The Reading Comprehension of Debunkers...

...never ceases to amaze me.

Youtuber "TheSkepticalIdealist" recently commented on my video "Demolition Expert Debunks the Debunkers" and tried to misrepresent the expertise of Tom Sullivan.


I pointed out to him that Sullivan's position at CDI was not just a photographer, but also a Powder Carrier. However, this wasn't good enough for this "skeptical idealist."


He linked me to the nyc.gov "study material for the certificate of fitness examination for powder carrier." Apparently, he either missed this part of the document or didn't understand what he was reading:
______________________________________________________
Storage

All explosives must be stored in magazines specially made for that purpose. A magazine must be approved and have a permit to store explosives. Magazines must be under the direct supervision of a magazine keeper holding a Certificate of Fitness. Magazines must be kept locked when explosives or blasting caps are inside. Only the Blaster, Powder Carrier and Magazine Keeper may have keys to the Magazines and accept delivery of explosives at the work site.
______________________________________________________

So, Tom Sullivan was in charge of the exact aspect of handling explosives that this "idealist" said he wasn't in charge of.

It astounds me that several debunkers seem to have trouble with simple reading these days. First Joseph Nobles misunderstood what David Griscom said about the Active Thermitic Material paper. Then Pat Curley of ScrewLooseChange couldn't be bothered to read a post from 2008 before accusing someone of lying. Is reading getting too difficult for debunkers?

Now, am I implying that all debunkers can't read just because they're debunkers? Absolutely not. I would never make that sort of judgment of debunkers as a whole, because I am not a debunker, just a "rebunker." :)

The Argument of the 911 Truth Debunkers as Analogous to Denying the Existence of a Car.

These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:

"Your car has a poor choice of tires, no sensible person could call that thing a car with those tires"

"The colour is all wrong. No car of the type you describe is of that colour. You're not describing any car known to science."

"The engine in your car is not a known or standard type, your car therefore has no engine. It can't really be called a car."

"The windshield on this car doesn't exist, even though it might appear to exist, is solid, is see-through, and keeps the wind and rain out. A car without a windshield is not a car."

"Your car cannot possibly be found where you claim, even though there are pics, witness reports, scientific reviews etc. Because we deem it impossible, the car cannot exist. Everyone who says it does, no matter the evidence, is a wacko."

"Because of all these "proven" deficiencies you don't have a car at all. It's not a car."

"Furthermore, we have calculated (even tho the official investigators couldn't) what you may think is a fully functioning car is actually just a bicycle. Of course, being troofers, you will be unable to see or understand what we are pointing out to you. Just trust our brilliance and accept what we are saying."

Dear readers, if you can suppress common sense, the laws of physics, a multitude of credible eyewitness reports (many from trained observers), and the findings of independent researchers & scientists, then you can believe in anything.

If you can think for yourselves you will believe only what the established evidence tells you.

911 was an inside job. The evidence is clear cut. (AE911truth.org)

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition

An argument against controlled demolition debunkers have raised is that the WTC did not collapse at free fall rates. It is well known that a free fall drop from the height of one of the Twin Towers would be about 9.2 seconds. I except that the Towers took closer to around 15 seconds to collapse, so to the layperson like myself the addition of a few seconds doesn't seem to make a huge difference. However, debunkers have noted it does in fact make a very big difference. They point out that in order for an object to free fall in 15 seconds, it would have to be dropped from a height more than twice that of either Tower.

I have decided that this argument is invalid because it assumes that controlled demolition causes a building to fall at free fall. This is hardly ever the case. However, this particular argument gave me an idea on how to figure out if the rate of the Towers' collapses was consistent with demolition.

A free fall drop of 15 seconds would be from a height of approximately 3617 feet. The Towers were approximately 1368 feet tall. 3617/1368 = 2.64
Therefore, a 15 second free fall drop would be from a height approximately 2.6 times higher than either of the Towers. Now let's do this with buildings that are all known demolitions.

15 story building. 155 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 3.1 seconds.



Its actual fall time was about 6.25 seconds. How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in that amount of time?



629/155 = 4.05
A 6.25 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

30 story building. 380 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 7.375 seconds would be from a height of about 875 feet.



875/380 = 2.3
A 7.375 second free fall drop would be from a height of over twice that of this building.

31 story building. 376 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.83 seconds.



A free fall drop in about 10 seconds would be from a height of about 1640 feet.



1640/376 = 4.4
A 10 second free fall drop would be from a height over 4 times higher than this building.

24 story building. Approximately 288 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 4.23 seconds.



A free fall drop in 8.4 seconds would be from a height of about 1139 feet.



1139/288 = 3.95
An 8.4 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

20 story building. Approximately 240 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 3.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 6 seconds would be from a height of about 590 feet.



590/240 = 2.45
A 6 second free fall drop would be from a height about 2 and a half times higher than building.

So, to summarize:

(15 story building) 629 ÷ 155 = 4.06 About four times higher

(30 story building) 875 ÷ 380 = 2.3 About two and a third times higher.

(31 story building) 1640 ÷ 376 = 4.4 Almost four and a half times higher.

(24 story building) 1139 ÷ 288 = 3.95 Almost four times higher.

(20 story building) 590 ÷ 240 = 2.45 Almost two and a half times higher.

And for the Towers:

3617 ÷ 1368 = 2.6 About two and a half times higher.

It was seem that, based on the debunkers' own arguments, the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be considered consistent with buildings brought down with controlled demolition. But this is extremely problematic because:

a) Both of the collapses started from the upper sections of the buildings, not the bottoms.

and b) Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down according to the official story.

The only other example of a steel structured building collapsing from top-down due to fire is the partial collapse of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This building was a 13-story structure that burned for over 7 hours. A section of its facade collapsed from the fire. Here's how long it took to collapse.



10 seconds for 13 stories to partially collapse. (13 stories equals approximately 160 feet) How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in 10 seconds?



About ten times taller.

In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire. So ask yourself, "what is more likely to have destroyed the buildings? Fire or explosives?" You decide.

Update:

This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.

47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.

See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7



A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.



701/610 = 1.1

A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.

25% Scooped Out?... I THINK NOT!

At the Screw Loose Change blog, a few new pictures of WTC 7 are featured to back up the claim that the building was heavily damaged. Funny that they didn't show this one!

Looks like the building wasn't scooped out after all. Shyam Sunder's "25% of the building" claim has officially been put to bed. Although Pat ignores it, the investigation Sunder led already realized this claim was too dubious to try and hoodwink people with.

Related Info:

9/11 debunking arguments...

Fabled Enemies