Nuclear Demolition

Discuss what you think really happened in New York on 9/11/2001

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Tue Dec 07, 2010 5:50 pm

Pwf should be re-instated asap
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am


Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby mosfet » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:32 pm

I recall going through this conspiracy theory discussion many years ago. I find it interesting how statements are made and then used (miss used) to promote a particular cause.

I can see several agendas working in parallel and at times coming together in a synergistic effect. However to make it real simple I see two groups. Given our lousy economy and stagnant growth how many engineering firms, University engineering departments, and even private engineering contractors would like a piece of stimulus money to restudy something that has already been studied to death. The second group I see are the people pushing the government did it agenda this tends to be more of a political left-wing agenda. The first group is probably content to let the second group push the public and the more the public can get excited and the more clamor for a continuing study the greater the chance to get a piece of some of that stimulus money in the form of government contracts, grants etc.

And who could argue with more studies even though it could be studied ad infinitum. The first group would be happy and no matter what they came up with the second group would continue with their agenda selectively highlighting anything they can misconstrue and conveniently use to support their government did it agenda.

One example in particular that I noticed was the evidence for thermite explosions. However when you read appendix C. it doesn't say evidence of thermite explosion it says "Limited Metallurgical Examination", with some one pushing the government did it agenda taking a sentence out of context calling it "similar to a thermite type of reaction".

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidenc ... apndxC.htm

Limited Metallurgical Examination


The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.


As far as active thermite dust discovered in samples one has to ask about the samples themselves and if anyone is familiar with HT RW procedures there is chain of custody. So while I don't doubt the analysis I have serious reservations concerning chain of custody and the nature of how the samples were obtained and by whom. It would be very easy to promote a political agenda with a few samples.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/ther ... idues.html

But I guess if you can rally the troops and can get all the conspiracy theorists to keep hounding maybe another study can be issued and funded by Congress. I seriously doubt that any more would come of it than what we already know. So this circumstance of symbiotic agendas seems to continue without end.
mosfet
On A Quest for Reality
On A Quest for Reality
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:05 am

zep tepi wrote:Read it, and try to understand at least some of it. When you have, make note of the fact that not one single bonafide expert has disagreed with the findings. Not one. In the entire world. Just think about that for a second.




I was expecting pwf to provide that link and was very surprised when she didn't.
If she had provided it, she would probably still be posting now and not taking a week long vacation.

I debated with myself whether I should be more specific with what I wrote, but decided to stick with "bonafide expert" because I genuinely wanted to see if those crackpots at AE911Truth would get a mention.

You see, for me, a bonafide expert is someone who is not only credentialed in the particular field of study, it is also someone who freely submits to the peer review process and better still, their ideas and articles are accepted by the association or offical organisation to which they belong and published accordingly.

Predictably, this is not the case with the people involved at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Has anyone checked how many structural engineers they have on board with an expertise in high rise buildings? Last time I looked, there weren't any.

We do have Alfred Lee Lopez, a structural engineer with 48 years experience in "all types of buildings". His personal statement is:
"I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were imploded. The reason would be to go to war."

NIST hasn't claimed the fires caused the collapses either. Fail.
The buildings were "imploded"? Epic Fail.

Then we have Christopher Michael Bradbury, a licensed structural engineer who claims:
"It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire. This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living."

Again, NIST hasn't claimed that fire alone brought down building 7. Fail.
The Madrid skyscraper was a completely different structural design to any of the three WTC buildings that collapsed and it was never subjected to massive impacts as those three were. Epic Fail.
Incidentally, the top section of the Madrid skyscraper - the section with the steel frame and without reinforced concrete support, DID collapse.

What does Dennis J. Kollar, another structural engineer, have to say?
"For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD."
Aah, the only place where those "explosions" can be heard. How strange that none of the live footage of the day and footage released by people afterwards failed to capture those same "explosions". Epic, epic fail.

Where are the comments refuting the official account, you know, with actual data?

I could go on (for a very long time) in this same vein, but I think that should suffice for now.

murnut wrote:AE911Truth Structural Engineer Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7

http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/new ... wtc-7.html

Brookman is one of over 40 structural engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11, with emphasis on the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC building 7. He is also one of the interviewees in the article, 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High–Rises on 9/11. For a broader book–length exposé on WTC 7 see also David Ray Griffin’s The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center7 — Why the Final Official Report about 9/11 is Unscientific and False.

Brookman received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.



Is this article or the other one cited above a peer-reviewed report into the findings of the NIST report, or is it an article that was written for the AE911 Truth website? Ah, it's the latter...

I decided to have a read to see what Mr. Brookman has to say on the matter. He is an expert after all, right?

This is the introduction:
Many architects, engineers and others have
never seen the rapid descent of the 47-story
World Trade Center Building Seven (WTC
7) into its footprint in less than seven
seconds on the afternoon of September 11,
2001. This unprecedented event—the first
steel-frame building in history to collapse
suddenly and completely following an
uncontrolled office fire

Into its footprint - Wrong. Fail.
less than seven seconds - Wrong, it was close to 15 seconds. Fail
collapse suddenly - Wrong, firefighters knew it was close to collapse several hours before it did. Fail
uncontrolled office fire - Wrong, I guess he missed the part about the fatal impact damage from the falling WTC1? Fail

He makes four statements of fact in his opening paragraph and they are all wrong! Does this sound like a careful analysis of the official report into the collapse of WTC7, or does it sound like the ramblings of a truther with an agenda to push? If this guy is an expert at anything, it is obfucscation and mangling of facts in the worst way possible.

It appears to be the M.O. throughout their organisation as the following video shows:



Richard Gage, the leader of A&E for 9/11 Truth, is exposed for what he is at the link below:
They oughta know better

My personal highlight from the above link is quoted below, but there is plenty more there to keep you entertained. Actually, it should make you angry, it does me...
My summary of Gage's 583-slide online PowerPoint presentation, from June, 2008:

* 311 false statements (not including the same statements repeated on multiple slides)
* 114 misleading statements
* 137 logical fallacies employed
* Zero original analysis by Richard Gage. Yes, I've got all of this data on a spreadsheet.

Gage's presentation is the most staggeringly incompetent and deliberately ignorant thing I have ever encountered. It makes the Loose Change videos look like the Encyclopedia Britannica. It makes Judy Wood’s site seem like a marvel of restraint. I wish this were hyperbole, but it isn’t.


It really isn't.

murnut wrote:Pwf should be re-instated asap


Why? You commendably provided a link in an attempt to backup her claim, she didn't do anything other than attempt to create controversy and drama. As you know, that doesn't wash here.

The following peer-reviewed article is an example of what real bonafide experts produce: (PDF)
What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008)
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 08, 2010 7:45 am

Catching up…

chrLz wrote:perhaps to save time, you may wish to examine this - some of it is rather mean, but there is some serious debunking offered also:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171498

Thanks for the link, I should have known the folks at JREF would have already chewed this guy up and spit him out. :) There are some good points in that thread that I missed. For example, I based my arguments on the presupposition that the explosion had to be contained otherwise the presence of radiation at ground zero would have given away the plot. I see now OSHA actually tested for it…

http://www.osha.gov/nyc-disaster/summary.html

Ionizing Radiation

A survey of the rubble pile was conducted on 10/22-10/23 to check for latent radiation with particular attention to alpha radiation. Results show no elevated levels of concern from either known building latent radiation sources or any terrorist origin source materials.

Of course in conspiracy theory “logic” everyone is lying except the person trying to sell a book by telling you what want to hear… :roll:

Anyway, this post about the effects of the Sedan underground test with “only” 100 kilotons (vs. 150) at 200 meters (vs. only 50 as proposed in Dimitiri’s “theory”) deserves special mention…

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost5824211

From Wiki…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)

The radioactive fallout from the test contaminated more US residents than any other nuclear test, and the Sedan Crater is the largest man-made crater in the United States, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

I see pwf posted a photo of that test as “evidence”… oops.

This rant from Dimitri is priceless…

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php? ... ost5940572

1)Many 9/11 truthers are brainwashed by their FBI-appointed leaders and because majority of them cant have any opinion of their own in any case due to actual construction of their brains, they just follow the rest of their flock.
2)Many 9/11 professional conspiracy theorists have just too low IQ, because if they would have any higher IQ they would not spend the 8 years from the 9/11 till now for nothing and would discover at least something.
3)Some other professional conspiracy theorists do realize that they spent 8 years for nothing and the mere fact that someone new (I am new for them, they are not going to consider that I spent not less than 5 years on my research) outdid them makes them very unhappy. It makes them jealous and therefore imperceptible to the truth.
4)Some other professional conspiracy theorists, especially prominent ones (from among honest ones, not appointed by the FBI I mean) who have already published their own books and released some documentaries with wrong ideas can not accept my version too, because it will require them to admit they were wrong and they are not brave enough to accept that they could have been wrong.
5)Large portion of the professional 9/11 conspiracy theorists (including also many full-time Internet forum-trolls) are nothing less than paid government agents whose only job is to ridicule and to ostracize all those who are pushing the only truth of the 9/11 (namely nuclear- and no-planes theories). Which is quite understandable, considering dare situation of the poor US Government.

Take that all you ignorant truthers! :lol:
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:06 am

pigswillfly wrote:I find this statement to be relative and conceited. Your knowledge of physics may surpass Mur's but does that justify throwing around the word "ignorance" .

Yes, because in this case that’s not an insult, it’s the truth. If Mur had a better understanding of physics he wouldn’t have fallen so easily for the claim that a) planes could not have caused the towers to collapse and b) nukes caused the towers to collapse.

Of course another way he could have avoided falling for it is to require the claimant to demonstrate their presumed expertise. In this case beginning with verifiable credentials…

pigswillfly wrote:How do you then argue with someone who has a better understanding of physics than yourself?

Provided you don’t have any independently verifiable evidence to back up your claim then I would suggest very carefully or not at all.

pigswillfly wrote:Would that make you the ignorant one?

Yep. For example, I’m not afraid to admit I’m fairly ignorant of chemistry. I’ve had no real formal training in it and I’ve made practically no effort to educate myself on the subject. If I made a claim involving chemistry and you could demonstrate that claim is contradicted by established knowledge then you could justifiably call me ignorant of the subject. I should not be offended by it, I should probably be embarrassed...

Fortunately I happen to have the privilege of working with a number of world-class research chemists so I would have nobody to blame but myself if I opened up my big mouth without consulting anybody first so that’s not likely to happen but hopefully you get the point.

pigswillfly wrote:The 9/11 debate cannot be won with a "my source is superior to yours" or "I'm smarter than you" attitude.

That is correct, the debate can only be one “won” based on the strength of the evidence used to support the arguments. In that respect the “truth” movement lost the debate a long time ago…

pigswillfly wrote:Both sides have "experts" putting forward different theories.

Prove it.
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:07 am

Are you calling me ignorant?

I don't deserve that.

I never once said Dimitri was right about anything.

I said his theory resolved two things that always bothered me.

Fact is there is every reason to question everything about 911.

If something is in fact being covered up about 911, then obviously some of the official data is incorrect.

We already know that the official data about the air being safe to breathe was incorrect.

The only reason we know this is because people got sick and even then it was denied for years.

If you want to believe that 911 all fits into a nice little neat package, so be it.

But don't call me names for not trusting the official story.
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby RICH-ENGLAND » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:19 am

Hi all, not really gonna get into this debate but just for anyone that hasn't seen it and may be interested here is a website full of 9/11 documentaries: http://www.911docs.net/

thanks

rich
ATS HAS TURNED INTO A "BALLOONATIC" ASYLUM
User avatar
RICH-ENGLAND
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:06 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:24 am

What happened Andy, I thought you were “done in this thread”?

Zep Tepi wrote:
murnut wrote:Pwf should be re-instated asap

Why? You commendably provided a link in an attempt to backup her claim, she didn't do anything other than attempt to create controversy and drama. As you know, that doesn't wash here.

Great post, I think we can safely rule out Brookman as a “bona fide expert” in this case. It should be also be noted AE911Truth tried to cover up their admitted lack of expertise…

AE911Truth.INFO » No Expertise
http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/topten/no-expertise/
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Access Denied » Wed Dec 08, 2010 8:43 am

murnut wrote:Are you calling me ignorant?

I don't deserve that.

Are you or are you not ignorant of the physics involved?


ETA: The reason I ask is because you can be sure the hoaxers and charlatans promoting all this 9/11 “truth” BS are counting on it…
Men go and come but Earth abides.
User avatar
Access Denied
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:32 am
Location: [redacted]

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby chrLz » Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:40 pm

pigswillfly wrote:ps. Chrlz, you may find therapy beneficial to overcome your aversion to lists.

I have no aversion to lists. I have an aversion to people who are ignorant on the topics they present in lists, and who post multiple points, some of which are silly and irrelevant, with no supporting evidence, in clear attempts to 'scattergun'.

And being ignorant of a topic is nothing to be ashamed of. But it's best if the person recognises that ignorance.

I, for instance am extremely ignorant on quantum physics, the higher levels of relativity, neurosurgery, tropical diseases.. oh I could go on for hours. But I recognise my ignorance on those topics and do not post lists in forums where other, real experts on those topics, preside.

[immodest]I am, however, pretty good with 'normal' physics, engineering, astronomy, aeronautics, photography, marine biology and a few others - and a couple of those are relevant here. I'm also extremely good at applying a logical and methodical approach to research, and at *spotting* ignorance on those topics...[/immodest]

BTW, I do believe there are some anomalies in the 911 happenings. But this theory is not anywhere near them, nor does it stand up to even the most shallow scrutiny..

I'm still waiting to be able to apply my marine biology knowledge, though.. Were any fish found in the rubble? Hydrozoans? Colonial tunicates? .... dang.
"To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment. You must also be right." - Robert L. Park (..almost)
User avatar
chrLz
Moderator
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:18 pm

Wow....great post Zep...
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby ryguy » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:31 pm

murnut wrote:Are you calling me ignorant?
I don't deserve that.


Andy - he was just pointing out that you don't have any training in physics (or do you?) Folks that have a physics background do understand how planes took down this building.

I'm ignorant of biology, medical science, neuroscience, rocket science, and lots of things - we all are. He wasn't calling you ignorant in general, just that lack of understanding of the topic at hand led to gross assumptions that something being touted as true was actually true, when it wasn't.

-Ryan
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Thu Dec 09, 2010 3:14 pm

I never totuted anything as true.

I'm not a fan of words being placed in my mouth
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby Zep Tepi » Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:07 pm

murnut wrote:
Truly though....I don't believe the planes caused the collapsed

I believe that the towers were in fact demolished for another reason


No one is placing words in your mouth Andy, this is what you wrote. I believe this is the type of thing that Tom was referring to WRT ignorance of physics.

If you don't believe the planes caused the collapse and you believe the towers were "demolished for another reason", despite all of the evidence contained in the official reports, then clearly you are ignorant of the subject(s) which do explain those events (physics to name but one).

That is most certainly not an insult btw.
.
Image
User avatar
Zep Tepi
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: Nuclear Demolition

Postby murnut » Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:21 am

The Anniversary of 9/11


Don't want to hear this?

Tough. Grow up.



http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/09/ ... f-911.html
"The Conformers are hard to read. They are rocks."
User avatar
murnut
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 951
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 12:35 am

PreviousNext

Google

Return to 911 - What Really Happened?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron