Featured Angry Blacksmith Shows How Jet Fuel Can Indeed Weaken Steel Beams

Lol...now I'm lost

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk

 

If I remember correctly Micheal Chertoff's cousin Benjamin who was a 22 year old "expert" at the time wrote the original PM "9/11 debunking" article. There were no references included. He did however drop a few names at the end of the article that he claimed were references.

On to the book . . . and the report that "debunks the debunkers".

Debunking the Real 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face up to Reality - Part 1

A decade has passed since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and many people feel that we have still not had a real investigation into what really happened that day. Many believe that the investigations into the destruction of the three WTC skyscrapers by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) were either fraudulent or incomplete, and have joined the 1600+ architects and engineers at AE911Truth in calling for a real, independent investigation into the attacks. However, Popular Mechanics (PM) has been the primary cheerleader in the mainstream media in defense of the NIST reports ever since its book,Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up To the Facts, was published in 2006.

For the ten-year anniversary of 9/11, PM put out a second version of its book, which was updated in an attempt to dismiss new findings that corroborate the controlled demolition hypothesis. The main sections of the book that were revised are on the collapse of the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7.

This report demonstrates that PM has still not adequately explained the numerous anomalies surrounding the collapse of these three buildings that prove they were destroyed with explosives.

Quotes from Popular Mechanics’ book are shown in red and with page numbers.)

World Trade Center Towers 1 & 2
The introduction to PM’s chapter on the collapse of the Twin Towers briefly discusses the main theory put forward by members of the 9/11 Truth movement regarding the Towers’ destruction: “The buildings were brought down intentionally—not by hijacked airplanes, but by government-planted bombs or a controlled demolition” (pg. 28). PM then goes on to give a few examples of people promoting this theory. One of the people they cite is a Danish writer named Henrik Melvang, who, according to PM, “markets his book and video claiming the Apollo moon landings were a hoax” (pg. 28). This is obviously an attempt on PM’s part to portray those who question the collapse of the Towers as conspiracy theorists who have irrational beliefs. PM also cites Morgan Reynolds, the former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor during President George Bush’s first term, as someone who believes that the Towers were destroyed through controlled demolition.

We must ask ourselves why PM would choose to cite these people as examples of those who question the collapse of the Towers. Why didn’t they cite anyone with experience in the fields of engineering and building construction? According to PM, it’s because the 9/11 Truth movement doesn’t have any technical credentials. In their 2011 book, they state that:

Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields. (pg. 28-29)

This statement is by far one of the most remarkable passages in PM’s book. One need only look at what most consider the lead organization in the 9/11truth community, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, to see that there are currently over 1600 professional architects and engineers with backgrounds in engineering, architecture and building construction who question the destruction of the three WTC high-rise buildings. How can PM possibly have omitted over a thousand experts who agree that the Twin Towers and WTC7 were brought down with explosives? In PM’s entire 216 page book, there is not a single mention made of AE911Truth or its founder, architect Richard Gage, AIA.

Continue . . . http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...mechanics-cant-face-up-to-reality-part-1.html

I seriously doubt that people who demand simple yes or no answers and move to dismiss information before they even see it would make an effort to read this report so I'll make it as easy for you as I can.

Here's the video version . . .

Professor David Ray Griffin - Debunking 9/11 Debunking

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD38B6F6D270AD823

 

Don't bother arguing with Poncho about this. All the 9/11 conspiracy theory points have been debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over for the past 14 years. People like Poncho continue to reject the massive amount of evidence that completely contradicts the conspiracy theory because they actually WANT to believe that the President of the United States deliberately killed 3000 of his fellow citizens so he would have an excuse to go to war, want to believe it SO BADLY that no amount of information can penetrate that desire, and most of them will continue to embrace arguments that have been overwhelmingly and repeatedly disproven for the rest of their lives. Imagine how completely sick in the mind, soul and spirit a person has to be to feel that way, how absolutely devoid of real humanity a person has to be to believe such a horrible thing about another human being in the absence of overwhelming, uncontradicted proof. The rest of us should simply feel sorry for people like Poncho and pray for them, for they are profoundly unhappy to the core of their being. I shudder to think of what it must be like to live in the paranoid fantasy world they have created for themselves.

 

Well, that was quite a display of emotion there Walguy. Hope you're okay.

I'd like nothing better than to believe the official conspiracy theory as much as you do unfortunately after looking into both conspiracy theories for 14 years I believe the science facts and evidence presented by the 1600 or so experts and all the eye witness testimonies that the debunkers claim do not exist is more compelling.

Does that mean I claim to know exactly what went on that day and who was behind it? No, it just means that I find the more professional approach of calmly and methodically examining all the facts and evidence as well as the claims made by the so called "debunkers" taken by AE9/11truth and David Ray Griffin more credible than the government and media's attempts to hide facts and evidence and to ridicule, smear and shame people into believing the official conspiracy theory.

 

Evidently Rippon prefers the later approach. Okay. No problem. I get that a lot believe it or not.

 

What did he prove? He can bend a red hot piece of rebar with his pinkie finger.

Whippie!

In order to make your conspiracy theory work you need to prove 1. The fire was hot enough. 2. The fire was big enough. 3. The fire lasted long enough.

Good luck.

