaction occurring in the pile, as documented by the peer-reviewed paper Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for Energetic Material. You should clarify this in your video.
Claim 2: Temperatures of up to 1342°F were recorded in the debris piles.
False: Actually, the NASA thermal images show that temperatures of about 1377°F were recorded in the debris. But there are other studies which indicate even higher temperatures than this. According to the R. J. Lee report, lead had apparently become hot enough to volatilize (boil) and vaporize.
“The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicates the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.” –RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature, 2004, page 12
Although the word “vaporize” was never used in the final version of the report, the 2003 version of this passage explicitly referred to temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Study, 2003, page 5)
Lead does not boil and vaporize until it reaches temperatures of 1749°C [3180°F]. As the report indicates, therefore, the temperatures must have been not merely high, but extremely high. Other evidence also indicates the temperatures were far hotter than anything normal fires could cause. You should address these issues in your video or delete the claim entirely.
Claim 3: The initial fires were burning at 1800°F.
Most likely false: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: Molten Metal Explained.”
Claim 4: Pictures show glowing metal not flowing and is therefore not molten.
False: Close-ups of the crane shot show that molten metal is flowing off.
Claim 5: The pools of molten metal seen by the first responders and clean-up workers were pools of molten aluminum.
Most likely false: This argument is contradicted by the fact that pools of molten metal were also found in the debris of Building 7 as well. Building 7 was not hit by a plane, and it was also not clad in aluminum like the Towers were. But what’s more, the fact that the molten metal remained reddish-orange six weeks after the attacks indicates that the metal had fairly low heat conductivity and relatively large heat capacity. Therefore, it is more likely that the metal was steel or iron rather than aluminum. You should remove this claim and correct it in your video.
9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim
Claim 1: The planes that hit the Towers were travelling at 490 and 590 miles per hour.
Misleading: The speeds you claim the planes were going at seem to come from the FEMA report. However, the NIST report states that the planes were travelling closer to 440 and 540 miles per hour. You should reevaluate this claim and fix it.
Claim 2: Building 7 was heavily damaged by falling debris.
False/Misleading: See Claim 2 for “9/11 Debunked: WTC 7’s Collapse Explained.”
Claim 3: There are many examples of steel-framed buildings collapsing from fires.
Misleading: As this video shows, your comparison of the WTC buildings with smaller steel structures is highly misleading. All I have ever seen debunkers compare the WTC buildings to are smaller steel structures that have collapsed from fire, but never other skyscrapers that have not collapsed from fire. You do feature the Windsor Tower, but ultimately its partial collapse supports our side of the argument. Others have attempted to show that other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the fires in the WTC. I have shown these claims to be incorrect and unfounded. Unless you can make better arguments, I would recommend removing the entire video, as it is highly misleading.
9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact
Claim 1: The Twin Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 travelling at 180 mph, being also low on fuel.
Most likely false: For this particular statement, you offer no link or source. As this video shows, there were numerous pre-9/11 studies which showed that the buildings were built to withstand a 707 travelling at 600mph and filled with fuel. Even the Port Authority stated that the buildings could withstand a 707 going at 600mph. From the NIST report:
“An additional load, stated by the Port Authority to have been considered in the design of the Towers, was the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest commercial airliner when the Towers were designed, hitting the building at its full speed of 600mph.” -NCS NCSTAR1, p. 6
Claim 2: The planes were travelling at 490 and 590 mph.
Misleading: See Claim 1 for “9/11 Debunked: The ‘First Time in History’ Claim.”
Claim 3: Because the wingspan of a 767 is greater than that of a 707, a 767 would have severed more columns.
Most likely false/Misleading: Admittedly, the wings of a 767 are longer. However, there is another difference between the wings of these two planes, which are the engines attached to them. A 707 has four engines, while a 767 only has two. The engines of an airplane are undoubtedly the most solid part of the plane. The wings themselves are merely made of aluminum, and once they impacted the perimeter columns, it would have been more difficult to severe the thicker core columns. The planes’ engines would do quite a bit more damage than the wings once they started impacting core columns. Even if the wingspan of a 767 is larger than a 707, I think we can agree that a plane with four steel and titanium engines will do more damage than a plane with only two.
Claim 4: Fires were not taken into consideration when the Towers were built.
Most likely false: To back up this claim, you provide a quote from Leslie Robertson, who you incorrectly state was the chief structural engineer for the WTC. In fact, John Skilling is more likely to have been the lead engineer for the Towers. In a 1993 Seattle Times article, Skilling was described as the head structural engineer. Robertson was not mentioned there, nor in an article in the Engineering News-Record that discussed the design in 1964. In City in the Sky, Robertson is called the “rising young engineer with Skilling's firm” (p. 159). In Men of Steel, Robertson is referred to during the design phase as “one of the up-and-coming engineers on [Skilling’s] staff,” Skilling’s “young associate,” whom Skilling “assigned… to help him prepare a proposal” to the Port Authority’s board. Skilling’s firm was named Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Clearly, Skilling was a senior partner at the firm and Robertson was his subordinate. Therefore, the claim that Robertson was the chief engineer for the Towers is almost certainly false. John Skilling, however, stated that the buildings could have survived severe fires from a plane crash.
“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.” –John Skilling, Lead structural engineer for the WTC
You should address these facts and correct your statements about the WTC design parameters and Leslie Robertson’s position in the construction of the buildings.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Small or Oxygen-Starved Fires
Claim 1: Roughly 7000 gallons of fuel remained in each of the Towers after the initial impacts.
Misleading: This appears to only be true of the North Tower, as NIST claims that approximately 6947 gallons of fuel remained in WTC 1, while only 5932 was in WTC 2. However, the idea that all this fuel remained within the impacted areas is contradicted by the FEMA report. In NIST’s most detailed quantitative report, NCSTAR 1-5F Computer Simulation of the Fires, the jet fuel estimates are provided for each of the impact floors, supposedly accurate to the gallon. In the report, it is stated that NIST used FEMA’s assumption that half of the fuel that the remained within the Towers flowed away from the impact zones. It states:
“Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present the predicted fuel distributions from the impact analysis. Of the total amount of fuel distributed to each floor, only 40 percent was used in the simulations. The reasoning behind this estimate followed that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) study (McAllister 2002). It has been estimated by various forms of analysis (Zalosh 1995; Baum and Rehm 2002) that roughly 20 percent of the jet fuel was consumed in the fireballs that were observed outside of the buildings within seconds of impact. The authors of the FEMA report suggested that half of the fuel not consumed in the fireballs could have flowed away, presumably down the elevator shafts and stairwells based on eyewitness accounts. Some additional discussion of the fireballs may be found in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A.
The jet fuel consumption estimate put forth by the FEMA team was used in the model because (1) no evidence or analysis emerged that significantly altered the FEMA estimate, and (2) the simulations were insensitive to both the amount and distribution of the jet fuel. Sensitivity studies showed that the amount of fuel spilled in the simulation only influenced the results of the first few minutes; the long-term behavior of the simulated fires was unaffected.” -NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, page 56
So, ultimately NIST assumes that half of the fuel in each of the buildings flowed away from the impact points, and therefore did not contribute to the fires that supposedly caused the buildings to collapse. That leaves 3474 gallons of fuel contributing to the fires in WTC 1 and 2966 gallons of fuel contributing to the fires in WTC 2. Of course, even considering that all the fuel NIST claims remained in the buildings stayed at the impact points, the amount of fuel in either Tower would have fit into an above ground swimming pool, hardly a large amount in ratio to the rest of the buildings. You should clarify these facts in your video and fix your statements.
Claim 2: Photographs show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed in fire.
Most likely false: The pictures you show of WTC 7 show a large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face. But this smoke was likely caused by a negative low air pressure acting on the building’s south side. This had the effect of drawing smoke up from the still burning WTC complex and causing it to cling to Building 7. Photos show that the exact same thing happened to the North Tower after the South Tower collapsed. Therefore, I would ask you to remove this claim from your video, as it is most likely incorrect. Also, it should be noted that, regardless of how big the fires were, there is serious doubt that the floors had enough combustible fuel and energy to reach the temperatures NIST claims the fires reached. Dr. Frank Greening, another supporter of the official story, has written that:
"NIST's collapse initiation hypothesis requires that structural steel temperatures on floors 12/13 significantly exceeded 300°C [570°F]--a condition that could never have been realized with NIST's postulated 32 kg/m2 fuel loading." -Dr. Frank Greening
In light of these errors, I would strongly encourage you to keep your promise and fix them. As the anniversary of 9/11 approaches, it would be best of you to keep your other promise that you will not allow the history of 9/11 to be "distorted or rewritten." Real progress has been made in the name of 9/11 truth, and it would be regrettable if the errors in your videos misrepresented this progress.
With all due respect,
Adam
Thursday, July 8, 2010
911 Truth in 5 minutes: The Key Evidence vs Mainstream Conspiracy Denialism & Propaganda
The Hard Science:
There IS overwhelming physical evidence that reveals explosives were used to bring down the 3 WTC buildings on 911. There is nothing theoretical about the claim - forensic proof has sealed the case.
Simply put, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of High Tech Explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapse of steel framed buildings, WITHOUT using incendiaries or explosives of the sort commonly employed by the military and demolition companies.
Either basic scientific principles (ones that have NEVER been disproved) are drastically in error or we are looking at the physical evidence of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Ergo, 911 was an inside job.
The Propaganda:
For almost 9 years there has been a concerted effort by official investigators and the mainstream media to keep people ignorant of this information. However, thanks to the work of independent investigators and the availability of information via the Internet, these efforts have largely failed. The scientific proof of the inside job is irrevocably in the public domain.
However, there still remains a high level of ignorance concerning this key scientific evidence - due primarily to a self induced, culturally influenced aversion to even consider the 911 truth question.
In today's society people have been conditioned to reject all things labeled "conspiracy" as if such claims were wholly unsubstantiated. Association with mental illness and irrationality have hamstrung our ability to even look at the data. This is especially true when it comes to issues that can be labelled as being part of a "big government conspiracy". Most people when it comes to these topics end up being too indignant, ignorant, embarrassed or afraid to even discuss them. Alas, no matter how good the information, even the most intelligent among us who decide not to weigh up the evidence, will always fail to see through the official deceptions.
Moreover, because conspiracy claims are the subject of such strong ridicule, many people who do actually chance to look into the details often find them psychologically too difficult to accept - regardless of how damning the information may be.
Further adding to the disconnect here is the general population's inexperience at recognising the significance of hard scientific evidence. Few people, upon seeing video of the freefall collapse of WTC7, or seeing data that confirms structural steel had melted in all three buildings, would understand the strength of this hard science - even if explained to them.
On top of all these hindrances we also have to deal with the disinformation put out by various "independent" 911 truth debunking "experts" who help fuel society's irrational anti-conspiracy bias (conspiracy-denialism). Appearing online and in various 911 "documentaries" these individuals push distortions, provide pseudo-scientific trick explanations, heap ridicule and tell outright lies about the facts in question. Their agenda is to act as credible authority figures, using their academic or professional backgrounds to discredit the hard evidence and build a "consensus" opinion backing the official lies. The mission, transparent to the well informed, is to basically hoodwink open minded members of the public. Many of these debunkers, who are too intelligent not to understand the science proving the inside job, appear to be on the Government payroll. Indeed most are probably involved in a modern day version of Operation Mockingbird.
Nevertheless, despite the pervasive lies presented in the official 911 reports, the censorship by the corporate media, the disinformation efforts of the supposedly independent debunkers, and our own inabilities to come to terms with challenging information, the physical evidence of the inside job still stands. The World Trade Centre forensic evidence proves the official account is a lie and ends the 911 conspiracy debate. [Presently there are 6 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the inside job hypothesis that remain unchallenged in the scientific literature.]
Whatever the truth is concerning the involvement of Osama Bin Laden, he certainly could not have rigged the Twin Towers or WTC7 with explosives.
The War on Terror is a hoax designed to foment conflict between the West and militant Islamic groups for the purpose of US strategic domination of the Middle East. Only the truth about 911 will end these Wars.
The first step is identifying the propaganda to be overcome whilst simultaneously recognising the hard scientific evidence of the inside job. Once EVERYONE understands the truth then the game will be over.
By Spookypunkos
There IS overwhelming physical evidence that reveals explosives were used to bring down the 3 WTC buildings on 911. There is nothing theoretical about the claim - forensic proof has sealed the case.
Simply put, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of High Tech Explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapse of steel framed buildings, WITHOUT using incendiaries or explosives of the sort commonly employed by the military and demolition companies.
Either basic scientific principles (ones that have NEVER been disproved) are drastically in error or we are looking at the physical evidence of the controlled demolition of the WTC buildings. Ergo, 911 was an inside job.
The Propaganda:
For almost 9 years there has been a concerted effort by official investigators and the mainstream media to keep people ignorant of this information. However, thanks to the work of independent investigators and the availability of information via the Internet, these efforts have largely failed. The scientific proof of the inside job is irrevocably in the public domain.
However, there still remains a high level of ignorance concerning this key scientific evidence - due primarily to a self induced, culturally influenced aversion to even consider the 911 truth question.
In today's society people have been conditioned to reject all things labeled "conspiracy" as if such claims were wholly unsubstantiated. Association with mental illness and irrationality have hamstrung our ability to even look at the data. This is especially true when it comes to issues that can be labelled as being part of a "big government conspiracy". Most people when it comes to these topics end up being too indignant, ignorant, embarrassed or afraid to even discuss them. Alas, no matter how good the information, even the most intelligent among us who decide not to weigh up the evidence, will always fail to see through the official deceptions.
Moreover, because conspiracy claims are the subject of such strong ridicule, many people who do actually chance to look into the details often find them psychologically too difficult to accept - regardless of how damning the information may be.
Further adding to the disconnect here is the general population's inexperience at recognising the significance of hard scientific evidence. Few people, upon seeing video of the freefall collapse of WTC7, or seeing data that confirms structural steel had melted in all three buildings, would understand the strength of this hard science - even if explained to them.
On top of all these hindrances we also have to deal with the disinformation put out by various "independent" 911 truth debunking "experts" who help fuel society's irrational anti-conspiracy bias (conspiracy-denialism). Appearing online and in various 911 "documentaries" these individuals push distortions, provide pseudo-scientific trick explanations, heap ridicule and tell outright lies about the facts in question. Their agenda is to act as credible authority figures, using their academic or professional backgrounds to discredit the hard evidence and build a "consensus" opinion backing the official lies. The mission, transparent to the well informed, is to basically hoodwink open minded members of the public. Many of these debunkers, who are too intelligent not to understand the science proving the inside job, appear to be on the Government payroll. Indeed most are probably involved in a modern day version of Operation Mockingbird.
Nevertheless, despite the pervasive lies presented in the official 911 reports, the censorship by the corporate media, the disinformation efforts of the supposedly independent debunkers, and our own inabilities to come to terms with challenging information, the physical evidence of the inside job still stands. The World Trade Centre forensic evidence proves the official account is a lie and ends the 911 conspiracy debate. [Presently there are 6 peer reviewed scientific papers supporting the inside job hypothesis that remain unchallenged in the scientific literature.]
Whatever the truth is concerning the involvement of Osama Bin Laden, he certainly could not have rigged the Twin Towers or WTC7 with explosives.
The War on Terror is a hoax designed to foment conflict between the West and militant Islamic groups for the purpose of US strategic domination of the Middle East. Only the truth about 911 will end these Wars.
The first step is identifying the propaganda to be overcome whilst simultaneously recognising the hard scientific evidence of the inside job. Once EVERYONE understands the truth then the game will be over.
By Spookypunkos
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Debating with Uncle Sam... sort of.
Recently, a debunker named unclesamsnephew666 has taken it upon himself to comment on my recent film- World Trade Center 7: An Engineered Collapse. I've encountered him before and was curious as to what he thought. Here was our "discussion."Viewer discretion is advised. The language is a bit obscene.
(I posted as my Youtube account, Citizenfor911Truth1)
Started with a quote he put on part 21 of my wtc7 film:
_______________________________________________
unclesam:
where do you go from here? how about you go fuck yourselves for spread lies and misinformation, for defending jihadists, and for shitting on the graves of 3000 people.
that's where you should go from here, bullshit artist asswipe followers of alex jones and jason bermas.
there are dozens of quotes from firemen who say the fire was huge and FDNY predicted hours in advance that 7 was going to collapse.
have the balls to say they were in on it, or explain them away, truthtards.
_________________________________________________
I responded and we went from there:
Citizen:
First of all, I'd appreciate it if you'd use better language on my videos. Second, I do not believe the fire fighters were in on it. And third, this issue has already been thoroughly explained in this article:
Waiting for Seven: WTC 7 Collapse Warnings in the FDNY Oral Histories
Make sure to explain that away.
unclesam:
"this issue has already been thoroughly explained in this article"
WAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!
that article settles NOTHING for truthers. just another thread to cling to.
just how fucking bad do you truthtards want this idiocy to be true?
its like if any of you just admitted alex jones and jason bermas and the rest of the truthtard "leaders" you've been duped by are frauds, you'd die or something.
you wont die if you face reality. I promise.
Citizen:
If the article truly settles nothing, then you should have no problem refuting every point it makes. Or, how about trying to refute any points I made in my film? I assume you watched it all, but I suppose you might have just skipped it and went right to the end. Until you try some rational refutation instead of pointless insults, you don't have a leg to stand on.
unclesam:
if it had a point, I would refute it.
what it seems to be saying is that maybe some of the FDNY firefighters might have possibly been duped by a hypothetical person who was, in fact, "in on it."
it is a lame attempt at explaining away dozens of quotes of firemen who were not surprised that 7 collapsed.
most of those quotes also nuke truther claims that 7 wasnt badly damaged or that there werent huge fires in 7. how to explain away those?
"how about trying to refute any points I made in my film"
I would, but consider this...
"Based largely on the research and information from David Ray Griffins..."
...what's the point? this fraud has been exposed so many times in so many ways as a clown and a fool, only someone who really, really, really wants 9/11 to be an inside job would take him seriously.
imagine, a theology professor trying to keep up with an army of world-class engineers from places like MIT.
what a complete JOKE!
Citizen:
Again, if you want to avoid a rational debate because you have no answer for any one of my points, that's fine. But stop posting these disgusting insults on my videos. I'm quite sick of you implying that I want to be right, because I don't. I don't think anyone in the movement wants to be right. And anyone who does, I believe, should be kicked out of the movement. If you continue with the insults and avoid rational debate, I will block you.
unclesam:
you have no points and DO want to be right.
if you think that is an insult, what can I tell you?
david ray griffin STILL talks about living hijackers. ridiculous. 8+ years, zero photos or video, no interviews, and not one journalist on earth who wants to be the most famous journalist ever. could it be more ridiculous?
why would a theologian have more science and engineering clout than MIT? explain that.
rational debate:
do you believe the fires were small and the damage to WTC7 was minor? most truthers do.
if so, the paper bending over backwards to explain away the dozens of firemen on record as being concerend about 7 collapsing hours in advance doesn't address that.
many of the collapse quotes also include mentions of the heavy damage and huge fires.
were firemen "led to believe" this and just repeated it? or are these 2 points you concede to the debunkers? which is it?
____________________________________________________
From there we started sending full messages:
Citizen:
First of all, thank you for trying to be more civil (even though you're still saying I want to be right).
Now, I would like to start off by saying that just because David Griffin wrote the book does not mean it's all his research. He wrote about the research done by other very experienced scientists and engineers. Yes, some of his views I addmittedly don't agree with, but he's not the only guy on the team. You don't have to limit yourself to just David Ray Griffin. As for your quote about MIT engineers having more experience, I know an MIT engineer who questions the official story.
To address your WTC 7 claims, let me first say that instead of going to the fire fighters for quotes about how big the fires were, why not address what NIST actually says about the fires. After all, that is the official report. If you think NIST downplayed the intensity of the fires, you'd better write them a letter asking for correction. I am not saying the fires weren't big, I'm just saying they were not big enough to cause the building to collapse. And it's important to note that many fire fighters on the scene did not think the fires were that intense and were surprised they were not fighting them. For example, Cheif Daniel Nigro is often mentioned saying that he felt the building was in danger of collapsing. But what isn't mentioned is that there were two other fire cheifs there as well who were not concerned about the building collapsing. So it seems that it was by no means a unanimous opinion that the building had huge fires and would collapse. As for the structural damage, regardless of how much damage there was, it doesn't matter at this point because NIST concluded that the damage played no role in the collapse. They said the building fell from fires alone and that it still would have collapsed if there had been no damage at all. These are all points I addressed in my film. This claim about the damage is a claim that debunkers keep making even though the report has been out for well over a year. So you and every other debunker needs to stop making that claim, unless you think NIST is wrong. I do not think the fire fighters are lying, but I do think that seeing two giant skyscapers collapsing may have led them to believe a third one could come down.
By the way, speaking of the damage, care to explain this damage to building 7? I've asked other debunkers and not one has answered me.
unclesam:
the final NIST repot came out less than 6 months ago. the video you linked is at least 2 years ago (when it was posted...when he gave the speech, I do not know).
has he updated his position? has the NIST report satisfied him?
I havent looked at it yet, but that date stood out so I am wondering if it is even relevant anymore. do you know if he has responded to the NIST report?
"To address your WTC 7 claims, let me first say that instead of going to the fire fighters for quotes about how big the fires were, why not address what NIST actually says about the fires"
why not do both? I realize truthers dont want to come out and say firefighters are liars or in on it (even jerkoff bermas retracted his utterly despicable comment that "the firemen were paid off"), but there was foreknowledge by the FDNY and the collapse wasn't the completely unexpected, smoking gun event most truthers say it is.
that's one reason out of many why what the firemen said is important.
but what's most surprising about the firemen quotes is how many truthers are completely unaware of them. same thing with the east penthouse. these are two very basic facts of the day. anyone who claims to have researched enough to say inside job and doesn't even know these two things is the very definition of Full of Sh*t.
and that's what I focus on. I dont set out to defend the govt and the official explanation any more than you are trying to defend jihadists. I call out the lies and bullshit of truther claims. I dont have a problem with people questioning and researching on their own, I have a problem with people reading truther sites, not bothering to find out what they read is a lie/bullshit or irrelevant, enjoying that warm fuzzy feeling inside (for whatever reason), and then accepting and repeating said bullshit as fact.
I also have a problem with people who simply cannot let go of dogma and accept perfectly reasonable answers to their questions. tell me why, to this day, truthers STILL say "fire cant melt steel" when talking about the collapse. why? it is jaw-dropping that this persists. no official anything EVER said melted steel caused the collapse, but truthers chant this line like zombies nearly a decade later. another example is asking why the 9/11 Comm. Report doesn't mention WTC7. the answer was probably issued 30 minutes after it was first asked. the report it is NOT an engineering document. it is NOT intended to explain building collapse. FEMA and NIST were handling that. this makes perfect sense, and is completely reasonable. yet, still, truthers will ask this question.
those are just two of the reasons the TM is so wrong. I could go on and on about cherry-picking (talking about fire alone, as if the airplane strikes and explosions dont factor in), other straw man arguments (not just "fire cant melt steel"), taking things out of context (mike walters quote in LC), and the rest of the logical fallacies.
what do you make of a movement that does this and calls itself "truth"? it is ridiculous and there is no doubt in my mind there needs to be a desire to believe this to continue adhering to it.
which is why I laugh at how 90% of the truthers I do discuss this with all want to give me a f-ing history lesson about abuse of power and/or they just come out and tell me that I MUST love bush, the patriot act, love the fed govt. as if it is one of the other.
it all adds up to a desire to be in on something against the The Man.
ok, got a little sidetracked there. back to the firemen quotes. another reason they matter is that many talk about large raging fires, which flies in the face of another common truther talking point, 7 suffered little damage and the fires were small.
"I am not saying the fires weren't big, I'm just saying they were not big enough to cause the building to collapse"
well, congrats on the first point. you dont even know how few of the 80-100 truthers I've discussed this with cannot bring themselves to admit this.
who are the other fire chiefs and what did they say? before I accept that, I'd like to be sure what your presenting isn't read thru the truther filter (i.e., "I heard explosions" = "there were bombs!"). if these fire chiefs and their words are in the video, which part is it?
"it doesn't matter at this point because NIST concluded that the damage played no role in the collapse"
I dont see how that is a reason to counter the common truther lie that the fires were small.
and "no role" is an exaggeration. how did the fires start? was it from....damage caused by falling debris? yes, that is what NIST says. which is why their own news release says "The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was PRIMARILY due to fires, the Commerce Departments National Institute of Standards..." (emphasis mine, note the conditional word)
it also says this...
"Finally, the report notes that while debris impact from the collapse of WTC 1 initiated fires in WTC 7, the resulting structural damage had LITTLE effect in causing the collapse of WTC 7." (emphasis mine, note the conditional word)
sorry if it seems like I am nitpicking, but I think it is worthwhile to be precise when faced with an erroneous absolute.
"They said the building fell from fires alone and that it still would have collapsed if there had been no damage at all."
except that without the falling debris and the damage it caused, there wouldn't have been a fire. this is like talking about the fires in the towers and leaving out the airplane impact and explosion.
"This claim about the damage is a claim that debunkers keep making even though the report has been out for well over a year. So you and every other debunker needs to stop making that claim, unless you think NIST is wrong."
you're putting words in my mouth, "...that claim...". what claim?
what I say is the truther claim that there was little or minor damage is bullshit. period. how does that contradict NIST? what claim am I making?
"By the way, speaking of the damage, care to explain this damage to building 7?"
you want me to describe what I see in pictures they dont show on truther websites (unless, of course, they are making baseless accusations of photoshop)? looks like an approx. 12-15 story gouge out of a corner. lots of facade damage, apparently not much structural damage. enough to spark a fire whether from a severed gas line or something else. I'm not really sure about much more and I have no problem admitting that.
which brings up another truther trait that points to following something other than the facts to get to their conclusion: certainty about so many things that no one can possibly be certain of, regardless of what they believe. it is rampant among the many truthers I have come across. but it eventually gets a little more complicated as they try to avoid my own questions. it often ends up like this...
1. I'm absolutely sure
2. we'll never know everything
3. no one can ever convince me it wasn't an inside job
4. I dont want to talk about it any more
unbelievable.
Citizen:
The final NIST report on WTC 7 came out in late 2008, just so you know. I want to make clear that I don't know who these truthers are that are making these claims about steel melting in the Towers and other things, but that's not me. I do believe there was molten metal in the debris of the WTC weeks after the attacks (most likely molten steel or molten iron) but I do not think steel was melted by the fires in the Towers. I would apperciate it if you would only address points that I have made. I am a truther, but I am my own person and have independent thought. If I mention points others have brought up, of course you can address them. But ultimately, just address what I'm saying here and now.
Yes, the fires were not small for fires, but they were small compared to larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers.
I would be happy to give you the fire cheifs. They are in this video at about minute 2:14
I even have links provided for their quotes.
I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. It's just that I have debunkers constantly telling me about the damage to building 7 and I have to keep reminding them what NIST actually says. NIST made two computer models of building 7, one where there was fire and damage, and one with only fire. Both models collapsed (even though niether one looks like the actual collapse).
The reason why I brought up the video of the gash in building 7's side is because it is strong evidence of something other than damage from debris. I think that we can agree that no amount of random pieces of flung debris could cause that damage to WTC 7. Incindentally, that video was first found on a debunker website. NIST doesn't mention this gash in their report. I have addressed this issue in my film and have a plausible scenario described in it.
I would love to hear your take on it. I hope to hear back from you.
unclesam:
my bad on the date. not sure what I was thinking.
anyway, do you know if that guy revised his position since it came out?
"...but I do not think steel was melted by the fires in the Towers. I would apperciate it if you would only address points that I have made."
seriously? you have a problem with me asking you why you think the popular truther non-point "fire cant melt steel" continues to persist? or what that does to your movement's credibility? you won't answer those?
"Yes, the fires were not small for fires, but they were small compared to larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers."
could you possibly be more vague? and point does this....can this....possibly make? it wasn't the biggest fire ever? is that the point you are making? did anyone say it was? or did anyone say it was as big as other larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers? what are you getting at?
"I would be happy to give you the fire cheifs"
world-class quote-mining, taking literal what suits and not what doesn't, assuming what the "meant" and using it as a position of reference falsely. what a load of shit. to come out and make the statement, based on the fireman saying he saw fire on three levels and drawing conclusions from that pretending you know what he meant, that he didn't expect collapse, is laughable.
like I was saying, there is a reason your movement's credibility is at toilet level.
"I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. It's just that..."
...you did exactly what you were so indignant about with me? something about responding to only what you say.
"The reason why I brought up the video of the gash in building 7's side is because it is strong evidence of something other than damage from debris. I think that we can agree that no amount of random pieces of flung debris could cause that damage to WTC 7."
you think wrong. the randomness of what happened is impossible to quantify completely. this is another common truther stumbling point: the expectation that every last detail can be 100% explained to their already-impossible and hopelessly biased standard.
"I would love to hear your take on it."
the one person being interviewed saying 9:30 instead of 10:30...again, I love how truthers can divine the true thoughts of people. as if you know if he was right, wrong, mistaken, misspoke, or whatever. it's a joke and it is one of the foundations of the entire movement. one assumption after another that all have to be right and an army of world-class scientists and engineers all have to be wrong (or in on it). how can you possibly take this shit seriously?
Citizen:
"anyway, do you know if that guy revised his position since it came out?"
I'm sorry, which person are you talking about?
"seriously? you have a problem with me asking you why you think the popular truther non-point "fire cant melt steel" continues to persist?"
I have a problem with you addressing claims that I myself am not personally making. Again, if I bring up a topic, address it. But if it's a claim I'm not making, don't bother.
"could you possibly be more vague? and point does this....can this....possibly make? it wasn't the biggest fire ever? is that the point you are making? did anyone say it was? or did anyone say it was as big as other larger, longer lasting fires in other skyscrapers? what are you getting at?"
Fine. If you think I'm being vague, then I will fix that:
"you did exactly what you were so indignant about with me? something about responding to only what you say."
I brought it up because you did address the issue, remember?
Your quote: "most of those quotes also nuke truther claims that 7 wasnt badly damaged"
"world-class quote-mining,"
Yes, it's only quote mining when truthers investigate, right?
"you think wrong. the randomness of what happened is impossible to quantify completely. this is another common truther stumbling point: the expectation that every last detail can be 100% explained to their already-impossible and hopelessly biased standard."
I made a video on this. Perhaps you should take a look.
unclesam:
I meant jeff king of MIT.
so you won't comment on your movement's continued use of thoroughly debunked claims. I can't say I blame you, but the credibility stays at ant ass level as long as that continues. people in the movement like you who are brave enough to admit that many of the tired old talking points are bullshit aren't helping things by pretend they dont exist.
you believe you are adding more specificity by showing me that lame video of other buildings burning? how?
you said me "and every other debunker need to stop making that claim" and I accused you of putting words in my mouth since I didnt make that claim. so I am not sure what..
"I brought it up because you did address the issue, remember? Your quote: "most of those quotes also nuke truther claims that 7 wasnt badly damaged " "
....means.
my point is that truthers are wrong when they talk about minor damage. dozens of firefighters say otherwise. why do you believe someone other than firefighters who were there and observed the damage? please explain that.
"it's only quote mining when truthers investigate, right?"
to quote you: "if it's a claim I'm not making, don't bother."
I didnt say that. but in your case, it is obviously quote-mining and the reason you are so defensive about that charge is because truthers are accused of it all the time. the reason for that is because truthers are guilty of it all the time.
"I made a video on this. Perhaps you should take a look."
can you be more specific? what did you address and what is the link?
can you admit that the firefighters quotes about the severity of damage to 7 proves the truther talking point that the damage was minor is false?
and what is it about the gash that you think is so obviously NOT caused by falling debris from the tower collapse?
Citizen:
"I meant jeff king of MIT."
As far as I know he hasn't changed his position.If he has, I would love to know.
"so you won't comment on your movement's continued use of thoroughly debunked claims."
I just don't comment on things I don't believe. I know that there are many disagreements in the movement about what to believe and what not to believe, and I wish that didn't have to happen. It would be great if we could all agree on the same things, but I know that's tough to accomplish. I do occasionally try to get other truthers to drop some of their beliefs. For instance, I thoroughly DO NOT believe in the whole "no plane hit the Pentagon" theory, but I know other truthers do and I wish they would rethink their views. In many ways I'm trying to correct debunkers and truthers whose views I feel are incorrect.
"you believe you are adding more specificity by showing me that lame video of other buildings burning? how?"
I don't know how I could have been more specific. When skyscrapers have burned for 17,
18, and even 24 hours without collapsing, I obviously am going to have a problem with a building collapsing from fire in 7 hours.
"my point is that truthers are wrong when they talk about minor damage. dozens of firefighters say otherwise. why do you believe someone other than firefighters who were there and observed the damage? please explain that."
Again, I don't disagree with the firefighters about what they saw. It's just that the official investigators say the structural damage had nothing to do with the collapse, so it seems a little insignifigant to discuss. What's more is that I'm having trouble understanding what caused the damage to the building. There's that famous shot from popular mechanics that shows the bottom southwest corner "scooped out" as they say. Now popular mechanics has actually said that they have pictures showing the full damage to building 7, but they won't release them. Why? That certainly doesn't seem fair. The problem I have is that I've seen other pictures of that section of the building, and it shows the building wasn't scooped out!
http://www.calgary911truth.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/17/combosmall_2.jpg
http://loveforlife.com.au/files/911%205.jpg
You have to admit that is very strange.
"I didnt say that."
Um... I'm sorry, but yes you did. In your last message: -"world-class quote-mining, taking literal what suits and not what doesn't, assuming what the "meant" and using it as a position of reference falsely."
"and what is it about the gash that you think is so obviously NOT caused by falling debris from the tower collapse?"
The problem is that it doesn't look like any other kind of damage to the other buildings. All you have to do is look at the pictures of the other damaged buildings and you can see what I'm talking about. The gash in the building was perfectly straight, vertically going down the building, and was very neat. It wasn't jagged or destructive looking. It literally looks like something just perfectly took out that section. Basicaly, it looked man-made. I have two videos addressing this point (one of which I have already sent you).
This video shows the full length of the damage and how debris could not have caused it.
And this video gives a plausible narrative for what actually did cause it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByHxFOdBsJw
This second video ties in with a report given on the morning of 9/11 that another building of 50 storeys also collapsed at about 10:45, 15 minutes after the North Tower fell.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
___________________________________________________________
Hopefully unclesam will rethink his position on the issues and try to be a little bit more civilized in the future. I know that's just wishful thinking, but a guy can dream. :)
___________________________________________________________
John-Michael P. Talboo comment...
Just thought I'd pop into your blog to do some mining, add some related info and links, and say welcome to Debunking the Debunkers!
Fire Captain Ray Goldbach says, “[W]e made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.” [City of New York, 10/24/2001] However, some firefighters seem surprised at this decision. When Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen is making his way through hundreds of firefighters who are being held away from the WTC site, he hears complaints like, “It could take days for that building to come down,” and, “Why don’t they let us in there?” [Essen, 2002, pp. 45] When Deputy Fire Chief Nick Visconti is instructing firefighters to evacuate the area, one comment he receives is, “[O]h, that building is never coming down, that didn’t get hit by a plane, why isn’t somebody in there putting the fire out?” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/2002]
Heated Controversy: Do firefighters believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?
"It is important to stress that everywhere we turn there are statements from firemen, NYPD officials, EMT's and others who were involved in the rescue efforts attesting to the fact that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that bombs were heard in all three buildings. During the five year anniversary protests at ground zero, a plethora of firemen and police echoed similar sentiments but few are prepared to go on the record. However, the fact that they and many of their friends are now dying in large numbers as a result of government deception is encouraging more to come forward." - SOURCE: NYPD Officer Heard Building 7 Bombs
Jason Bermas interviews FDNY Firefighter who questions WTC7's Collapse
From the list of 81 Confirmed firefighter signatories at FireFightersFor911Truth.org...
Anton Vodvarka New York City Fire Dept. (Retired) 15+ Years
Jim Lundberg, "I saw the dust and smelled the sulfur. There is no way that was a natural collapse."
John Keenan FDNY retired
xxxxxxxx FDNY ret. Lt. 15+ Years
I too have been accused of being an "FDNY hating scumbag" for posting this blog, scroll down and take a look at the update.
Debunking AlienEntity1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
