9/11 Theories: Expert vs. EXpert

[Richard Charnin]

&feature=player_embedded

Civil Engineer Jon Cole points out in his latest rapid-paced 18 minute video, 9/11 Theories: Expert vs. Expert, that many people, espousing the official account of the 9/11 WTC events and viewed as technical experts, have proposed a variety of conflicting theories as to why the WTC buildings collapsed on 9/11. What is interesting is that none of those theories supporting the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) obey the laws of physics or match the observed events. This innovative and well-researched video also presents a fascinating 9/11 narrative and compelling images that refute these official accounts of how the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 came down.

Some experts admitted that there were explosions in the Twin Towers, and others said there were none -- even though there are many eyewitnesses to these explosions. Some experts told us that fires melted steel, and others pointed out that jet fuel and office fires don’t burn hot enough to melt steel. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said the molten metal seen coming out of the upper floors of the buildings and found pooled at the bases of their debris was “irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse of the towers.” This material was actually molten steel or (more likely) iron – a byproduct of the incendiary “thermite”. It produces the required temperatures to melt steel and iron, which are twice as high as what office fires or jet fuel can produce.

more...
http://ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/587-caught-in-their-own-web-of-contradictions.html

[zappaman]

1. I certainly hope you have contributed to this very important cause!

They have only raised around $500 so please help spread the truth and pack Gage's wallet.

[Richard Charnin]

2. I have contributed...by posting the video.

Now, if you wish to refer to the specific contents of the video, please feel free to do so.

[zappaman]

3. uh

This isn't expert vs expert, its a video voice quote-mining bits of sentences and drawing their own pre-determined conclusion.

[Richard Charnin]

4. But you have still not specifically addressed the "bits and pieces..nt

[cpwm17]

6. There was a lot of BS there

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:34 AM - Edit history (1)

The maker of the video uses the same tactics of creationists. They misrepresent their opposition. They also use the fact that science is a process, and science doesn't instantly arrive at final conclusions before all possible theories have been worked through. So truthers use this process to claim that scientists don't know what their talking about.

As you should have noted, this video was blowing a lot of smoke. It made contradictory claims. It spent a lot of time with the far-fetched idea that the towers were taken down by thermite. And it also claimed that explosives were used. So it seems that these truthers don't know what they are talking about.

No sounds consistent with explosives used in demolitions were heard. So that can be eliminated as a possibility. No genuine evidence of thermite was ever found, so that can also be eliminated. And a demolition team would not be able to set up the explosives or thermite without being caught - it's impossible. Plus the buildings' damage and fires would have ruined the demolition team's effort.

All three buildings (WTC7, WTC1, and WTC2) suffered heavy damage and large fires. WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from around the locations were the aircraft struck the buildings, and where the fires were naturally the heaviest. This is where the trusses warped downward, pulling the columns inward.

This video shows good pictures and videos of the towers' warping columns before they collapsed, giving good evidence that the NIST scientists are correct:

[Richard Charnin]

7. The contradictory claims were made by the defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

What video were you watching?
The contradictory claims made were all proven to be impossible.
In other words, the obfuscations only served to undermine the inconsistencies.

On the other hand the following scientific facts from 2000 scientists, architects and engineers have never varied. The facts never change.
_______________________________________________________________
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction
3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:



Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

Slow onset with large visible deformations
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.

[AZCat]

8. Acutally Bolo Boffin has done a nice job in the past...

documenting the changes in the claims made by AE911Truth. It would be quite a stretch to call them "never varied".

[cpwm17]

9. The contradictory claims are truther strawmen

Last edited Thu Dec 22, 2011, 12:32 AM - Edit history (1)

WTC7 didn't all collapse at once. The collapse went east to west, and then the shell fell last:

Any explosive capable of taking WTC7 down would be so loud that it could be heard many miles away. It would be deafening. No such sounds are heard in any of the collapsing videos, or was heard by the witnesses.

You don't understand how massive the energy release was when the buildings collapsed - massive potential energy was transferred into kinetic energy. That caused the dust clouds when the buildings collapsed. If there were "pyroclastic-like clouds" anyone overtaken would have been fried. This massive energy release was also responsible for the messy collapse of the towers, not silent explosives.

The more massive an object, the more difficult it is to tip over. All of the buildings fell in the direction of least resistance: more or less downward in the direction of gravity. None of the buildings fell onto their footprints, though WTC7 came close. The top section of the North Tower tilted heavily when the collapse started, before the tower underneath it completely gave way.

You say there was foreknowledge of collapse by the media, NYPD, and the FDNY. Are you claiming that the firefighters are in on it? That would mean the firefighters are responsible for mass-murder against their fellow firefighters - that's crazy. The firefighters knew WTC7 was going to collapse because they saw the damage, and they knew there was no way for them to put out the large fires started by the collapsing North Tower:

Here's a video of some of the damage and the huge fires in WTC7:

You didn't respond to the evidence presented in my last comment.

[Richard Charnin]

11. No need for me to respond.

The 1643 architects and 14,000 other scientists, military and other professionals have done so already. They are the experts. I defer to them.

I am not an expert.
Are you?

Based on the videos, it is quite obvious to any observer that all three collapses were due to demolitions. We don't need professional architects, engineers, chemists or physicists to prove it. But they have. In spades.

So where are your experts?

DID THE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS WHO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY FORM A COUNTER GROUP?

If you know of such a group, please inform us. Please don't cite NIST. And don't cite Popular Mechanics. either -NO PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICS ALLOWED.

After all these years, one would expect that a group of professional architects and engineers would be supporting the official story in an official, non-governmental statement debunking Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Then we could have an open scientific debate.

But apparently that is asking for too much. Professional skeptics could have attended the Toronto 9/11 Hearings and debated the experts. I'm sure they would have been welcome. But the videos would have gone viral. The skeptics would then be forced to explain why they failed so miserably in the court of public opinion.

[AZCat]

14. I'm not sure why you think architects and engineers...

who support the work of the NIST (and the others involved in the investigation) should form some sort of organization dedicated to countering AE911Truth. It's been several years since both NIST investigations into the collapse of the towers and of WTC7 have been issued, yet AE911Truth hasn't come up with a serious challenge to those works. Why would anybody bother organizing when there is nothing substantive to oppose?

[Ace Acme]

21. NIST's Twin Towers report is only half a report.

Did that fact somehow escape you?

They claim they didn't even analyze the collapses. How can you explain why and how the towers collapsed if you didn't analyze the collapses?

How any honest analyst can be satisfied with half a report I don't know.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. "No need for me to respond."

Always a reason why you don't have to listen.

Since you aren't here to listen or discuss, what are you here to do?

[cpwm17]

16. You complained when zappaman didn't respond to the alledged evidence in your truther video

But you refuse to respond to any evidence I presented in my responses to your video.

You've been taken in by a group of pseudo experts. All of the demolition experts in the US disagree that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. The actual scientists and engineers in the US support the findings of NIST.

You don't need to consult any expert to see that your pseudo experts are full of shit. In fact they are liars. It's as plain as can be. That's why you refuse to respond: because it's too uncomfortable for you to see evidence that contradicts your truther fantasies.

[William Seger]

10. Richard Gage is lying to you

> On the other hand the following scientific facts from 2000 scientists, architects and engineers have never varied. The facts never change.
_______________________________________________________________
> WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

> 1. Rapid onset of collapse

It was six seconds from the time the collapse started inside the building, under the east penthouse, until the exterior shell began to fall. That is NOT "rapid onset" OR a characteristic of a controlled demolition, so Gage persists in deliberately ignoring it.

> 2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

That's just a bald-faced lie. With 100% certainty, there was nothing even remotely near the sounds of enough high-explosives "a second before the building's destruction" to take down a building the size of WTC7. As I pointed out in the other thread -- which you apparently prefer to ignore while serving up Gage's bullshit list of "scientific facts" -- there also weren't any seismic spikes or windows broken by any explosive shock wave. Are you really so inculcated into Gage's cult that you can't see that the collapse is completely missing some UNAVOIDABLE characteristics of a "classic controlled demolition?" Suit yourself, but it remains the primary reason that rational people don't (and never will) take this "classic controlled demolition" nonsense seriously.

> 3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

It wasn't symmetric at all INSIDE the building, and if Cole can't figure out why the rigid exterior walls held together and fell in one piece after the interior columns collapsed, then he should demand a refund on his civil engineering degree. He also seems to be baffled that the force of gravity is ALWAYS downward, controlled demolition or not, or that broken columns provide zero resistance regardless of how they got broken, so it's quite possible that he made an unfortunate career choice; one for which he has no aptitude. And like the other "2000 scientists, architects and engineers" Cole seems to have no explanation for why eight floors were blown out 1.75 seconds AFTER the entire building was irrevocably headed down, which itself was six seconds after the collapse actually started internally, so the free-fall period referred to doesn't really resemble a "classic controlled demolition" either.

> 4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
> 5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

Completely irrelevant. Gage lists them as if they are characteristics of a demolition that couldn't happen in a natural collapse, which is utter nonsense.

> 6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

This is a classic example of why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy: The entirety of Jowenko's opinion is based on simply watching the same videos we've all seen of the top third falling and Jowenko's personal inability to explain it as anything but a controlled demolition. In other words, his "professional" opinion is based on the same fallacy as all the unprofessional ones: If it looks like a CD, then it must be a CD. In the end, it doesn't matter who believes what, but rather why they believe it. If Jowenko wants to offer that fallacious reasoning despite the fact it didn't sound anything like a CD or produce any other evidence of any destructive shock waves, then he brands himself a fool, not an expert.

> 7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

... which was based on the very thing that Gage denies: The building was observed to be in distress well before the collapse.

> In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

> 8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

... which happened at around 1000 degrees C, well within the temperatures of an office fire, so it is decidedly NOT evidence of Gage's imaginary "demolition using incendiary devices." (Since no such building demolition is known to ever have happened in the real world, Gage's notions of what ought to happen are necessarily imaginary, but putting that eutectic reaction on his list is absurd.)

> 9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

The only evidence of any such thing are these anecdotal reports: There's not a single example of a sample that can be tested, and not a single instance of the metal in these reports being tested. But since "molten metal" should be expected in an office fire if the metal is aluminum, then these reports are NOT the evidence of "demolition using incendiary devices" that Gage claims.

> 10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

Total bullshit. Thermite is just aluminum and iron oxide, both of which are abundant in office buildings. If this is supposed to be a reference to the paint chips that Harrit and Jones claim are "supernanothermite," sorry, but those have been identified as paint chips from the steel joists. If this is intended to be a reference to the iron microspheres, there is no reason to think they were produced during the collapse, and in fact there were lots of sources including the fly ash that was used in the lightweight concrete.

> WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

> 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

As mentioned above, this is just a bald-faced lie. The onset WAS slow and there WAS a large deformation at the corner of several floors early in the afternoon, which is one of the reasons the firemen knew the building was unstable. (Another reason was the creaking and groaning noises that we now know were the girders sliding around on their seats due to thermal expansion.)


> 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

But again, that's exactly what happened: The building fell to the south. Anyone who claims the building should have fallen over like a tree, however, simply doesn't understand the physics involved.

> 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Structural steel loses about half its strength at 600 degrees C and if Gage believes the fire didn't get at least that hot then I think he should be the one presenting evidence. But that claim also completely misses the NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC7, anyway, which was not based on steel weakening.

> 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

As I mentioned in the other thread, Gage & Co. don't seem to think that the WTC7 construction details make any difference, and there's the proof. They are mistaken, and anyone who actually comprehends the NIST theory should be able to see why.

> As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
<similar list of faulty observations, imaginary physics, and bald-faced lies about the towers snipped>

This stuff has been discussed so many times over the years that I was able to address each of those items above off the top of my head, but a little objective research would turn up lots more that could be said about many of those items. The fact is that Gage & Co. have failed to produce any credible evidence or technical arguments either for a controlled demolition or against the NIST theory. Instead, we get dishonest propaganda crap like these "characteristics" lists and Gage's running count of how many people have fallen for it.

Gage wants to be at the top of your charities list.

[Richard Charnin]

12. Are 1643 architects and engineers and thousands of others lying also? nt

It has been discussed many times over the years?
By you?

Why should we take your word or that of Popular Mechanics, or that of NIST (they never bothered to look for explosives) or the 9/11 Commission (oh, I forgot, they never even mentioned WTC 7) over 1643 architects, scientists and engineers?

I believe what I see.
I believe what I hear.
I believe the evidence.

I believe the REAL experts.
I believe the 9/11 victims who want a REAL investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

13. You guys just had a White House petition that only hit 111!

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/11/ok-maybe-they-arent-84-percent.html

What happened to your 1643 architects and engineers and thousands of others?

BTW, that's not 1643 architects and engineers. That's 1643 building professionals, right? If you can call landscape engineers building professionals...

[William Seger]

17. Apparently, Gage can be fairly convincing...

... provided that you only hear his side of the story and you take it at face value without giving it any real thought. I spent a fair amount of time giving you just some of the many reasons why that's a very gullible thing to do, and you just blow it off without even attempting to refute it? Instead, you threw up yet another fallacious argument that amounts to saying that if 1643 gullible people signed his petition, that means we should just ignore the bullshit in Gage's propaganda and accept his conclusions. In the first place, 1643 is an insignificant fraction of the number of "architects and engineers" in the world (even if we don't use Gage's deliberately deceptive definition), and in the second place, a quick check of credentials shows that the vast majority of Gage's "architects and engineers" are manifestly unqualified to claim any expertise in structural mechanics, physics, or controlled demolitions -- most especially including Gage himself. You reject out-of-hand the opinions of people who actually are experts, e.g. all the private-sector scientists and engineers who signed the NIST reports, apparently not because you can actually find any real faults in their credible evidence and sound reasoning but because they don't tell you what you want to hear. Instead, you prefer Gage's "REAL experts" even though they have failed miserably to produce any VALID technical arguments whatsoever.

Well, yeah, you can believe whatever you want to believe, for whatever reason you find convenient. But if your beliefs are not based on credible facts and valid reasoning, and in fact are impervious to sound reasoning, then you really shouldn't expect your opinions to be taken seriously. And that's exactly why the "truth movement" has been stuck in the mud since about 2006.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Once upon a time the entire college of cardinals

condemned a man for heresy because he claimed the earth revolved around the sun when the sun was plainly observed going around the earth.

They believed what they saw.
They believed what they heard.
They believed the evidence.

[T S Justly]

5. Thanks. That's a good debunking of goofball NIST "evidence" (nt)

[SidDithers]

18. Do you apply the same rigorous standards of inquiry...

to your "election analysis" that you do to 9/11 conspiracy theories?



Thanks, TruthIsAll, for all the comedy gold over the years.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

20. Thank you for posting this video!

It's very good!