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

< snip >

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, orafter 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

Continue . . . http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

When George W. Bush said "let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” I took him seriously did you?

 

I've visited the main NIST campus. Stood on their reactor and everything. The work those guys do is simply amazing. I cannot fathom taking the ramblings of some conspiracy website over what NIST reports.

 

Ok, we agree that jet fuel can burn hot enough to weaken steel. Right?

You still need to prove the fires caused by jet fuel in WTC 1 and WTC 2, 1. Burned hot enough. 2. Were big enough. 3. Burned long enough to weaken the steel in the core of both buildings in order to make your conspiracy theory work.

Can we agree that agreeing with someone that calls me an inhuman nutcase doesn't prove that?

 

Can you fathom that there are two conspiracy theories one plausible the other outrageous?

Can you fathom that?

Can you fathom reading what David Ray Griffin has to say before you discount him as a "rambling conspiracy theorist"?

Continue . . . http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

 

The fact that no other skyscrapers had/have ever collapsed from fire sounds like a good point, but no others had been hit by such large aircraft before. The B-25 that hit the Empire State Building was far smaller and that structure was built far differently. No "Towering Infernos" had ever had the fires lit by 50,000 lb of jet fuel, nor had they included a 767-sized hole punched well into the building. Other skyscraper fires had localized ignition points; these had instantaneous ignition throughout several floors covering most of the footprint size of the towers, and the plastic and wood furnishings throughout would sustain fire long past when the jet fuel had been consumed.

I'm certainly no demolition expert, but when I've seen tall buildings brought down with explosives, there are charges set on most floors. The Twin Towers collapses began right at the level of the impacts and fires and accelerated downward. For that to have been done by explosives, I think there would need to have been charges set on many floors, with detonation sequence timed to imitate the acceleration of gravity. Also, since the conspirators could not have known exactly at which level the airplanes would impact (assuming the pilots had not been instructed to "fly into the 82nd floor" or some such), there had to have been some disarm switch to keep the upper floor charges from detonating - the above-impact sections remained visually intact until they disappeared into the dust cloud. For such extensive and detailed explosives to be placed and wired without anyone not among the conspirators noticing seems extremely unlikely. For as many conspirators as would be needed, their all remaining silent for 14 years is even more unlikely. Nixon's crew could not even keep a minor break-in secret for very long, and "leakage" in political circles is a far more ubiquitous disease now than it was in 1972.

 

You've been here a year and a half now...haven't you figured out that common sense isn't going to work?

 

Okay those are some good points and David Ray Griffin addresses each one.

Let's start with your first point. I'm going use different colors instead of the quote feature because the quote feature is a hassle. You're words will be RED. Hope you don't mind.

I'll use Italics for David Ray Griffin.

The fact that no other skyscrapers had/have ever collapsed from fire sounds like a good point, but no others had been hit by such large aircraft before. The B-25 that hit the Empire State Building was far smaller and that structure was built far differently.

Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]

For that to have been done by explosives, I think there would need to have been charges set on many floors, with detonation sequence timed to imitate the acceleration of gravity.

There is a reverse truth to the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure known as “controlled demolition,” in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought down by explosives.

This a priori assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination of the particular nature of the collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly describe these eleven features.

I'll outline those 11 features here. You can read DR. Griffin's explanations of each one of these features at the link I provided.

1. Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden.

2. Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings.

3. Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance.

4. Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high.

5. Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces.

6. Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles.

7. Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy.

8. Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off.

9. Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building.

10. Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions.

11. Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel.



Okay, I'll take a break to give you a chance to read Dr. Griffin's lengthier explanations of these features.

 

The Twin Towers collapses began right at the level of the impacts and fires and accelerated downward. For that to have been done by explosives, I think there would need to have been charges set on many floors, with detonation sequence timed to imitate the acceleration of gravity.

According to the official account, the “pancaking” began when the floors above the hole caused by the airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began somewhat lower.

Timothy Burke said that “the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

Firefighter Edward Cachia said: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. . . . Instead, photos and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward.

Other skyscraper fires had localized ignition points; these had instantaneous ignition throughout several floors covering most of the footprint size of the towers, and the plastic and wood furnishings throughout would sustain fire long past when the jet fuel had been consumed.

We can't overlook the third building WTC 7 that suddenly collapsed straight down at near free fall speed that day that wasn't hit by an airliner, didn't have thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning inside it. Yes there were fires, yes there was damage on the side from falling debris and yes it suffered a sudden total straight down collapse like WTC 1 and WTC 2.

 

These guys reveal just how outrageous the government's conspiracy theory is.

 

I told you all there was no point in engaging Poncho on this. He decided long ago and irrevocably what he believed about 9/11, and no amount of contrary facts will ever change his mind. Virtually all the 9/11 'truthers' are like that. The real facts about 9/11 are out there and easily accessible, but it's not what Poncho WANTS to believe, so he embraces the completely debunked 'truther' position and will never let go (and I do understand well that there are numerous variations of 9/11 'truther' theory, but they are simply different brands of fertilizer).

I do have one question for you, Poncho. 9/11 'truthers' like yourself tend to believe in many other similar things, like 'the moon landings were faked.' So let me ask you: what do you believe about the Holocaust?

 

Ask him about benghazi!

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk