New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001


Home Forums Discussion Forum New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001

  • This topic has 399 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 5 months ago by Clark.
Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 400 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #51452 Reply
    Clark

    I don’t think it’s ridiculous, so I don’t retract it. Chandler’s paper is anti-scientific and feeds public rejection of scientific findings. Chandler should retract it.

    (But even if he did retract it, Truthers would just claim he’d been threatened. Wouldn’t you Node?)

    #51462 Reply
    Node

    So how do you get from Chandler’s paper to coronavirus?

    #51464 Reply
    Clark

    I told you. How many more times?

    Chandler’s paper implies the scientific and technical community tell the opposite of the truth in the service of authority.

    Pb’s and your covid-19 theory says that the scientific and technical community tell the opposite of the truth in the service of authority.

    See the similarity? Node, this is your damn ideology; “there are no facts, all opinions are equally valid, it all just depends on who you ask”. So if someone says it’s 5G causing illness and the virus is a hoax, that’s supposedly just as valid as the work of virologists, geneticists and epidemiologists. “Science is bollox; it’s just a conspiracy”.

    You’ll never read Bad Science, will you?

    #51465 Reply
    Node

    Yes, but why Chandler? Why have you fixated on him? Surely Richard Gage would be a better candidate for chief 9/11 conspiracy theorist? It won’t be easy convincing any sane person that either of them are responsible for arson in Birmingham, but since you are determined, may I suggest you can make a better case for Gage being the culprit.

    #51466 Reply
    Clark

    Node, do you give a flying fuck about science? You seem not to; you act like it’s all a game. When University of Alaska Fairbanks say WTC7 was brought down by explosives, you champion the supremacy of science, but when John Hopkins University says there’s a pandemic of a new virus, you say its a hoax. You do the whole thing backwards; choose your conclusion, and then either champion science or trash it as serves your purpose. I expect you’re contemptuous of my sincerity; “what a sucker”.

    #51467 Reply
    Clark

    Gage is just a promoter and a bureaucrat. It’s Chandler who gives it a veneer of scienciness, with his papers, plots, graphs, tracking and talk about Newton’s laws.

    #51468 Reply
    Node

    “Gage is just a promoter …”

    Yes, Gage promotes and coordinates the evidence for all aspects of the theory that the Twin Towers were explosively demolished, a theory that you say is unscientific. However Chandler is only responsible for a small part of that evidence. Furthermore, Gage is much better known than Chandler.

    If your reasoning is that a 9/11 conspiracy theorist is responsible for the damage to 5G masts in Birmingham because the arsonists there have been encouraged by his bad grasp of science then surely Gage has been far more influential than Chandler and must shoulder the lion’s share of the blame?

    I’d like to get this point clear before we tackle the question of whether Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists also share some of the blame.

    #51478 Reply
    Clark

    Good question Node.

    In the scientific and rational domain, “good question” flags a potential breakthrough event. It’s the one where the answer is likely to be unexpected. Not even in the expected direction.

    Is it Fords or Audis that make traffic jams? Is it roll-ups or ready-mades that make the room smoky?

    “Conspiracy theory” isn’t about what certain people believe or disbelieve. It’s about the type of process that supports the belief. Conspiracy theory is a different process than rationality. The two proceed under different rules.

    #51483 Reply
    Node

    You think I’m being flippant but there is a serious point to this questioning. I’m happy to have a rational discussion with you about 9/11, but I don’t think that’s possible while your obsession with Chandler extends to blaming him for coronavirus protests in England. I’ve offered you a chance to retract the claim but you maintain it’s true whilst being unable to explain why he alone, of all the conspiracy theorists on your hit list, should be held responsible.

    So I’m giving you yet another opportunity to demonstrate that you are capable of rational though: Why Chandler? You should thank me for being so patient.

    #51485 Reply
    Clark

    “You think I’m being flippant…”

    No I don’t. I try to discipline myself not to do sarcasm in text comments, because tone of voice is absent. I really do think you asked the critical question.

    It isn’t a matter of which specific conspiracy theorist. It’s conspiracy theory itself; it’s a different mode of thought to rationalism.

    I see Chandler as of critical importance because he’s the bridge. Without Chandler, you’d have Gage and A&E9/11 on one side, and technical consensus on the other. Onlookers’ only choice would be to pick a side, and the vast majority would pick technical consensus and then move on to something else (putting them closer to the truth but for inadequate reasons). But Chandler’s graphs and papers make it look like a technical disagreement, which it isn’t.

    Other examples like Chandler are Professor Patrick Holford and Doctor Andrew Wakefield. I wish you’d read Bad Science, it’d save so much time.

    #51486 Reply
    Clark

    Node, you say there’s lots of evidence for pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers, but the only piece of “evidence” I can think of that’s (supposedly) specific to the Twin Towers is Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration”. eg. thermite traces: if WTC7 was indeed brought down by thermite, and residue was found in New York dust, then the thermite residue isn’t specific to the Twin Towers.

    #51487 Reply
    Clark

    MODS, many thanks for implementing my request to unembed the videos I linked.

    #51490 Reply
    Node

    Clark asks what evidence there is “for pre-rigged demolition of the Twin Towers”

    Let’s start with eye witnesses.

    All surviving New York fire fighters (FDNY) were interviewed shortly afterwards. 118 out 0f 503 said they had witnessed blasts or explosions distinguishable from the four kinds of explosions that typically occur in fires (boiling-liquid-expanding-vapor-explosions or “BLEVEs”; electrical explosions; smoke explosions or “backdrafts”; and combustion explosions). The majority of the 118 were not asked about explosions but volunteered the information, therefore 118/503 represents a minimum number of such FDNY witnesses.

    Additionally 14 policemen, 13 reporters, and 8 other first responders reported blast explosions.

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions

    #51491 Reply
    Node

    Since your question asks about the events of 9/11 without reference to me personally, I’ll answer it. I’ll start a fresh comment to do so. We’re done here. You have failed to provide a rational justification for your claim that Chandler is responsible for fires in Birmingham.

    #51493 Reply
    Clark

    Chandler carries considerable responsibility for undermining public understanding of science, and promoting public distrust of the scientific process. I can’t quantify Chandler’s share, but on this very page, J describes the collapses of the Twin Towers as “impossible” (without explosives). There’s only one source for that meme, and that’s Chandler’s “Downward Acceleration…”. The direct opposite of the truth, still doing the rounds after well over a decade.

    Grief Node, can’t you do anything but fight?

    #51495 Reply
    Clark

    Yep, there were loads of explosions on 9/11 because there was loads of fire. Fire causes explosions. As to blast explosions; famously, the US has loads of guns and ammunition; the public have a constitutional right to carry them. Either the AFT office or the US Customs House (WTC5 or WTC6?) had a sizeable ammunition store.

    Reports of explosions don’t indicate “controlled” demolition; for the top-down collapses of the Twin Towers, you’d need a descending wave of blasts, timed to produce the descending collapse front. The Twin Tower collapses were recorded on countless videos; each Twin Tower fell with a roar, not a fusillade.

    What about the countervailing reasoning? The supposed “controlled” demolitions had to be initiated at each tower’s damaged zone. Each was a site of major fire, and had been subjected to something resembling a fuel-air bomb when the aircraft struck (massive fireballs recorded on video). How were these critically important demolition materials, including explosives, supposed to withstand around 45 minutes and 90 minutes of intensive fire? It’s absurd.

    #51496 Reply
    Clark

    “Explosions prove controlled demolition!” Seductive but superficial plausibility.

    It’s easy to mislead the gullible, isn’t it? (If Truthers deny this, then their claims about sheeple mindless lapping up the “official story” constitute gross hypocrisy.)

    #51497 Reply
    Node

    “Yep, there were loads of explosions on 9/11 because there was loads of fire. Fire causes explosions. “
    I specifically addressed this point but you ignored it. Firemen are trained to recognise the 4 typical explosions produced by burning buildings :BLEVEs plus electrical/smoke/combustion explosions. These men reported. The explosions witnessed by the firemen were distinguishable from these by:

    Identification: If the explosions encountered were the type typically encountered in fires, the firefighters would be expected to recognize them as such and name them. There are very few instances where they do so. On the contrary, they clearly feel these were different types of explosions than those they were used to encountering…

    Power: Many eyewitnesses clearly thought they were watching explosions destroy the Twin Towers. But none of the common four types of fire-related explosions could accomplish this…

    Pattern: …[M]any eyewitnesses reported regular, rapid energetic events in sequence down the building, which cannot be explained by any of the four common types of explosion.

    #51498 Reply
    Node

    “What about the countervailing reasoning? The supposed “controlled” demolitions had to be initiated at each tower’s damaged zone. Each was a site of major fire, and had been subjected to something resembling a fuel-air bomb when the aircraft struck (massive fireballs recorded on video). How were these critically important demolition materials, including explosives, supposed to withstand around 45 minutes and 90 minutes of intensive fire? It’s absurd.”

    The spectacular fireballs lasted a few seconds and burned most of the fuel. Great visual effect but little fire damage. The resulting office fires affected relatively small areas of the towers.

    #51499 Reply
    Node

    You can’t ignite thermite with gasoline. Not hot enough. Demolition charges probably concealed and protected behind wall panels.

    #51500 Reply
    Node

    You said “Explosions prove controlled demolition!” Seductive but superficial plausibility.

    You used quote marks to infer that I or someone in my link said “Explosions prove controlled demolition.” DISHONEST. You made the quote up yourself so that you could attribute superficial reasoning to the Truther movement. SNEAKY and DESPERATE.

    #51501 Reply
    Clark

    “[M]any eyewitnesses reported regular, rapid energetic events in sequence down the building, which cannot be explained by any of the four common types of explosion.”

    Yep, you can see those events on most collapse videos, and they’re referred to in the NIST report. They are dusty air being ejected through the perimeter columns. The internal front of destruction of floor assemblies proceeded (from memory) at around four or five storeys per second, and nearly all that air had to be ejected. These would have happened – would have to have happened – whether explosives were used or not.

    In fact, think about it. If these ejections had been caused by explosives, there would have to have been another descending front of ejections caused by the expelled air.

    “Many eyewitnesses clearly thought they were watching explosions destroy the Twin Towers.”

    Well of course they did! Whose first thoughts would turn to ejected air in the few seconds of witnessing such a sudden, momentous event?

    #51502 Reply
    Clark

    Oh for goodness sake; I put quotes around a soundbite; I’d have prepended your name if I were attributing it to you, Node. Who’s desperate?

    #51503 Reply
    Clark

    “The resulting office fires affected relatively small areas of the towers.”

    Balderdash. Just look at how much smoke was produced. It was so hot that people in the sections above the damaged zones were breaking windows and jumping out. There was so much heat that the buildings’ steel perimeters deformed.

    #51504 Reply
    Clark

    But you can’t sequence thermite charges to 200 milliseconds (five storeys per second); thermite burns too slowly. And so what anyway? There’s all the high-tech detonation control equipment to consider as well.

    #51505 Reply
    Clark

    This is all silly anyway. Why bother with explosives at all? All that was needed was structural failure across the damaged zone, and total collapse was assured. And who says that total collapse was ever an objective in the first place? Had the towers not collapsed there would have been an even longer spectacle of people jumping out of windows to escape the fire.

    #51506 Reply
    Clark

    There was, and is, no way to extinguish a fire that high up.

    #51507 Reply
    Node

    You make up a soundbite, put quote marks round it, disparage it as though someone else had said it, then act offended when I say it’s misleading. You lie about your dishonesty.

    As for the rest, you asked for evidence, I give you over a hundred competent eye witnesses, and you dismiss them because you know better.

    More evidence : Molten steel in the wreckage in large enough quantities to stay molten for weeks.

    #51508 Reply
    Node

    You make up a soundbite, put quote marks round it, disparage it as though someone else had said it, then act offended when I say it’s misleading. You lie about your dishonesty.

    As for the rest, you asked for evidence, I give you over a hundred competent eye witnesses, and you dismiss them because you know better.

    More evidence : Molten steel in the wreckage in large enough quantities to stay molten for weeks.

    #51509 Reply
    Clark

    And what if an aircraft had failed to arrive or strike? “Travellers, we apologise for the inconvenience but flight 175 has been cancelled due to delayed arrival of lemon-soaked paper napkins…”. The Illuminati or whoever would have been left with a very embarrassing building stuffed with explosives and never seen before, incomprehensibly high-tech detonation equipment.

    “Dammit, Mutley, why didn’t you warn me?”

    #51510 Reply
    Clark

    Controlled demolitions don’t produce molten steel. And how do you know it was steel anyway? There was masses of aluminium, copper and lead in the Twin Towers.

    #51511 Reply
    Clark

    Thermite melts steel, but you can’t sequence thermite charges to the necessary 200ms, see above.

    #51512 Reply
    Clark

    YOU proffered reports of explosions as evidence of pre-rigged explosives – though you change track to thermite whenever needs be. I encapsulate the former as a soundbite, so you accuse me of dishonesty. Sigh. Conspiracy theory is always like this… Chop and change, no consistency, all just a means to an end, grist to the mill…

    #51513 Reply
    Node

    Nano thermite then.
    But I don’t claim to know the details of how they did it. I’m not a demolition expert. I just don’t believe that 3 steel framed buildings would fall as though they’d been expertly explosively demolished if they hadn’t been expertly explosively demolished.

    #51514 Reply
    Clark

    And thermite burns* rather than explodes, so if you’re going for thermite, your whole point of witness reports of blast explosions is moot.

    (* reacts actually, but it’s slower, like burning, rather than a blast).

    Going to try thermate instead? Then we’re back to my point above; “each Twin Tower fell with a roar, not a fusillade”.

    Give it up Node; you keep failing because you’re arguing for something that didn’t happen, and wasn’t even necessary.

    #51515 Reply
    Node

    Controlled demolitions don’t produce molten steel. And how do you know it was steel anyway? There was masses of aluminium, copper and lead in the Twin Towers.

    The workers on the ground said it was steel. I’ve seen a photo of it and it looks like steel, not lead, copper or aluminium. But let’s not worry about that detail. You tell me how such quantities of any-metal can collect in such massive amounts to stay molten for that long. I can theorise a scenario where multiple thermite cuts on the same vertical steel column create a large pool of molten steel at its base. What’s your plausible theory for copper/lead/aluminium?

    #51516 Reply
    Clark

    But the Twin Towers didn’t fall as though they’d been expertly explosively demolished*; debris was all over the place. They certainly didn’t fall “into their own footprints”. They fell as would be expected, considering their structure.

    (* WTC7 almost did, which is why I think it was demolished.)

    #51518 Reply
    Clark

    I don’t have evidence of a large pool of molten steel. There’s Leslie Robertson who described a trickle of molten metal, which he called steel but didn’t get tested, running down the walls of the sub-levels. There’s a firefighter who describes “molten steel, running down the channel rails”. This firefighter looked like Frank Zappa and had a similarly colourful turn of phrase. But if he saw molten steel, what were the “channel rails” made of? Titanium or something? They must have been made of something with a higher melting temperature than whatever was running down them or the molten metal would’ve melted them too.

    There are photos of glowing metal being pulled out of the debris pile; glowing, but not molten. There’s an impression of radiant heat coming out of that hole, but the workers were working by floodlight.

    Energy sources? Well, there were severed gas and electricity mains, all the oil in the tens of thousands of viscous dampers the Twin Towers needed to prevent motion sickness, all the fuel of office contents including paper, cardboard, wood, fibreboard and especially plastics, all the sulphuric acid of the batteries in the uninteruptable power supply rooms for data centres in the Twin Towers, presumably the oxygen cylinders of the ~300 firefighters who perished in WTC2, all the lithium batteries of however many laptops were in the buildings at the time, all the acrylic carpets, however much ammunition that many US Americans keep in their office drawers, the aluminium of the aircraft wreckage which could undergo a thermite reaction with steel, and all the things I haven’t thought of yet.

    Enough of the above for 110 storeys, all compressed into less than a tenth of the volume and nicely insulated in the sub-levels with a load of concrete rubble from the floor assemblies on top. The collapses themselves must have been like a combined compression / combustion stroke of a cylinder in an enormous combustion engine, all that fuel-air mix. Oh, and the jet fuel.

    I doubt there was a shortage of energy.

    It’s easy to say “lots of heat, therefore demolition” but the plausibility is superficial.

    #51521 Reply
    Node

    All these people say there were huge amounts of molten steel for weeks afterwards:
    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/technical-articles/articles-by-ae911truth/442-witnesses-of-molten-metal-at-ground-zero

    You reject the scenario I suggested to explain it. What’s your alternative explanation? Describe a plausible scenario involving the fuels you listed.

    #51524 Reply
    Clark

    “The workers on the ground said it was steel. I’ve seen a photo of it and it looks like steel, not lead, copper or aluminium”

    What about a mixture? Mixtures melt at a lower temperature than the pure substances.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 400 total)
Reply To: New report released: WTC 7 was not destroyed by fire on 9/11/2001
Your information: