What's stronger than Viagra? "Implosion World" still unrefuted.

[MervinFerd]

http://www.implosionworld.com

Implosionworld's paper on the World Trade Center Collapse's... http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1


Above, we have the opinion of --actual-- authentic experts on the collapse of the towers. Posted days ago. Begging for refutation. No such has been provided.

It's very clear that the Truther's wad is shot on this one. I've prescribed Viagra, but that hasn't helped in days.

What's stronger than Viagra?

[MervinFerd]

1. --Nobody-- can 'get up' a refutation?

Even a weak, wimpy one?

[greyl]

2. Your post presents serious motherfucking problems

to CTists. ;)

[wildbilln864]

3. Hardly!

:hi:

[MervinFerd]

4. -Hard-ly? Can you 'get up' a refutation? Just a quickie?

Shouldn't be hard at all.

[vincent_vega_lives]

5. What's there to refute?

Its obvious the internet sleuths here know MUCH more about controlled demolition than experts that have been doing it for years. Besides they're tainted. They've done Government contracts and cant possibly be used as a legitimate source.

[MervinFerd]

6. True.

If we can call the experts names, we don't have to deal with their facts.

Much easier that way.

[MervinFerd]

7. Day after day. Weeks pass. O' the grief of ED.

Just a weak, wimpy refutation. Doesn't need to be -real- "hard" to do.

[wildbilln864]

8. Are you going to ....

be ok merv? Calm down and breath into this paper bag! :eyes:

[MervinFerd]

9. I'm fine. Can you refute the OP? --Really-- should not be 'hard'.

[frylock]

10. ..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x129440#130434

[nebula]

11. What is the OP asking for?

Hold your horses, grasshopper. One thing at a time.

You need to be specific. Don't just link to some long article that raises a dozen different topics regarding 9/11 and expect us to try to debate them all in one thread. Much too cumbersome and pointless to do it that way.

Please. Exercise some common sense and courtesy.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Why don't you have a go at it, nebula?

Read the paper, and the FIRST THING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, you cut and paste out your objection to, and we'll deal with it.

Take your time and start as many threads as you like. They let us post here all day long.

[nebula]

13. Let's address one of these, the simplest one

I don't agree with most of Implosionworld's conclusions re: 9/11. They sound to me like little more than a rehash of the OCT, which left much to be desired to begin with. So I will address one of their conclusions here. Any more would be too cumbersome for one thread.


They claim on page 10 that before 9/11, there have been 'many steel structures that have collapsed due to fire' . But they don't provide any examples of any. Can you?


Have a look at a NIST document called "Historical Collapse Survey," starting on page 7 where NIST has listed all the buildings that have collapsed due to fire. You can see some concrete buildings on the chart that have collapsed due to fire, but the ONLY steel-frame buildings listed under the "Total Collapse" category--are the WTC buildings themselves.


http://www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf


This chart lists examples of steel-frame buildings that have ONE OR TWO FLOORS COLLAPSING due to fire, but that is a far cry from a 'Total Collapse.' There are no steel-framed buildings (besides the WTC buildings) listed in the Total Collapse category.


Implosionworld seems to be just flatout lying now.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. So Pages 1-9 you agree with? n/t

[nebula]

15. No, I said I don't agree with most of their conclusions

They sound to me like nothing more than a rehash of the OCT, which I thought had little credibility to begin with.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. So that's not the FIRST THING YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?

Which is what I emphasized, when I asked you to read the paper.

I guess if implosionworld had said "totally collapsed", you might have a point.

But they didn't.

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

[nebula]

19. Haha

Nice word trick they used there.





"The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire."
-Implosionworld

A more honest statement would be:

'The fact is, one other steel structure has partially collapsed due to fire."


The NIST chart shows one other steel structure that 'collapsed' from fire--the Alexis Plaza in Montreal--and which involved only a partial collapse of the 11th floor.

[Bolo Boffin]

20. Ha-haha.

1. Your source document was compiled before this occurrence:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4261315.stm

So that's two partial collapses of a steel structure due to fire. What was left standing in Madrid? The concrete-reinforced areas.

2. A sixth partial collapse is noted in the complilation. It's a small one, but it is a partial collapse, and that's why Implosion World includes it. You should, too.

One New York Plaza. That's three partial collapses.

3. You will notice I said "sixth" up there. The two towers and WTC 7 are three. The Alexis is four. One New York Plaza is five...and WTC 5 is the sixth. A partial collapse, due to fire - because the introductory matter excludes any collapses that could be pinpointed to any other primary cause.

So that's four, FOUR, collapses due to fire.

2. I don't think trickery was involved in their word choice, nebula. I think "reading comprehension" has more to do with your lack of an argument.

3. Pop quiz: is there any other difference between the WTC towers and 7 and these other buildings that we might want to consider? Anything? Anything at all?

Here's a hint:



http://www.airliners.net/open.file/560834/L

[nebula]

22. That they use the phrase

"many steel structures have collapsed due to fire"

in the context of 9/11, is clearly meant to compare 'many steel structures' to the WTC structures. They want the reader to believe 'collapsed due to fire' means 'totally collapsed due to fire.' Then they can claim otherwise when someone calls them on it.

A manipulative use of language at best, on their part.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Well, they had three others at the time. Now we have four.

They also said:

Either partial or total failure of the structural framing, members, and/or connections was considered to have met the definition of "collapse."

That is on the FIRST PAGE. The SECOND PARAGRAPH of the FIRST PAGE. I don't see how you missed it, unless you have this distressing habit of only reading the parts that someone has directed you to. Otherwise you would never have submitted such a silly argument.

[nebula]

27. How could a handful of insignificant partial collapses

be reasonably compared to the total collapses of the WTC buildings? They can't.

In other words, there has never been a significant collapse of a steel-framed building prior to 9/11. Implosionworld doesn't dispute that, but at the same time aren't honest enough to acknowledge it outright. Instead choosing to play word games to avoid doing so.

The WTC buildings are in fact, the first steel-framed buildings in history to have suffered any significant or total collapse (allegedly) due to fire. The WTC collapses are unprecedented and there's nothing else in history they can reasonably be compared to.*

These are basic facts, not opinion.




*...with the exception of CD, which is the only event in history besides earthquakes that is known to cause significant and/or total collapse of steel-frame buildings.

[Make7]

31. What about the Kader factory fire?

 

Posted by nebula:

In other words, there has never been a significant collapse of a steel-framed building prior to 9/11.

On May 10, 1993, a major fire at the Kader Industrial (Thailand) Co. Ltd. factory located in the Nakhon Pathom Province of Thailand killed 188 workers (Grant and Klem 1994). This disaster stands as the world's worst accidental loss-of-life fire in an industrial building in recent history, a distinction held for 82 years by the Triangle Shirtwaist factory fire that killed 146 workers in New York City (Grant 1993).

   -snip-

Initial reports following the May 1993 fire noted that there were four buildings on the Kader site, three of which were destroyed by the fire. In a sense this is true, but the three buildings were actually a single E-shaped structure (see figure 39.13), the three primary portions of which were designated Buildings One, Two and Three. Nearby was a one-storey workshop and another four-storey structure referred to as Building Four.

   -snip-

The E-shaped building was a four-storey structure composed of concrete slabs supported by a structural steel frame. There were windows around the perimeter of each floor and the roof was a gently sloped, peaked arrangement. Each portion of the building had a freight elevator and two stairwells that were each 1.5 metres (3.3 feet) wide. The freight elevators were caged assemblies.

   -snip-

Despite the fire-fighters' efforts, Building One collapsed completely at approximately 5:14 p.m. Fanned by strong winds blowing toward the north, the blaze spread quickly into Buildings Two and Three before the fire brigade could effectively defend them. Building Two reportedly collapsed at 5:30 p.m., and Building Three at 6:05 p.m.

http://www.ilo.org/encyclopedia/?doc&nd=857100058&nh=0&ssect=0

- Make7
Is it time to move the goalposts?

[nebula]

34. Thailand? Are you serious?

Let's stick to the countries that actually have, you know, First World construction standards.

Dear Lord.

[AZCat]

35. Moving the goalposts, I see.

This is the first mention I've seen in this thread regarding location of said steel structures.

[Make7]

43. I thought it met your previously stated criteria.

 

nebula wrote:

The WTC buildings are in fact, the first steel-framed buildings in history to have suffered any significant or total collapse (allegedly) due to fire.

The Kader toy factory buildings were steel-framed buildings that collapsed due to fire. That seemed to be an example of what you were talking about.

How about an example from the United States?

1967 January 16--The McCormick Place Fire

McCormick Place, the world's largest exposition hall, officially opened November 18, 1960. The 40-million dollar building on Chicago's lakefront was a tremendous commercial success.

On January 16, 1967, with the National Housewares Manufacturers' Association exhibit about to open, the great building was destroyed by fire

http://www.chipublib.org/004chicago/timeline/mcormicfire.html

- Make7
Let me guess, only high-rise buildings count. Or perhaps ones with protected steel.

[petgoat]

93. McCormick was an arena with an un-fireproofed steel truss roof.

Of course it collapsed when it burned. Steel-roofed grocery stores, warehouses,
and garages collapse all the time when they burn.

That doesn't count. We're talking about steel-frame highrise buildings. And that
four story factory in Thailand doesn't count either, because its columns would not
be of sufficient mass to resist heating even if they were fireproofed.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Well, great. I think I've established that they aren't lying...

...and in words that are not games, but stated honestly and openly.

So, any other problems with that paper you want to hit us with? Or do you just want to provide the link to the place where you're cribbing your attack notes from?

[nebula]

36. I think we've established

that they are anything but open and honest.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. Explain yourself.

They told exactly how they defined the word collapsed in the first sentence of the second paragraph. They then said that many steel structures had collapsed due to fire. They had six all told - they would now have seven with the Madrid fire.

So your definition of "anything but open and honest" is "tell exactly how they are going to use a word and then use it in that way."

Got any other problems with that paper, buddy?

[Kingshakabobo]

39. Read this exchange and you will see there is a comprehension problem.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x134640#134764

[nebula]

41. Put it this way...

the demolition industry can not afford to be open and honest about 9/11, even if they wanted to. And so far they've proven that.

Not when their business and livelihood is heavily dependent on our tax dollars to stay afloat. The demolition industry depends on the US government (federal, state, and local) for much, if not all, of its business. And I honestly don't believe they would want to jeopardize their position by pissing off their biggest, most important customer, do you? Not if they want to maintain a lucrative and thriving industry that is.

When the almighty dollar clashes with morals and ethics in the business world, the former virtually always wins out.

And with that, I'm off to bed. Good night.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. If your response is a fallback to unfalsifiability...

...then off to bed with you.

Buildings aren't going to need to be demolished whether or not Bush is in power? Don't you think that the demolition industry could expose the Bush Administration, hand the reins of power to the Democrats for a hundred years, and then get all the demo contracts their little hearts could desire?

Quit embarassing yourself.

[nebula]

46. That's a good one

If you think the Democrats' position concerning the central premise of the OCT deviates in any way from the GOP's, then you presume way too much. You think Democrats in Congress would somehow appreciate anyone coming forward as a whistlebower? Haha. That's a good one. They're just as willfully ignorant about 9/11 as Republicans are.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. I continue to marvel at your "piece of workitude".

If you think the Democrats' position concerning the central premise of the OCT deviates in any way from the GOP's, then you presume way too much. You think Democrats in Congress would somehow appreciate anyone coming forward as a whistlebower? Haha. That's a good one. They're just as willfully ignorant about 9/11 as Republicans are.

Another classic example of nebulistic reasoning: he comes to a Democratic website and is surprised to find people who support the Democratic party. What party will you be supporting in the upcoming elections, nebula? Have we another follower of the Big LL on our hands here?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

126. Way to slander Congressional Democrats n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. WOOT!! WOOT!!

The OLD FALLBACK play!!!

:nuke:

The PAID SHILL IMMORAL GOVERNMENT LACKY accusation makes the scene!

[Anarcho-Socialist]

125. Nice. Got to love the way you slandered a whole profession

Of course your collection of logical fallacies doesn't explain how demolition industries outside the United States are also beholden to "BushCo." However I am sure you can work this into a tacked-on grand uber-conspiracy.

[AZCat]

40. You do realize...

that this list only includes incidents from 1970-2002, and does not claim to be comprehensive?

[nebula]

47. It is comprehensive

If it isn't, then what other modern steel structure(s) have suffered total collapse due to fire besides the WTC buildings (allegedly)??

Name one. You know, an actual modern steel structure--not some flimsy, shoddy factory in Thailand or Africa built to 3rd world standards. LoL.

Name one.

[AZCat]

51. You should be careful.

Moving heavy objects (like goalposts) can injure your back if you keep doing it this frequently. I suppose you're going to redefine "modern" for me next, huh?

[nebula]

64. What's the matter? Still can't do it?

Implosionworld is full of shit.

[AZCat]

74. I'm waiting for you to, yet again, move the goalposts.

What's your definition of "modern"?

[nebula]

86. Of course you are

You're waiting for someone to move the goalposts so low so that even a tin shack
in some 3rd world shantytown would qualify as a 'modern steel structure.'

:rofl:

[AZCat]

100. Still waiting for that definition... n/t

[nebula]

135. Learn to use a dictionary

mod·ern /ˈmɒdərn/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to present and recent time; not ancient or remote: modern city life.
2. characteristic of present and recent time; contemporary; not antiquated or obsolete: modern viewpoints.
------------------------


Did you get that? Contemporary, NOT ANTIQUATED or OBSOLETE.

Sorry, but your obsolete, tin shack Thailand factory does not fit into any acceptable definition of the word MODERN.

[AZCat]

139. I was looking for something a little more specific.

A year, perhaps?

[wildbilln864]

99. well there goes...

IW's credibility! Evidence of deception already! Too bad Merv!!

[frylock]

16. this shit was addressed by freedom fighter jh on Mon Dec-25-06 02:07 PM..

you willfully ignored it and continue to call people out.

1. The towers' collapse did not look *exactly* like conventional controlled demolition, in that they started too high up in the buildings.

Maybe not, but so what?

Conventional demolitions work from the bottom up, yes, to get the bottom of the structure out of the way so that the top can fall straight down. And because that's the way it's always been done and there is no need to change.

No need to change, that is, unless you are trying to make the controlled demolition look like it started at a higher floor. Nowadays we have computers. Could not computers time the charges to explode just right so that they could start near the top but still knock the bottom out of the way on time? Then there would be no need for the demolition to start from the bottom.

2. The towers did not fall so straight down as they appeared to do.

Their destruction did not look exactly like a controlled demolition. How does this show that it was not in fact caused by explosives?

3. What looked like plumes and squibs was really just air being forced out.

I don't know much about this. Does anyone have anything to offer?

Whatever you make of most of these points, the hypothesis that something other than airplanes caused the towers to collapse is about as strong as its *weakest* supporting argument. I do believe that some of what looks suspicious to those who do not believe the OCT may in fact be consistent with the OCT. But there is so much circumstantial evidence that discounting some of it can still leave a compelling argument.

4. When witnesses thought they heard explosions, they may really have been hearing general crashing noises.

Maybe. In my experience, the explosion testimony is usually brought in to counter the OCT assertion that if there had been explosions, there would have been witnesses. Here are your witnesses. But they were just confused, and what they heard was not really explosions? That makes sense if you start from the assumption that there were no explosions. But really, who is to say? Since there are witnesses who believe they heard explosions -- and they are, as far as I know, unrefuted by any reasoning except that they couldn't have been explosions because there were no explosions -- it is not fair to say that if there had been explosions there would have been witnesses.

This passage is interesting: "The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were senstive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibtration events." Does what they say about a detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns not apply as well to an *impact* powerful enough to defeat steel columns? Something, obviously, defeated those steel columns. Why is it that a detonation would have transferred energy that would have been detected, but whatever it is that they believe in fact destroyed the columns was not?

5. thermite/thermate: I have no answer (Anyone? Do you?) because I don't know enough.

6. The steel was not immediately shipped overseas.

So what. It was not treated as evidence. The FEMA study was done by volunteers trying to scout out pieces at Fresh Kills landfill. By the time they got to it, most of it was in fact one.

The paper itself says, "According to al parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project . . .." The same treatment as demolition debris for evidence of the crime of the century? Why am I trying to refute a paper that is doing such a good job of undermining its point?

7. WTC 7 was not demolished.

There is no other possible explnation for the way WTC 7 fell. If it were damaged by tower fallout, perhaps it would collapse -- but not with all columns failing at once and everything falling symetrically.

This paper does not address some of the main reasons to suspect controlled demolition: the speed at which the towers and WTC 7 fell (to my knowledge the only known instances of buidlings falling at nearly free-fall speed without help from explosives) and the lack of a full explanation for how the core columns failed. Perhaps those things are outside of the scope of the paper. But they still stand.

That "Chuck Jones" comment got me. It shows that these guys are treating the controlled demolition theory with the serious appropriate to a Road Runner cartoon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x129440#130434

[greyl]

17. There several fun posts in that thread, thanks for the link.

However, if someone uses the term "nearly free-fall speed" regarding the collapses on 9/11, it's clear they're not getting it.

[frylock]

21. that's about the crux of the argument as far as i can tell..

the nit-picking of words, like the towers fell at (near) free-fall speeds, or they fell into their own footprints. Is that what we're discussing here?!

[greyl]

23. The discussion is about the content of the paper in the OP. nt

[frylock]

26. and that was addressed

[MervinFerd]

29. NO it was not.

[frylock]

30. as you've so succinctly elaborated

[quickesst]

25. Now that's classic....

"the nit-picking of words," :rofl: I'm with you there, brother! Thanks.
quickesst

[MervinFerd]

28. Sorry. NOT a refutation. Just a restatement of CD claims.

Or, "I don't know about this".

OF COURSE YOU DON'T! The experts who actually do demolitions "know about this". And they say your claims are nonsense.

Keep trying. I've got a Levitra prescription coming in. So you will have 36 hours.

[freedom fighter jh]

32. so everyone is supposed to read your reference . . .

. . . but only demolition experts are qualified to comment on it?

Oh, and don't talk to me about Levitra. It's not made for people of my kind. Keep your whole prescription for yourself.

[MervinFerd]

38. You need not be an expert; you need to actually --refute-- the article.

"To refute" means that you would state their arguments and claims (accurately!) and then show how those arguments are faulty or their factual claims are false.

You need not be a structural engineer to do this, but you -must- deal honestly with their logic and refute their factual claims with contrary claims from comparably valid sources.

Simply stating (for example), "There's no possible way WTC7 could have collapsed without explosives" is NOT a refutation. It's just a statement of your uninformed opinion.

You may not have need of the drug, but I will give you 36 hours nonetheless.

[freedom fighter jh]

114. WTC 7

I'll address your WTC 7 example.

Unlike the towers, WTC 7 was supported by columns that were spaced far apart from one another.

What could have caused all those columns to fail within seconds of each other? As I understand it, free fall time from the top of that building to the ground would have been about 6 seconds, and it's been argued on this forum that that building collapse took as long as 8 seconds. It's also been argued that there was a huge, gaping hole on the side that the camera didn't catch. Let's say there was, and that that's what caused the collapse. Probably several columns were destroyed. In falling, those columns must have pulled on joists, bringing down the floors that those joists supported and also stressing other columns. Would it have stressed all the columns in the building to the point of failure? I doubt it, since the remaining columns were not holding any additional gravity load, and since the outer colums did not respond by bending, as they would have if there were being pulled by inner columns. But suppose all the columns did fail. If the outer columns failed because of the big hole in the building, which left inner columns destroyed, the outer columns would have had to fail *after* the columns near the hole. But in fact all the columns failed at the same time. If you don't believe me, watch any video of WTC 7's collapse.

WTC 7 came down at something very close to free fall speed, with all columns failing at once. That meant there was very little resistance for any of its columns to overcome. The only way that could happen, even if that building had sustained massive damage, would have been for the columns to be destroyed. The destruction of any of the columns that are not near the hypothetical hole remains unexplained, as far as I know.

[Bolo Boffin]

116. Your account of 7's collapse is inaccurate.

But don't take my word for it.

Go find diagrams depicting the actual structure of WTC 7, particularly the crucial floors of 5-7. You will find an number of "tricks" used to support the weight of the building over an electrical substation that was already onsite - trusses in odd-looking places, especially on the east side. The failures of one or more of these trusses means that the delicate balancing act of load redistribution goes haywire. It could be that the failure of one or more trusses caused others to overcompensate and pull a crucial column apart on the east side.

From firefighter reports, we also know the heavy damage to the southwest corner, particularly as shown in the new pictures of the south facace, caused the building to lean over. When you are a relatively small tower sinking into the mud in Pisa, the forces of redistribution aren't so catastrophic. However WTC 7 was a 47-story office building. The gravity loads in this building are much more massive than the leaning tower of Pisa. The redistribution of all that weight was already a complex process - this listing of the building had to affect the structure negatively.

Then there was the fire as well. The fire is reported on as many as seven floors. Smoke clearly roils out of WTC 7 in many videos. Yes, many buildings close to 7 were on fire. So was WTC 7, in a massive, unchecked way.

You need to watch the complete video of the collapse as well. It is clear that all the columns do NOT fail all at once. Inside the building, columns on the east side fail first, causing the east penthouse to sink into the building. Moments later, the west penthouse finally sinks (meaning the floors below are collapsing into the space left by the east collapse), followed by the facade, which kinks and falls on top of the rest. This is the part that is claimed to have little or no resistance, the collapse of the facade. The truth is, there is little resistance for the facade, because the east interior is already gone, and the west and middle interior is already falling.

Classic progressive collapse - not all columns fail at the same time. If you don't believe me, watch any COMPLETE video of WTC 7's collapse.

[freedom fighter jh]

117. Errr, what part is inaccurate?

When I said "all at the same time," I meant within seconds -- not enough time for the expected resistance to slow anything down. At most, the collapse time for this building was 2 seconds more than free fall time. I think that can be called "all the columns failing at once."

And your evidence that the interior was gone before the facade is . . . ?

[Bolo Boffin]

119. I spent an entire post showing you how yours was inaccurate.

The words "all at the same time" do not mean the same thing as "within seconds". It is absolute sophistry to try to deny this.

But then, that's what you do. You used the words "all at the same time" for their rhetorical power. You are crafting propanganda; you are not trying to understand how the towers fell. This is evident in your gross mischaracterization of my post, both in your subject title and saying "the interior was gone before the facade."

That last quote of yours is quite off the mark from what I wrote. The east penthouse falling means that that part of the interior was definitely gone before the final fall of the facade. The collapse of the west penthouse shows us that the interior below it was most probably in the process of falling when the facade finally fell. Still in there, but providing no resistance.

[freedom fighter jh]

130. All right, let me spell it out for you.

The last of the columns began to fail visibly, breaking into pieces, before the first were done. So they were all falling at the same time. This is evident from videos of the collapse.

My quote is off the mark from what you wrote?

This is what you wrote: "This is the part that is claimed to have little or no resistance, the collapse of the facade. The truth is, there is little resistance for the facade, because the east interior is already gone, and the west and middle interior is already falling."

This is how referred to it: "And your evidence that the interior was gone before the facade is . . . ?" OK, I could have said "part of" the interior. But how you see my words as a "gross mischaracterization" . . . well, I tempted to make as personal an attack as you usually do, but I won't.

I'm sick and tired of the tone of your responses, and I'm out of this thread.

[Bolo Boffin]

131. You've got video of the columns failing? "Visibly"

Or is that more evidence of your rhetorical excesses?

And if I make personal attacks, alert the moderators. Why IS it that you guys ALWAYS try to make me the subject of this? Could it be that if you had actual FACTS to deal with, you wouldn't have to simper and complain about my "tone"?

[MervinFerd]

42. Refuting the "Refutation".

<<1. The towers' collapse did not look *exactly* like conventional controlled demolition, in that they started too high up in the buildings.

Maybe not, but so what?

Conventional demolitions work from the bottom up, yes, to get the bottom of the structure out of the way so that the top can fall straight down. And because that's the way it's always been done and there is no need to change.

No need to change, that is, unless you are trying to make the controlled demolition look like it started at a higher floor. Nowadays we have computers. Could not computers time the charges to explode just right so that they could start near the top but still knock the bottom out of the way on time? Then there would be no need for the demolition to start from the bottom.>>

FAULTY LOGIC.

The article is addresing the claim that the collapse "looked like CD and therefore must have been CD". But, the collapse was --nothing like-- a conventional CD. Therefore, the claim is without merit.

There --could-- be explosives at the impact site, of course. But the similarity in appearance to CD is no evidence of that.

THE CLAIM IS THAT CD IS PROVED BY EVIDENCE. DISPROVING THAT CLAIM ONLY REQUIRES INVALIDATING THE EVIDENCE. NOT PROVING THE OPPOSITE.

<<2. The towers did not fall so straight down as they appeared to do.

Their destruction did not look exactly like a controlled demolition. How does this show that it was not in fact caused by explosives?>>

FAULTY LOGIC AGAIN.
The claim addressed is (again) that the similar appearance to CD --proves-- CD. But, (again) the collapse is very different from a true Controlled Demolition, therefore, the argument fails.

Again, it is --possible-- that there were explosives. There is just no EVIDENCE of explosives.

<<3. What looked like plumes and squibs was really just air being forced out.

I don't know much about this. Does anyone have anything to offer?>>

HONEST ANSWER.
But, here the experts give a perfectly plausible explanation for the observations. Your opinion (or mine) or that of the other folks here is not of much interest.

Again, the claimed evidence disappears.

<<Whatever you make of most of these points, the hypothesis that something other than airplanes caused the towers to collapse is about as strong as its *weakest* supporting argument. I do believe that some of what looks suspicious to those who do not believe the OCT may in fact be consistent with the OCT. But there is so much circumstantial evidence that discounting some of it can still leave a compelling argument.>>

I CAN MAKE NO SENSE OF THIS AT ALL.

<<4. When witnesses thought they heard explosions, they may really have been hearing general crashing noises.

Maybe. In my experience, the explosion testimony is usually brought in to counter the OCT assertion that if there had been explosions, there would have been witnesses. Here are your witnesses. But they were just confused, and what they heard was not really explosions? That makes sense if you start from the assumption that there were no explosions. But really, who is to say? Since there are witnesses who believe they heard explosions -- and they are, as far as I know, unrefuted by any reasoning except that they couldn't have been explosions because there were no explosions -- it is not fair to say that if there had been explosions there would have been witnesses.
>>

SAME LOGICAL FALLACY AS ALL THE OTHERS.
The claim addressed is that the observation proves explosions; it does not because there are many other possible explanations.

There --could-- have been explosions. But there is no EVIDENCE of explosions.

To repeat: the claim is that there is PROOF of explosions. There is not such proof.

<< thermite/thermate: I have no answer (Anyone? Do you?) because I don't know enough.>>

HONEST ANSWER.
And, honestly, Thermite is a weak and stupid claim, which the experts dispose of very nicely.

<<6. The steel was not immediately shipped overseas.

So what. It was not treated as evidence. The FEMA study was done by volunteers trying to scout out pieces at Fresh Kills landfill. By the time they got to it, most of it was in fact one.

The paper itself says, "According to al parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project . . .." The same treatment as demolition debris for evidence of the crime of the century? Why am I trying to refute a paper that is doing such a good job of undermining its point?>>

MIS-STATES THE ARGUMENT AND FAULTY LOGIC.

The claim addressed is that the steel was rushed out of the country in an unusual rushed fashion, "proving" some coverup. This was not the case. The very large volume of steel was moved in a systematic way and was available for weeks to any agency that wanted to check it.

Again, the claimed proof disappears. And again it is --possible-- there is some incriminating residue there; we just have no EVIDENCE of that.

<<7. WTC 7 was not demolished.

There is no other possible explnation for the way WTC 7 fell. If it were damaged by tower fallout, perhaps it would collapse -- but not with all columns failing at once and everything falling symetrically.>>

THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Just your uninformed opinion. Bullshit, in other words. The experts came to a different conclusion.


I still await an actual refutation of that article.

[MervinFerd]

45. Elaboration: "Possibility" versus Actual Evidence.

The common logicical error is confusion of "a show of possibility" and "Actual Evidence"

It is --possible-- that the towers were brought down by explosive potatoes, or Death Rays from Space, or massive amounts of explosive.

----BUT---

given that there is a complete consensus of expert opiinion that such extraordinary measures were unnecessary and unlikely, there has to be

----ACTUAL EVIDENCE----

before they are considered seriously.

[John Q. Citizen]

50. Did "Implosion World" actually test the metal for Viagra? Or potatoes?

I didn't think so.

Next!!!

[MervinFerd]

52. You haven't given me any refutation. Still.

And, unless there is EVIDENCE of viagra or potatoes, there is no point in testing for them.

[MervinFerd]

53. Silence, blessed silence.

Boring.

[petgoat]

96. How do you find the evidence if you don't test?

You must work for a medical insurance claims division.

"No you can't have a biopsy until we're sure you have cancer."

[Emillereid]

54. Another demolition expert says that WTC7 was blown up -- no doubts!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

One of the problems I admit with WTC 1 and 2 is that it appears to be a different kind of demolition -- top down.

I admit I don't know the truth -- but I do think that there are sufficient real questions about the buildings collapses that a new, non-political commission, staffed only with scientists, is warranted.

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Jawenko's got that Bill Frist diagnosis by video down pat.

I think I'll stick with Blanchard.

[Emillereid]

56. Much of Blanchard's analysis rested on video examination -- particularily

that WTC 1 and 2 did not conform to normal demolitions that bring the bottom of the building down first. What's really intriguing about the Dutch expert is that he had already viewed the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 and announced that they didn't look like demolition. (I bet you would have likd him then.) Then he was showed the WTC 7 collapse -- he had no idea that it also fell on 911 -- and just gave his neutral review, unlike Blanchard who definitely knew all the demolition theories of 911.

[Bolo Boffin]

57. That's not true - he had the seismograph evidence as well.

You have read the document quoted in the OP, haven't you?

[Emillereid]

60. I didn't say that video viewing was all Blanchard used -- I said much of his

analysis rested on video inspection and the fact the WTC 1 and 2 didn't conform to the 'normal' bottom first demolition. The beauty of the Dutch fellow is that he did not know that WTC7 came down on 911 -- so his view was not tainted by prior 'knowledge or beliefs.'

You don't do well with subtlety - do you?

[Bolo Boffin]

62. No, I prefer facts and honest characterizations to "subtlety".

Quit making me the topic. Read the paper and refute it, if you can.

[MervinFerd]

68. Have you even read the assigned paper? Can you refute it?

It's by actual experts who are actually familiar with the whole situation. Not just a video.

[treestar]

58. Why don't the OCTer's simply

set forth the chemical and mathematical reaction?

The amount of steel in the WTC is a known factor. The amount of jet fuel is a known factor. Seems that they could therefore state that x liters of jet fuel burning at y temperature for z minutes results in the weakening of a amount of steel in b minutes and that the weight bearing capacity of a amount of steel is weakened to be c tons and that more than c tons existed above the crash site, etc.

If it's that scientific, it should be able to be reduced to the numbers.

[Bolo Boffin]

59. No problem

http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

You're welcome.

[treestar]

70. So in other words, you don't understand the side you believe in

yourself, and cannot explain it yourself.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. So, in other words, you're not interested in a scientific explanation.

Why then are you asking for one?

[Emillereid]

61. Kevin Ryan (who worked for the company that underwrote the steel in the

buildings) said in a talk I heard that NIST tried to simulate the actual collapse using real models (not computer) and found that they could not re-create the collapse. Interesting, n'est pas? In fact, he said that the NIST report itself undermines the pancake collapse theory.

Here's an article by Kevin Ryan that's quite instructive: http://stj911.org/ryan/garcia.html

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Kevin Ryan is a LIAR, and I'm surprised you bring him up.

UL didn't certify the steel, either. You need to stop listening to Kevin Ryan on any subject, whatsoever.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MervinFerd]

67. Methinks you are stuck on CTs; and will believe anything that supports one.

I've no idea if Mr. Ryan is a liar, but from what you have said so far; I doubt he is particularly impressive.

At least not in a good way.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. The lies of Kevin Ryan

1. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#52m14s

This is Kevin Ryan's version of Silverstein's "pull it" statement: Larry Silverstein, leaseholder for all three buildings -- "I said...maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And (the fire department commander and I) made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." -- PBS, 2002

That parenthetical insertion is a LIE. Silverstein very deliberately says THEY made that decision. Larry deliberately LIES about this to support his CT.

2. http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032&q=kevin+ryan#50m56s

The NIST WTC report is false. They did not explain why and how the buildings collapsed and their investigation was deceptive and un-scientific at every step.

This is a LIE.

n WTC 1, the aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and insulation. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where insulation was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

In WTC 2, the aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in the southeast corner of the core. The floor damage and the subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors and local floor/wall disconnections, and resulted in bowing and buckling of the east wall. The damage to the core columns and fire-induced high temperatures resulted in local redistribution to the remaining core columns in the southeast corner, which redistributed the core column loads to the east and the south wall columns, as the core leaned toward the south and east. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the east wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east and south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent north and south walls. Global collapse occurred when the potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

The results of the global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which progressed horizontally to adjacent walls.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6D.pdf

For the scientific basis of all those statements, check out the NIST report.

3, 4, and 5. http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

That is Ryan's letter while employed at UL. It was a blatant attempt to use the name of his company to bolster conspiracy theories about 9/11. It was a LIE, not to mention several blatant LIES contained within the body of the letter - "briefly burning fires in those towers"? Even the pretense that he's qualified to speak about the steel is a lie - the man tested water for a living!

(...)Plaintiff used his letter to express opinions that, based on the nature of his employment and subject matter of the opinions, could be reasonably construed as being those of his employer. Given that he also wrote that “UL had tested and certified the steel components used to construct the WTC tower,” (...), Plaintiff clearly implied that he was writing as a UL employee. Nowhere in the letter is it stated or even suggested that the opinions expressed were merely his personal opinions. (...) (T)he letter here was sent without the authority, consent, or knowledge of the employer to outside parties (...). As a result, (...) Plaintiff appeared to be expressing not his own, private opinions but the Company’s position. Consequently, even if UL were a state actor (which it is not), it was still permitted to discharge Plaintiff, and Plaintiff cannot state a § 1983 claim

That's from UL's motion to dismiss his wrongful termination claim.

Because of these LIES, Kevin Ryan was fired. He was using his position to make statements wrongfully attributable to UL. It was a gross negligence of ethics.

6 and 7. Ryan is currently suing UL for "wrongful termination". He's claiming "whistleblower status", to which he is not entitled. He's claiming a constitutional infringement of his rights, but he has no basis for the claim. LIE and LIE.

Kevin Ryan is a documented LIAR, because he LIES.

[petgoat]

91. Ryan

1. If Mr. Silverstein made the suggestion to pull, and the FDNY subsequently
did, Silverstein can reasonably be supposed to have participated in the decision.
He was the building's owner, after all. The distinction you are making may be of
some great legal consequence in connection with insurance liabilities on the
building, but out of that context Ryan's slight sloppiness hardly counts as a lie.

2. After detailed description of the events leading to collapse initiation, NIST
says "Global collapse occurred." It does not even try to explain how this happened.
It's like explaining that JFK died because his head exploded.

3,4,5. As Ryan tells the story, he seems to have believed he had a mandate from the
CEO to investigate the question of UL's certification of the steel. After he wrote
the letter, his mandate seems to have evaporated. Your attempt to twist this into
deliberate lying is clumsy.

6,7 Apparently your basis for listing these "lies" is your own legal judgement about
the merits of Ryan's pending legal claims.

Pretty feeble work, bolo.

[Bolo Boffin]

105. Yes, PetGoat, that defense of Ryan's LIES is pretty feeble.

1. If Mr. Silverstein made the suggestion to pull, and the FDNY subsequently
did, Silverstein can reasonably be supposed to have participated in the decision.
He was the building's owner, after all. The distinction you are making may be of
some great legal consequence in connection with insurance liabilities on the
building, but out of that context Ryan's slight sloppiness hardly counts as a lie.

Ryan DELIBERATELY replaced the word THEY with THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND I. That is a LIE. That is not "slight sloppiness." Shame on you for suggesting it.

2. After detailed description of the events leading to collapse initiation, NIST
says "Global collapse occurred." It does not even try to explain how this happened.
It's like explaining that JFK died because his head exploded.

You would think that a bullet piercing JFK's skull would be enough for most people to understand that JFK died thereafter. Do you really need a chart itemizing exactly where each skull fragment and drop of blood fell?

Once collapse started, the momentum of the section above overwhelmed any ability of the lower section to hold it. This is math. This is academic.

3,4,5. As Ryan tells the story, he seems to have believed he had a mandate from the
CEO to investigate the question of UL's certification of the steel. After he wrote
the letter, his mandate seems to have evaporated. Your attempt to twist this into
deliberate lying is clumsy.

Ryan, already a documented LIAR, certainly can't be trusted in this feeble excuse for his actions. Why would Ryan, a WATER TESTER, ever be asked to investigate certification of steel? He's not qualified to do that!

Ryan misused his position, misrepresented his opinions as that of UL, and was fired for that. He is a LIAR.

6,7 Apparently your basis for listing these "lies" is your own legal judgement about
the merits of Ryan's pending legal claims.

Ryan's pending legal claims are baseless. It's more grandstanding for publicity.

[treestar]

71. Can it be explained without mentioning an individual person?

Because if it is scientific that it happened the way the government says, it can be explained in a calm, non-snarky manner.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Calm, non-snarky explanation:

http://wtc.nist.gov

[petgoat]

92. NIST is a waste of time.

No investigation that fails to express regret at the destruction of the
steel can possibly be honest. The WTC wreckage gave a unique opportunity
to study the behavior of steel under stresses that could never have been
achieved otherwise, and as such represented a priceless scientific resource.

But a former federal prosecutor who surely knew better than to destroy evidence
went on a clean-up kick so anal they even had to clean up the Fresh Kills landfill.

Read Jim Hoffman's brilliant "Building a Better Mirage"

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

[AZCat]

104. Not really...

You don't seem to understand how much research goes into material properties. The WTC towers did not offer anything "unique" about "the behavior of steel under stresses that could never have been achieved otherwise". When are you going to start researching this stuff so you can avoid making these ridiculous claims?

[MervinFerd]

66. Impossible. You can't simulate a 110 story building with little models.

It's like simulating a mercedes with a Hot Wheels; an elephant with a mouse; a 767 with a balsa glider.

The things are just fundamentally different.

Believe the computers; not the chickenwire.

[spooked911]

75. I rebutted this on my blog as soon as it came out.

Maybe you should read my blog more regularly.

There are a few holes in their argument.

http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/response-to-critical-analysis-of.html

[MervinFerd]

76. Did you now? Could you just share -one- rebuttal with us here?

Just for completeness, you know.

[MervinFerd]

77. That's not a rebuttal. Sorry. You just say they are wrong.

That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal..
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
You just repeat that they are wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.

[spooked911]

78. did you even read my piece?

"Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."

This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie."

[MervinFerd]

79. Yes. I read it. No, it is not a rebuttal.

<<The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur.>>

The ""squibs"" were caused by air forced into floors below by the collapse of the structures above. Completely expected, as the paper points out. Explosions that cut beams would cause collapse at the place where the explosions occurred.

There's horseshit here, but its not "Implosionworld.

But, keep trying.

While you are at it, refute this:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

[spooked911]

81. I rebutted that NIST FAQ before. It's on my blog. Feel free to find it.

[spooked911]

83. They lied when they said this:

"...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible...", because they can't possibly know whether the "plumes" were associated with structural failures or not.


And this statement is pure nonsense: "nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence", because they can't possibly know that, and it is a semantic argument anyway.

Their piece was nothing more than a bunch of lawyerly evasion. Face it.

[MervinFerd]

85. They are lying if they disagree with you? All the world is lying, then.

Seems to me these are perfectly reasonable statements.

The plumes occured -below- the level of obvious collapse. The buildings collapsed in an orderly pattern from the impact site downward. What's hard about this?

[spooked911]

88. Plume appears and a millisecond later the building falls down to where the plume was

and they say there is no evidence of a structural failure associated with a plume?

That is disingenuous at best and more likely a deliberate misrepresentation (i.e. lie).

[MervinFerd]

89. No, its --consistent-- with everything else we know about the collapse.

The collapse --necessarily-- compresses air and forces it out lower floors. There -will- be plumes, whether there explosives or not.

There is absolutely no need to hypothesize explosives--the plumes are explained. They are evidence of nothing at all.

If this report is lying, then so is --every-- structural engineer on planet Earth.

And only Mr. Spooked can see the deception! O' the responsibility! O' the agony of knowing, of being special!

[spooked911]

90. but they were saying the plumes were not evidence of structural failure

when they could not know this for sure.
Much of the data IS consistent with demolition, I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

[MervinFerd]

95. "Much of the data" is also consistent with invisible elves with blowtorches.

You are confusing the logic of the situation.

Your evidence of demolition is "plumes" and "the impossibility of progressive collapse". But, the experts are unanimously in agreement that plumes and progressive collapse are expected and inevitable results of structural failure.

Absent evidence, why should we consider either invisible elves or massive amounts of explosive?

(I don't think they are saying the plumes are not evidence of structural collapse--just not evidence of collapse at the points where the plumes appear.)

[petgoat]

97. Floor-compressed air would blow out a whole floor of windows

at once. Squibs emanate from isolated windows.

[petgoat]

94. "The ""squibs"" were caused by air forced into floors below"

Pray tell, how do collapsing floors generate jets of air emanating from just
one or two windows? A collapsing floor would push air out ALL the windows.

As to the NIST FAQs, Jim Hoffman dissects them here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

[MervinFerd]

98. Whatever.

[petgoat]

101. IOW you can't answer the question.

When I first saw the pictures of the squibs, I assumed they were a
photoshopped hoax. I was wrong.

Then for a couple of months I clung to the belief that air forced
down elevator shafts exited at open doors and down hallways to
isolated windows. Then I had to admit that was simply not plausible.

[AZCat]

103. Why is this not plausible?

Please to explain.

[MervinFerd]

118. Yes. "Why is this not plausible? Please explain."

I don't answer you, Mr. Goat, because I have answered a hundred similar posts. Invariably you feign an obtuseness not possible for any conscious human and respond with another ridiculous misunderstanding.

The proposed mechanism is entirely plausible. Many thousands of highly educated and very smart people look a the same information, understand it, and have no trouble at all believing it.

You, on the other hand, pretend to see anomalies where none exist--even after the facts have been patiently explained to you numerous times. It is inconceivable that you are, in reality, this obtuse.

Whatever.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. Could you point to any documentation of either of those former beliefs of yours, petgoat?

Or shall we chalk that up to more bullshit?

[MervinFerd]

80. No rebuttal. Still..

Really thought I'd have something by now.

I gave you the 36 hours. Surely the mood was right -sometime- in that period.

What do you need, a pair of bathtubs on the edge of a canyon?

[spooked911]

82. I rebutted it months back

if you don't want to accept it, that is another issue

[MervinFerd]

84. What you did was call names and wonder why they didn't consider....

that there might not have been any planes at all.

That's not a rebuttal.

[MervinFerd]

87. Won't anyone try to "get up" a rebuttal?

[Strange1]

102. HMMM....

Mervin
You can find equally qualified scientific opinions that state to the contrary of what this article states. It just comes down to who you choose to believe. The issue with this article is that it does not explain how the collapse could have initiated or how it could have physically occurred like it did, at free fall speed. Like I said, who or what do you believe??
I believe in the most complete analysis of the collapse. This does not include one single article written by a government paid contractor. I wonder how much they were paid to write this baseless crap, which is nothing but opinion.

[MervinFerd]

106. You consider this a refutation? It's not.

To respond to your non-refutation:

1. These writers are experts in demolition. They provide reasonable and knowledgable explanations which refute major claims of the "CDers". It is these refutations that I have seen no response to.

2. You --WILL NOT-- find "equally qualified scientific opinion" that supports CD, or anything like it. Just doesn't exist. Stephen Jones is not a structural engineer; he is alone; he is a particle physicist; he is a nutcase; he has published nothing that withstands critical review.

3. The best analysis of the collapse is the NIST report: wtc.NIST.gov. It's written by numerous experts and reviewed by more.

4. Your final sentence is "baseless crap, which is nothing but opinion'. In your case, it is uninformed and unqualified opinion.

[Strange1]

107. Circles

Have you ever noticed that you write in circles?
It is always going to come back to what you believe.
BTW.
There are no structural engineers writing for Implosion World, your topic for this entire thread. Does one need to be a structural engineer to have a valid "opinion" about this event?
When you can show me the science behind the findings, then I will believe what you believe. The NIST analysis is nothing but science based on assumption. It's a hypothesis based on a theory. That's not how scientific research or analysis works, or don't you know?

[MervinFerd]

109. Can you actually address the issues? Or are you limited to calling names?

1. Implosion World writers are (probably) not structural engineers. They -are- very familiar with explosives and what happens in a collapsing building. They -DO- provide reasonable and knowledgeable explanations for the various observations that Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists have tried to use as evidence of explosives or thermite or whatever. And they explain the practical difficulties of creating a Controlled Demolition under the circumstances of an operating building. In short, they demolish the Controlled Demolition "hypothesis".

2. The NIST study proceeded -exactly- as a scientific investigation is supposed to work. They gathered information, formed reasonable hypotheses, and tested those hypotheses by calculation and experiment. And they published their report so that it could be reviewed by any knowledgeable person. NIST did not consider thermite or mini-nukes or Romulan Death Rays. Those are stupid ideas.

3. You need not be a structural engineer to form an opinion on this. But, if you ignore the opinions of structural engineers, you are a fool.

[Strange1]

146. Huhhhh

Who did I call a name? Just asking questions and stating fact. That's how it works.
Sorry, I've been gone for a few days:-)

[CB_Brooklyn]

108. Ridiculous paper from implosionworld

That paper from Implosionworld is a sorry attempt to explain what happened, as well as a distraction from the evidence.


Here's a few things the paper did not address:


WTC 3 - Huge Chunk "Missing". Where did this section go?



WTC 5 - Peculiar "Round Holes". What made these?



Photographs of Ground Zero lacking enough concrete and steel to account for two 110 story towers.




As prominent conservative Paul Craig Roberts says: "How could government complicity be kept a secret? It can be kept a secret, because so many Americans are scientifically ignorant and emotionally weak. They are incapable of realizing the contradiction in the government’s claim that the WTC buildings “pancaked” at free fall speed, and they are emotionally incapable of confronting the evil of the Bush regime."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14566.htm

[MervinFerd]

110. Can you address the issue? Or is quoting a "prominent conservative"...

the limit of your rhetorical ability?

I no longer have time to address "stuff" such as the article you link. This author simply states as "incontrovertible fact" numerous claims that have been refuted repeatedly and decisively. This person is simply selling lies and distortions and fear.

You would do well to stop helping him.

[Grateful for Hope]

111. Paul Craig Roberts

is fairly respected, and has written for CounterPunch -- a respected source here on DU. Here is an interesting article he wrote last year:

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02062006.html

[MervinFerd]

112. The linked article is full of false statements offered as proven fact.

The article takes most of the wildest claims of the Truther "researchers" and treats them as proven scientific fact. When, in fact, competent scientific opinion universally regards these claims as ridiculous. An absolute minimum of intellectual integrity would require (at least) an acknowledgment that the assertions are "controversial".

The article is drivel, in other words. Or, more accurately, lies.

As to respectability: It's not a necessary requirement for being taken seriously. But neither Alexander Cockburn nor Paul Craig Roberts are persons whom I would offer as examples of sound judgment.

Enough said.

[Grateful for Hope]

113. We are all entitled to our opinions. n/t

[MervinFerd]

115. To our own opinions; not to our own facts. Or our own logic. nt

[number6]

121. MervinFerd just keep repeating

I trust Bush and believe the OCT
I trust Bush and believe the OCT
I trust Bush and believe the OCT

and those other alternative ideas and facts won't upset you so much

you too bolo

[Anarcho-Socialist]

127. Yes that's it...

...whack the strawman, beat him good.

[Bolo Boffin]

128. What's with all these new folks around all of the sudden?

Was there a large wave of tombstoning recently?

[Grateful for Hope]

129. New poster?

The one in reference here has been a DU member since 2002.

[Bolo Boffin]

132. Oh, Hope!

:) :-) :o :D :P :+ :7 B-) O8) :party: :silly: :dem: :loveya: :donut: :hug: :grouphug: :pals: :blush: :applause: :patriot:

[Grateful for Hope]

133. taunt away

never admit you are wrong, and, above all, gloat when so-called "CT'er's" are banned.

Your posts are quite transparent.

[Bolo Boffin]

134. Taunt?? Meee??? To Youuuuu??

Heavens. Our friendship is sacred to me, Hope. I cherish it like I cherish all of our exchanges. It's that bright ray of sunshine you bring to every thread you drop into that just sweetens the place up!

Oh, Hope, these terrible words of yours WOUND me, they just WOUND me. Please stop being such a grump, and have some biscuits! I cut them out myself with my granny's tea biscuit tins. Please pet your kitties on the head for me!

Love, love,

Bolo

[Grateful for Hope]

122. Please list the lies and distortions in the article cited n/t

[StrictlyRockers]

123. This paper is ridiculous hogwash. It's not worth refuting.

This is total crapola. Thank you for wasting my time and making me dumber by posting this and having me read enough of it ro realize its merit.

:P

[Grateful for Hope]

124. Question wasn't directed at you

and, I didn't post the link to the article in question.

but, thanks anyway for your informative reply.

[MervinFerd]

137. But, he's said just what I would have said.

If you can't see the problems with this article, you are beyond my persuasive powers.

[Grateful for Hope]

138. Instead of blaming me for asking a question

please support your statements like all of us are expected to do in this forum.

[StrictlyRockers]

140. They make false claims. They use false logic. They paper does not have any credibility.

Here is one quick, blatent lie. There are many others, but I need to spend my time conducting serious research, not debunking lies that are put there to GET IN MY WAY.

So, I'm sorry I do not have time to change everyone's diapers for them. This article is an obviousl "no brainer" to me - meaning, whoever wrote it obviously has no brain. I don't have time for nonsense and drivel. Sorry.
______________________________________________________________________________________________


They claim on page 10 that before 9/11, there have been 'many steel structures that have collapsed due to fire' . But they don't provide any examples of any. Have you?


Have a look at a NIST document called "Historical Collapse Survey," starting on page 7 where NIST has listed all the buildings that have collapsed due to fire. You can see some concrete buildings on the chart that have collapsed due to fire, but the ONLY steel-frame buildings listed under the "Total Collapse" category--are the WTC buildings themselves.

There are many, many more lies and distortions in this paper. It is not even worth debunking when you see the point of view they take. They set out to prove a theory and cherry pick evidence to suit their claim. Useless.

SR

[Grateful for Hope]

141. Your criticisms are apropos

if what you were criticizing was the NIST report.

[AZCat]

144. How many times am I going to have to point this out?

The "Historical Collapse Survey" only lists collapses from 1970 to 2002 and does not claim to be comprehensive - it does not claim to list all the buildings that have collapsed due to fire (contrary to what you say).

[MervinFerd]

145. There is no point in addressing blatant nonsense over and over.

The Truther movement is dead. Divided. Mumbling nonsense.

Get over it.

The article "hangs its hat" on the claim that "Free Fall" is "indisputable scientific fact". That is just indisputably false:

1. The building did not fall at Free Fall speeds. Didn't happen. Unless you have been under a rock around here you -know- that.
2. Even if the buildings -did- fall at Free Fall speeds that means only that lower structures represented negligible resistance once the upper floors had attained substantial speed.
(Only Truthers speak of "pancake collapse". The collapse mechanisms actually proposed are more complex and not subject to simple numerical calculations. Structures moved both vertically -and- horizontally, leading to breaking of connections and a complex progressive collapse.)
3. To account for "Free Fall", Truther theories must postulate preposterous scenarios--vast quantities of explosives or mini-nukes, or Death Rays. Any reasonable quantity of explosive would lead to a collapse indistinguishable from the postulated gravity collapse.

This is only the most outrageous lie. I decline to deal with the rest.

IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE.

[dailykoff]

136. None of this is remotely credible.

Every point boils down to either "we've seen no evidence" or "the authorities we interviewed assure it ain't so."

If this is best they've got they'll need s lot more than Viagra once the hearings get under way.

[MervinFerd]

142. "Not remotely credible?" Is this a refutation? Answer: NO. Still waiting.

Basically, you're saying that "There is no evidence", and "The people who were actually there or have expertise in the field don't support your claims", is not "remotely credible".

What, pray, would you, O' wise one, consider "remotely credible".

An audience with God?

[Bolo Boffin]

143. Mervin, this is the "Nuh-uh" attack.

Being an adult, dailykoff uses more words, but this is basically what he's saying. That's the level of discourse daily wants.