31 replies to this topic

[Lottie]

Are the physical aspects of  the collapse of the WTC consistant with the ' Official ' Story?

This is a 1v1 formal debate.

Aquatus1 will be debating that the physical aspects of the collapse were consistant with the "official" story.

Looking for someone who feel that there were Inconsistencies with the " Official " story.

An Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated. Please make sure you quote ALL your sources!

Please be aware that:

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself , Tiddlyjen or AztecInca know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Edited by AztecInca, 06 June 2006 - 12:34 AM.

[aquatus1]

I would like to argue that the physical aspects of the collapse were consistant with the "official" story.

[Lottie]

Okay

Aquatus1 will be debating that the physical aspects of the collapse were consistant with the "official" story.

Looking for someone who feel that there were Inconsistencies with the " Official " story.

[scoobysnack]

Quote

Okay

Aquatus1 will be debating that the physical aspects of the collapse were consistant with the "official" story.

Looking for someone who feel that there were Inconsistencies with the " Official " story.

I'll give it a shot, although, if Sunofone wants to, I don't have much time currently in the near future.

What would it involve, consider me a candidate, but not officially

[Lottie]

As I stated in the first post you will need to make and intro, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion. There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within a 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days. If you find that you can't make a post within the 7 days just pm one of us organisers and we can hold the debate for you.

[Sunofone]

i would love to point out the impossibility of the official story! although i have to admit i am a bit skeptical of the rationale of a point system-- the structuring aspects seem a bit constricting and i have to ask about the use of indirect or "circumstantial" evidence which is an extremely relavant factor when considering inconsistencies-- can an entire body be devoted to the subject?-- i am an avid Gracie juijitsu practioner and the point system reminds me of the conundrum i would face when competing in judo tournaments-- i was taught not to be concerned with points but to finish the fight-- the truth will reveal itself but i am not sure i can limit myself to such structure as i will be passionate about finishing the fight-- the time limit seems like a good idea but i have dial up and currently dealing with a crappy virus that is affecting my posting ability so i dunno-- whaddya think about my concerns?

[AztecInca]

Sunofone if you wish to compete you may and as long as this virus wont delay your posting by weeks you should be fine. So go ahead and start debating!

In regards to the point system, it is in place as this is a formal debate which allows two participants to put forward both sides of an argument with three impartial judges to then judge each side on pre-determined criteria.

Regards, Aztec!

Edited by AztecInca, 15 April 2006 - 08:19 AM.

[Sunofone]

greetings truthseekers and skeptics   the official story has stood too long long now without serious scrutiny-- no longer should you let the milk and honey lifestyle fool you for the distractions are there for a reason -- so put down your bread and leave the circus for  just a moment pay attention to what has happened so far and focus on the reality of the situation-- heres my argument concerning the "impossibilty" of the official story

Govt's proof
where is it? i have yet to locate anything physical-- nothing more than heresay,conjecture and inuendo repeated in mantra across the tubes of america-- in fact there was a discernable clean up at the pentagon including surrounding security video,debri,engines from the wtc as well as the many beams and rubble from the three suspicious collpases that would have been invaluable in piecing together the TRUTH -- why would a former prosecuter like guiliani bungle such a monumental investigation?

Motive
there are soo many that this could get long and boring so i will summarize and not get into the actual "sum" of the potential but considering there are people in ny that would slit your your throat for 500 dollars an a joy ride in your car it should NOT be underestimated! there was the natural gas pipeline(est worth 7 "T"rillion) that the taliban opposed thats importance can be seen in the placement of us bases in afgh,defense budget based on lie soley for the purpose of looting(what is at now?880 billion?),silverstein getting ny to foot the bill for the necessary demolition required of the asbestos filled formerly bombed white elephants that never achieved even 70% occupancy and was reduced to govt subsides by investing 200 million into a policy which was suspect from the beggining due to its "terrorism" clause and recieving a 3.5 "B"illion dollar pay out which doubled to 7 billion--put options on american airlines and united which were never investigated

Eye witness testimony
by far the most damning evidence for the official story comes from the likes of albert turi,paul issacs jr,cachioli and many others whose testimony can be seen here-- its also important to remeber peter jennings and dan rathers comments which support what all the firefighters saw--ie. secondary devices,detonators,bombs,explosios(actual terms used)how can we let their cries go unheard?

Evidence
this is by far the most perplexing aspect of the whole fiasco-- it is truly frightening from my perspective to see the power of trauma induced psycosis being used succesfully on such a broad scale-- indeed all the evidence is right before everyones eyes as many videos of the collapses exist and there are many images that confirm beyond reasonable doubt that we are not in kansas anymore TOTO-- from the pools of molten steel that took weeks to cool,the murray street engine,the undeniable lines of charges and balls of fire"prior"to collaspe,massive chunks of steel still chery red after 8 weeks,squibs ,and bldg 7

History
one of the main reasons for the circus maximus is so that people dont pay attention to history-- its as simple as seeing what has gone before to realise what is to come-- as a brief outline i will mention a few the many attrocities from history-- pearl harbor(admittedly allowed to occur),operation northwoods(in 1962 all the joint chiefs of staff signed off on murduring americans to blame on cuba),uss liberty(look it up),jfk,oklahoma murrah bldg(demolished like the wtc bldgs),ruby ridge,waco

there is no way that 19 arabs were able to get norad to stand down for 38 minutes which is the time elapsed from the moment the second plane struch the wtc to the time the pentagon was attacked-- bush's security reaction is also a tell during his book reading session with children-- an unknown number of planes have been hijacked and remain airborne yet bush's security does nothing even though the visit was announced days ealier in the local papers and childrens lives are at stake-- in considering the sum of history,evidence,eye witness testimoy,motive and the govt's LACK of evidence i have no choice but to accept the TRUTH which after all the improbable is removed the remainder ,no matter how impossible it may seem,must be the answer--thanks for reading this-- sincerely Sunofone

[aquatus1]

Ahh, yes, the circus; a remarkably apt analogy.  My opponent seeks to make you think he is asking you leave it behind, while at the same time holding open the flaps and inviting you in.

Welcome to that glorious show that is Conspiracy!  You will be Dazzled, you will be Entertained, you will be Laugh, and you will Cry, as our performers strut upon the stage and act out their parts.

Act?  Oh, yes.  You will see a great deal of acting.  You will hear cries of patriotism, demanding justice against an imagined crime.  You will see tears for those poor fools who have been duped by their own government.  You will be led on a merry dance of tales about how the faceless government, the unknown millionaires, the brave but lonely witnesses cried out to be heard...and yet, what you will see very little of is actual support.

Allegations by the dozens, motives by the hundreds, but actual evidence...lacking.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about the physical collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  We are here to lay to rest the ridiculous rumors of demolition teams, of thermite charges, of steel melting like water, and most importantly, to demonstrate how, when all is said and done, the only thing that is mysterious about the collapse of the towers is the incredible stretches that conspiracy theoriests will go to in support of their final conclusion, that the American government is evil.

I will warn you right now, my opponent will try to weave an emotional spell.  He will use sleight of hand, trickery, and substitution to make his argument sound strong, but which will ultimately be nothing more than a line of straw men.  Already you see him attempting to divert attention from the actual topic to things irrelevant to the actual debate, to wit: motives, money, and even the insinuation that one should consider a multi-millionaire responsible for the financial well-being of thousands of people to be the moral equivalent of a street punk with a pocket knife.

I encourage you, as you read this debate, to remember one thing:  We are talking about the physical aspects of the collapse.  Without this, nothing else matters.  If the collapse of the WTC towers was not intentional, then the conspiracy theoriest lose the lynch-pin of every one of their arguments.  A thousand "If's" worth of possibilities come tumbling down without being able to prove that oh, so essential first clause: that the WTC was demolished on purpose.

I acknowledge my opponent and wish him luck in the coming debate, and I look forward to showing in a clear and irrefutable manner how the collapse of the World Trade Center is not, in any way, shape, or form, in disagreement with the official story of how it occurred.

[Sunofone]

Quote

...and yet, what you will see very little of is actual support.

Allegations by the dozens, motives by the hundreds, but actual evidence...lacking.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are here to talk about the physical collapse of the World Trade Center towers.  We are here to lay to rest the ridiculous rumors of demolition teams, of thermite charges, of steel melting like water,

ok since you seem to have a mental block concerning the aspect of physical evidence i will present it first with only brief dialog and NO flowery mental imagery--

the official story states that "fire" was the determining factor in the collapse of both towers of the wtc and bldg 7 on 9/11-- fire has NEVER caused the collapse of a concrete and steel structure not even the windsor builing which burned for over 18 hours--


this is what normally happens when a single load bearing member fails-- which would have certainly been the result of a collpase due to impact and fire


instead we have these images that do NOT cooberate the official story in the least--
bldg 7(WHICH WAS NOT STRUCK BY A PLANE) three hours prior to collapse

is the fire raging here when it collapses?

notice below those are firefighters on the day of the collapse and NOT the CDI(controlled demolition inc.)clean up crew

what kind of fire could cause this?

or this which was taken eight weeks AFTER the collapse and a testament to the temperatures that REALLY brought down the towers

the evidence is conclusive and i am selling nothing-- in fact it will be you pushing snake oil when you try to dismiss these images

Edited by Sunofone, 24 April 2006 - 07:08 AM.

[aquatus1]

Quote

the official story states that "fire" was the determining factor in the collapse of both towers of the wtc and bldg 7 on 9/11-- fire has NEVER caused the collapse of a concrete and steel structure not even the windsor builing which burned for over 18 hours--

Actually, that is not quite correct, or rather, it is somewhat misleading.  Fire has indeed been the cause of several collapsed steel and concrete buildings, although never due to the failure of concrete enclosed steel structures.  Not even in the WTC.  My opponent wishes for you to believe that the official claim is that the WTC collapsed because the fire caused the concrete convered main supports to fail.  This is not true.

Let's take, as an example, the Windsor Building.  How can a fire burn for eighteen hours, and not collapse the structure, while the WTC burned for barely a tenth of that and collapsed?  Why is this?  Well, the answer requires a bit of education on how buildings, specifically high-rises, are designed to handle fires.

The way that the central support columns on a high-rise are designed to work is by load balancing.  What this means is that the tower, on a daily basis, will sway back and forth, slowly shifting its weight from one set of support columns to another.  This is an expected part of tower construction, and is even taken advantage of in the engineering by providing extra column support for redundancy.  That means that, if necessary, a set of columns can hold the entire weight of the building for a time if the other set of columns are in distress.

Now, a fire does distress metal, no doubt about that.  The speed at which it distresses metal, however, depends on a variety of factors.  As every Material Science, Architecture, and Engineering student knows, there is a long list of Fire Resistance codes that explain, in detail, how every single piece of material is to be prepared and how long it is meant to survive in a fire.  A regular metal support beam is fairly weak in a fire, and will quickly sag when approximately half the heat needed for its melting point is reached.  That same support beam, fireproofed with a special heat resistant foam, can last hours upon hours.  That same support beam, covered with concrete, is even stronger still.

So, what happened in the Windsor Building?  What happened was that a small fire started in one part of the building.  That fire rapidly grew out of control.  Now, what this means is that the fire grew stronger than the efforts to contain it; it does not mean that the fire spread to every other part of the building.  This is a very important point.  See, in the section where the fire was raging, the heat was quite intense, and the metal, protected though it was by the fire-proofing material, was still under quite some stress.  Fortunately, though, the engineers took this into account; the support beams on the section of the building that was not on fire were strong enough to keep the building up.  Load balancing.  When one set of beams couldn't take the full load, another stepped in to help.  Now, the fire grew and did spread.  As it did so, it consumed all the fuel in the original starting point, and the heat diminished substantially.  This allowed the supporting structure to regain a measure a of strength; fortunately, it never sagged, due to the fire protection it had, so the building integrity remained.  The new fire in the new area in turn began to once again distress the beams in that area, but now, the original beams were getting cooler and stronger, so they could, once again, start taking up the load.  Again, load balancing.  Eventually, the entire floor was on fire, but the thing to realize was that, after eighteen hours, pretty much all the significant fuel was all used up.  Yes, it was on fire, but the fire was not very intense, and no longer a danger to the strength of the support beams.

In short, the way the building was designed was to be able to survive a fire that began in one area and eventually spread to the rest of the building, distressing the metal where it currently was, but cooling down where it had just left, so that the metal could regain its strength.

But what happened at the WTC?  Well, something happened there that no engineer forsaw, and no engineer would have been able to plan against even if they had.  Indeed, even today, we have no feasible solution for the problem.

What happened in the WTC towers was, when the planes crashed into them, they spilled their fuel load across the entire floor.  In other words, the entire floor suddenly and intensly went up in flames.  The whole concept of load balancing was now thrown out the window.  There was, quite simply, nowhere for the load to balance to.  The entire floor was being weakened simultaneously, but what was worse is that the blast from the explosion ripped away the foam fire protectant that was on the support beams.  No longer protected from the direct heat, the bare metal trusses began to weaken dramatically.  

Now, the actual vertical support columns, concrete covered as they were, were weakened by the fire, but nowhere near the point of collapsed.  It is very important to know, however, that they were at pretty much max capacity.  The airliner, as it struck the building, destroyed quite a few and damaged a significant number more of them, meaning that the redundancy factor was suddenly much smaller.  Still, they, they held strong.  The buidling did not collapsed because the vertical columns failed due to the fire.

So, why did they fail?  Remember the floor trusses, whose fire protection had been blown away by the impact, who were being directly exposed to a intense fire?  They began, as everyone familiar with the effects of fire on steel knows, to sag.  That means that the truss, spanning the entire floor, began to sag in the center, and in doing so, began pulling away from the wall holding it up.  This caused the brackets that held them in place, designed to bear a vertical load, to fail as the load suddenly became horizontal.  One by one, the floor trusses collapsed, and the entire floor fell onto the weakened floor below it, causing it to collapsed.  A total of eight floor collapsed in this fashion, known to fire-fighters as "pancaking".

Our vertical support columns, weakened by fire, cut down to a bare minimum redundancy by the crash of the airliner, suddenly had the sum total weight of eight floors in close to free-fall speed crash on top of them.  To absolutely no one's surprise, they failed instantly, and the WTC tower collapsed.

Quote

this is what normally happens when a single load bearing member fails-- which would have certainly been the result of a collpase due to impact and fire

Actually, yes, this is indeed what happens, and it is reflected in the collapse of the towers.  You'll note, in the many videos you see circulating, the North Tower falls straight down in the manner I described above.  The other tower, however, does topple over.  So does WTC7 as it collapsed.  Fortunately, the sheer weight of a building is enough to ensure that it will fall into it's own footprint.  Of course, the fall from several hundred feet helped as well.

Quote

instead we have these images that do NOT cooberate the official story in the least--
bldg 7(WHICH WAS NOT STRUCK BY A PLANE) three hours prior to collapse

WTC 7 was reported to be on fire a little after 4:00.  How does a picture of it before it was on fire show an inconsistency?

Quote

is the fire raging here when it collapses?[img]http://www.whatreall...LL_wtc-7_1_.gif

Hard to say, considering the fire was in the lower levels and we can only see the top.  But hey, nice mislead!

Quote

notice below those are firefighters on the day of the collapse and NOT the CDI(controlled demolition inc.)clean up crew

Okay...

Why would the firefighters at the site be strange?

what kind of fire could cause this?

None.  That was caused by several thousand tons of debris collapsing.  Mislead much lately?

or this which was taken eight weeks AFTER the collapse and a testament to the temperatures that REALLY brought down the towers

Ah, yes, I love this picture  

Damning evidence of...very little, actually.

Let's ignore that we have absolutely no idea where the picture was taken, when it was taken, by who it was taken, or anything that would lend it any sort of credibility whatsoever.  Let's just assume that it is genuine.

So what?

Is it any suprise that a fire of intense heat still be hot eight days after burial?  Heck, the whole kiln oven was developed under that principle.  You insulate an 1800 degree fire, it's going to stay hot for a pretty long time.

What does this tell us about the temperature?  Well, not much.  We don't know what that thing is hanging there.  We would have to know what it was to be able to make any sort of call on the temperature.

Well, at the very least we can say there was molten steel there, right?  No, not just because of this picture.  Honestly, to me it looks like nothing more than a red hot filing cabinet.

Does this mean there was no molten steel at the site at all?  Hardly.  Fires melt steel.  Office buildings have tons of steel just begging to melt.  Filing cabinets, chairs, desks, lamps, look around the average office and you will find scads and scads of thin little steel fragments that will quickly melt and pool together.  It is not at all uncommon in fires.  A steel door will begin to warp at 600 degrees, and will begin to sag at 800.  A regular filing cabinet will have long since turned into a puddle by then.

the evidence is conclusive and i am selling nothing-- in fact it will be you pushing snake oil when you try to dismiss these images

No dismissal needed, just the facts.  Misdirection is very easy to do, but the facts speak for themselves, and the facts do not support the conclusions my opponent is attempting to put forward.

[Sunofone]

Quote

Okay...

Why would the firefighters at the site be strange?

this is precisely the type of mental block i am refering to-- the gravity of the image completely eludes his psyche whether intentional or not we can only wonder-- what you are ignoring is the same thing the NIST investigation ignored when they came up the completely ridiculous "pancake" theory-- which you and NIST account to "fire"-- heres the image again and the reason i mentioned the firefighters was to reference the time it was taken which was the day of the collapse-- observe the column behind the firefighter it is one of the 47 core beams that NIST completely left out of the equation and debunks their theory completely-- notice the column(which was one of 47 of the largest steel beams ever used in construction) it has been sliced clean at a sharp angle which experts have said "could not" have been done with a torch(because of logistics as well as the time frame of when the image was taken)-- this alone is enough but we will get into much more

Quote

  My opponent wishes for you to believe that the official claim is that the WTC collapsed because the fire caused the concrete convered main supports to fail.  This is not true.

"I" am the one that says the fire caused the main supports to fail?? the 47 core columns you ignore were not covered with concrete but im sure you were insinuating that this is what i stated-- however i am going to clarify the facts for you-- there were 47 core columns that were the largest ever used in construction and then there were over 200 perimeter columns that included many that "were" concrete insulated-- again you ignored evidence i submited in the image of one of these columns ejecting a high velocity jet of gas and debri which you atributed to "tons of debri falling on it" but i implore you to pay attention the multiple windows surround the column which are showing no effect of your alledged tonage of debri-- here it is again and you will see that only explosives could account for the effect witnessed--

Quote

The buidling did not collapsed because the vertical columns failed due to the fire.

huh??

Quote

So, why did they fail?  Remember the floor trusses,

no remeber the core columns!!

Quote

How does a picture of it before it was on fire show an inconsistency?
Hard to say, considering the fire was in the lower levels and we can only see the top.  But hey, nice mislead!

there is nothing misleading about a building freefalling into its own footprint-- just like both wtc towers did-- one of them began to topple before its foundation was completely removed and it too fell into its own footprint

Is it any suprise that a fire of intense heat still be hot eight days after burial?  Heck, the whole kiln oven was developed under that principle.  You insulate an 1800 degree fire, it's going to stay hot for a pretty long time.

A1 how can you expect to sustain any credibility when your attention to detail is so flawed? here is the image again and let me clarify the facts again for you here-- the material in the image was photographed 8 WEEKS after the collapse-- here is a link to a physics professor that has detailed exactly why it is impossible for jet fuel and office furniture to sustain such temperatures-- he also details why the material in question is of a particular grade prooving it is from the structural supports of the buliding and that the tempature of it is easily discernable using standards of metalurgy

Edited by Sunofone, 25 April 2006 - 05:08 AM.

[AztecInca]

Aquatus1 we are awaiting your reply!

[aquatus1]

My apologies.  I was unexpectedly called away for a few days, and forgot to inform the judges.

Quote

this is precisely the type of mental block i am refering to-- the gravity of the image completely eludes his psyche whether intentional or not we can only wonder-- what you are ignoring is the same thing the NIST investigation ignored when they came up the completely ridiculous "pancake" theory-- which you and NIST account to "fire"-- heres the image again and the reason i mentioned the firefighters was to reference the time it was taken which was the day of the collapse-- observe the column behind the firefighter it is one of the 47 core beams that NIST completely left out of the equation and debunks their theory completely-- notice the column(which was one of 47 of the largest steel beams ever used in construction) it has been sliced clean at a sharp angle which experts have said "could not" have been done with a torch(because of logistics as well as the time frame of when the image was taken)-- this alone is enough but we will get into much more

It would be nice if a single piece of evidence would ever "alone be enough", but it simply isn't the case.  It is interesting that my opponent brings up mental blocks, because, when it all comes down to it, mental is a perfect description of most of the conspiracy arguments.  The conspiracy mindset is such that, having come upon the conclusion (the WTC must have been demolished, they then feel justified in doing whatever sort of mental acrobatics they need to in order to support that conclusion.  They selectively filter information through their 'psyche, (whether intentional or not we can only wonder), and in the event their opponents say something that they don't agree with, accuse their opponents of saying something else.

Let's take, for instance, the "pancake" theory, as brought up above by my opponent.  Notice that when I made my explanation, I made it absolutely clear that the only thing that pancaked were the floor support trusses, not the main structural support beams.  I went out of my way to mention them both by name and separate them in my description, so that it would be clear what happened to which in what order.  Unfortunately, all my opponent heard when I was talking about floor trusses and pancaking was the subject of his fascination, the core columns.

Quote

Quote

QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Apr 24 2006, 12:28 PM) *
So, why did they fail? Remember the floor trusses,

no remeber the core columns!!

So, let's be clear here: my opponent is trying to set up a straw-man argument.  He is saying that I claimed something that I didn't claim for the purpose of attacking that false claim.  I never--nor did the NIST--ever claim that the main structural support members failed due to the fire in the collapse of the South Tower.  What failed due to the fire were the floor trusses, which lead to the pancaking of eight floors, the combined total of which caused the main structural supports to fail when they crashed down.

Now, Asides from that attempt to mislead, what about the sheared column?  Well, the answer is actually pretty simple:  What about it?  My opponent would have you believe that the only way in which a column could be sheared at an angle like this is through demolition charges.  And yet, when we look at the column, the sheared edges don't look very clean at all.  In fact, they look pretty darn lumpy and runny.  A demolition charge cuts cleanly and instantaneously through a beam, blowing out the slag through the other side; it doesn't take its time melting casually through, giving the melt time to drip back into the cut.  Just by looking at it, we raise an eyebrow at the cut having been caused by cutter charges.

So how could such an angled cut come about?  Quite simply through shear forces.  Shear forces are the forces that cause an object to break due to failure in a certain direction.  For instance, take a matchstick and hold it firmly between your thumb and forefingers.  Drop another finger down the back of the stick and it will shear.  The forces that struck it caused it to break, to 'shear'.  There are different types of shear forces: spiral (from circular forces), 'green stick' (from materials such as lumber), straight (like the matchstick), angled (like straight, but at an angle), and ragged.  Essentially, anything that breaks is going to reflect one of these types of forces.  Look at the picture again.  My opponent tries to shame you into agreeing with him by claiming that anyone who doesn't see what he sees has something wrong with their 'psyche', is ignoring what is right in front of them, is slave to some 'ridiculous' theory (that doesn't exist anywhere other than the conspiracist's mind), and that this piece of evidence is enough to blow the whole scandal wide open.  And yet, when one see's it from a material science point of view, there is nothing unusual here.  One beam has an angled shear.  Two other beams have straight shears.  Another beam has a ragged shear.  Completely random and not at all unexpected.

Quote

gain you ignored evidence i submited in the image of one of these columns ejecting a high velocity jet of gas and debri which you atributed to "tons of debri falling on it" but i implore you to pay attention the multiple windows surround the column which are showing no effect of your alledged tonage of debri-- here it is again and you will see that only explosives could account for the effect witnessed--

It isn't a matter of ignoring evidence, but rather of understanding what it means.  My opponent sees a large cloud and can only imagine an explosive causing it.  I see a large cloud and think carefully before I decide on the cause.

Do I see a high velocity jet of gas and debris?  Yes, I do (and for those who don't, it's on the right side of the picture, just a bit below the falling mass of debris).  Do I believe that it was cause by explosives?  Well, no.  If explosives had caused it, then not only would there have been a high velocity escape of gas, but also shockwaves from the blast.  As my opponent pointed out, not a single window is reacting to the shockwave.  They are holding steady (all except one, anyway), as they would be from a steady increase of pressure like that cause from the collapsing roof, as opposed to the shock of a explosive blast, which would have shattered them in a growing ring as the blast moved outward.

Quote

there is nothing misleading about a building freefalling into its own footprint-- just like both wtc towers did-- one of them began to topple before its foundation was completely removed and it too fell into its own footprint

There is really nothing here to counter, so I am just going to point out how blithely the average conspiracist jumps from one point to another.  To start with, he posts a video of WTC7 collapsing and points out that no fire is visible.  When told that the fire wouldn't be visible, because it is both on the other side and because it is on the lower floors, he starts talking about something completely different, in this case about a building falling into it's own footprint (which, if you will remember, was my point in the rebuttal).  What happened to the original claim that this video was proof that there was no fire?

A1 how can you expect to sustain any credibility when your attention to detail is so flawed? here is the image again and let me clarify the facts again for you here-- the material in the image was photographed 8 WEEKS after the collapse-- here is a link to a physics professor that has detailed exactly why it is impossible for jet fuel and office furniture to sustain such temperatures--

Ah, okay, my bad.  I meant to saw weeks, not days.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.  Guess what.  The argument changes not a whit.  Intense heat, when insulated under several hundred tons of concrete, while remain hot for a long, long time.  Had the firefighter not gotten to that spot a month later, the still would have had to rake it open an allow it to cool.

Now, about professor Steven E. Jones...

The first thing to note about the good professor is that the man is a master of physics.  He was active in cold nuclear fusion research, he is well known among his peers, his credibility is quite high, and his paper concerning the physics behind the fall of the WTC is both peer reviewed and scientifically valid.

The link provided, however, does not go to that paper.  Nor does that paper say absolutely anything jet fuel and office furniture.  The paper that was peer reviewed focuses solely on the speed of fall of the buildings, making the claim that discrepancy exist between the time of the actual fall and the time that it should have taken to fall.

In other words, the paper is quite valid, from a standpoint of theoretical physics.  Theory, however, does not always translate into practice.  The link that my opponent provided does not go to professor Jones, accredited work.  No, the link goes to one of professor Jone's lectures concerning conspiracy theories.  These theories are not peer reviewed, they are not substantiated, and they concern topics that Professor Jone's is not an expert in, such as demolitions, engineering, and material science.  In fact, Brigham Young University, where Jones works at, has issued the public statement:  

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones's hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones's department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

If one is to believe one professor from BYU, one should also believe others.  From The College of Engineering and Technology: "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
There is no doubt that Jone's work is valid, however one should always remember that simply because something is scientifically valid does not mean that it is automatically correct.  In this case, we were not even pointed to the one paper that Jone's wrote that was peer reviewed, but rather to the various repetitions of the same conspiracy arguments that have never been shown to have adequate support.

Wikipedia:  Steven Jones

he also details why the material in question is of a particular grade prooving it is from the structural supports of the buliding and that the tempature of it is easily discernable using standards of metalurgy

Actually, no, he doesn't.  What he does do, however, is provide a list of different materials and how they would change color due to heat (a rather simplistic list, to be sure, but a list nonetheless.  The purpose of the list, however, is to determine the temperature of a given material by the color it is radiating; the list is not meant to take a given color and try to decide what material it is.  How could it be?  After all, pretty much all metals are going to go through the entire spectrum as more or less heat is added or taken away.  It is not only possible, it is unavoidable, that two dissimilar materials are going to radiate the same color.  Since we do not know what temperature that piece of metal was, we have no way to even narrow down what the material might be, let alone identify it with any degree of accuracy.

Oh, and I sincerly doubt it is any sort of structural metal.  It's translucent, for heaven's sake.  How thick do you think that sheet is?

Edited by aquatus1, 01 May 2006 - 12:56 PM.

[Sunofone]

Quote

My apologies.  I was unexpectedly called away for a few days, and forgot to inform the judges.

no need to apolagise--

Quote

It would be nice if a single piece of evidence would ever "alone be enough", but it simply isn't the case.

obviously i presented multiple images that DO NOT cooberate with the official theory-- to someone with common sense of course each one at face value IS enough to determine the official story is completely bogus

Quote

Let's take, for instance, the "pancake" theory, as brought up above by my opponent.  Notice that when I made my explanation, I made it absolutely clear that the only thing that pancaked were the floor support trusses, not the main structural support beams.  I went out of my way to mention them both by name and separate them in my description,
.....
So, let's be clear here: my opponent is trying to set up a straw-man argument.  He is saying that I claimed something that I didn't claim for the purpose of attacking that false claim.  I never--nor did the NIST--ever claim that the main structural support members failed due to the fire in the collapse of the South Tower.  What failed due to the fire were the floor trusses, which lead to the pancaking of eight floors

i do not even have to respond to this as the "time it took for the buildings to fall" is all that is needed to determine that there are FATAL flaws within the reasoning behing the "pancake" hoax-- nist,and therefore you,do not offer an explanation for exactly what caused the collpase as you have admitted the fires did not cause the main structural supports to fail-- these supports had just endured the impacts of aircraft yet some failing trusses are supposed to bring them down in a manner that defies "resistance"??

Quote

Now what about the sheared column?  Well, the answer is actually pretty simple:   Quite simply through shear forces.  Shear forces are the forces that cause an object to break due to failure in a certain direction.  For instance, take a matchstick and hold it firmly between your thumb and forefingers.  Drop another finger down the back of the stick and it will shear.  The forces that struck it caused it to break, to 'shear'.

so because you can shear a match with your finger we are supposed to accept the notion that the stell column in question actually sheared because of the load it was designed to support--  

Quote

Do I see a high velocity jet of gas and debris?  Yes, I do (and for those who don't, it's on the right side of the picture, just a bit below the falling mass of debris).  Do I believe that it was cause by explosives?  Well, no.  If explosives had caused it, then not only would there have been a high velocity escape of gas, but also shockwaves from the blast.  As my opponent pointed out, not a single window is reacting to the shockwave.  They are holding steady (all except one, anyway), as they would be from a steady increase of pressure like that cause from the collapsing roof, as opposed to the shock of a explosive blast, which would have shattered them in a growing ring as the blast moved outward.

ever heard of a "shape" charge? its a little different than the force of tons of debri but would easily explain what was witnessed

There is really nothing here to counter, so I am just going to point out how blithely the average conspiracist jumps from one point to another.  What happened to the original claim that this video was proof that there was no fire?
  

ok so i raise more than a "single" issue and am accused of jumping from point to point-- is there a term for this technique??

  

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

  Intense heat,
  

ok so there is "intense" heat-- please show an image where "fire" may have been the culprit for the INTENSE heat you account to it

Now, about professor Steven E. Jones...

After all, pretty much all metals are going to go through the entire spectrum as more or less heat is added or taken away.

ok you did not read the paper-- they go as far as to demonstrate that all metals are not equal by melting aluminum and showing that it could not have been the metal in the image
by showing how it liquifies way before it reaches the color of the metal in the image-- then he illustrates a graph that shows a precise indication of the temperature within the image as well as explaining how lower grades of steel could not have achieved the color within the image as it would have liquified-- the only misleading in this thread comes from you trying to insinuate that the metal in the image is "sheet" material and not the obvious "chunk" of structural column--

It is not only possible, it is unavoidable, that two dissimilar materials are going to radiate the same color.  Since we do not know what temperature that piece of metal was, we have no way to even narrow down what the material might be, let alone identify it with any degree of accuracy.

  

now back to the evidence-- the next logic step after examining the many irregularities is to look to the eye witnesses and listen to their testimonies in order to determine what may have occurred-- here are the most telling--

9/11 NBC News broadcast with Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department- LINK

Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem"We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."


"We've just heard another explosion ... the consensus is it's too unsafe to go in there."


"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."


"It just went ba-boom, it was like a bomb went off, and it was like holy hell coming down them stairs, and then when we finally got to the bottom we were coming out ... and another explosion came...sent everyone flying..."


"We're stuck on the stairs for a while. We finally got down to the lobby, and then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion."


"We really never even got that close to the building. The explosion blew and it knocked everybody over"


"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."


"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."


"All of a sudden I heard a roar and I saw one of the towers blow ...
I saw from street level as though it exploded up, a giant rolling ball of flame..."


VIDEO
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."

VIDEO
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion ... And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."

VIDEO
"We started walking down to the eighth floor. Big Explosion. Blew us back into the eighth floor."


there may be alot of information to review but i implore you that we "OWE" it to the victims of that day to reveal the truth about their murder

Edited by Sunofone, 02 May 2006 - 02:33 AM.