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.

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

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

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.

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?

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!

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

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.

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

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.



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.



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?



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



Okay...

Why would the firefighters at the site be strange?



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



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.



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.

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



"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--



huh??

no remeber the core columns!!

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

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

Aquatus1 we are awaiting your reply!

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



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.


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.



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.



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?



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



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?

no need to apolagise--


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


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"??





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--


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


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??


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


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--




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

Gmac, this is a formal debate, please keep your comments to yourself.

Sunofone this is a formal debate, you are allowed an intro, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion, you cannot have a "split post". If you cannot fit all you want into one of your posts then it will have to be included in your next bodily post.

I will be removing the above post within 48 hours, that will give you enough time to either edit the original post which I am giving you permission to do or to just copy the information so you can include it in your next post.

Edit: Thank you Sunofone your post has been deleted, I look forward to seeing the rest of your argument.

Never fear, I have not yet, nor do I intend to, miss the 7-day deadline. Lest our judges make an error in scoring points, please allow me to point out that I will always be responding on the Monday of the following week.



As I said, It would be nice if a single piece of evidence would ever "alone be enough", but it simply isn't the case. Using the same tactic twice in a row does not make it any more effective. Please notice how, instead of actually addressing the counter made to his claim, he instead tries to focus on shaming you into siding with him. The simple fact of the matter is that, when Sunofone made that statement he was referring to one specific picture, and that once again, in this very sentence in which he is trying to qualify it, he makes the exact same statement again, speaking again of single pieces of evidence, and this time throwing in how anyone who doesn't see things exactly how he claims they are must be lacking in common sense. Again, it's a common conspiracy tactic, one in which the actual evidence about the physical destruction of the towers is sidelined by wordplay.



I believe that I already pointed out the conspiracy theorists, in general, and my opponent's, in particular, obsession with the structural supports. This is fairly typical, this focus on a single detail, because the attempt is being made to hinge absolutely the entire argument on one single premise, and then attempt to invalidate it by showing that premise incorrect. The thing is though, that they are trying to fool you into accepting that there is actually more than merely one premise at work, here. What is truly a bit frightening, however, is the extend to which some will go to ignore anything not related to what they are obsessing one. Case in point, my opponent here claims that I do not offer any explanation for what caused the collapse, as I just claimed that the fires did not cause their failure. Asides from the explanation that I made in the very first post, I made it again in the second, and my opponent even included half of it in his quote!

"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. "

Since my opponent does not seem to understand it, I will expand on it again. When something falls, it picks up a lot of energy. Building structural supports, vertical ones, are meant to withstand a static force, not a dynamic force. What that means is that a chair may well be designed to support a 180 pound person, and will do so with little problem (a person sitting on a chair would be a static force, since the weight (force) is consistently being applied without change), however, if that person were to jump off a table onto the chair, the chair might well break, because the original weight of the person has been magnified exponentially by the pull of gravity (that's the 32 feet per second per second). When the falling person reaches the chair, he no longer weights 180 pounds, but more (how much more depends on how long he fell), and on top of that, the force is no longer statically sitting on the chair, but rather has the added force of momentum striking the surface of the chair dynamically, which the structural members were never designed to support, even without taking into consideration the damage they took when they were hit by a passenger jetliner and the weakening they endured during the subsequent fire.

I haven't seen any (deep voice) FATAL flaws in this version other than my opponent's incredulity. Considering that he shows the same level of disbelief to anyone who suggest the government is not evil, I can't really consider that a valid counter. Whether my opponent believes it or not, dynamic force will easily destroy a force designed to hold a much smaller static load.



No, you are supposed to understand what shear forces are, but apparently you missed that. You can avoid countering the data with the cute little smilies, but don't think that anyone is falling for the feint.

The argument my opponent raised concerned how a thick structural beam could possibly have an angled cut on it. The answer is because, when shear forces break beams, they do so in very specific ways, one of which is an angled shear as shown on the picture. If you look at the picture again, you will notice that the top section of the beam is not cleanly cut, as it would have been with a shaped charge, but rather it is ripped, as if a massive force tore it away.



Yes, it would...if and only if it were placed on the window itself pointing outwards. Why would that happen? More to the point, why would a shaped charged of such broad effect as that one (by comparing it to the size of the windows, I'd say it was a barricade clearer, like the old fashioned Bangalors used on gates) be present in the tower? No demolition cutter charge would act like that. Shaped charges used in demolitions are very exactly designed for the purpose of cleanly cutting through a given length of beam; they do not possessive the explosive 'blast' one associates with dynamite and such. Let's be absolutely clear here:, yes, the window exploding could have been caused by a shaped charge, but, it would not have been a shaped charge that was in any way, shape, or form associated with demolition work. He might as well have said that someone left a suitcase of dynamite by the window. Any explosive charge that strong would have still sent a shockwave through the nearby area and it still would have blown out the windows nearby.



Yes. It is called "Dodging". It refers to making a claim in on given context and then, when countered, pretending that it concerned an entirely different context than before. For instance, when you present a video showing the WTC7 collapse and demanding to know where the fire is, and then have it pointed out to you that the fire is not only on the lower floors (which cannot be seen on the video you provided), but is also on the other side of the building, you 'dodge' by pretending that you were talking about the building free-falling into it's own footprint.



Ahh...are you serious?

Eighty feet of the tower were engulfed in 1800 degree flames, and you want a picture of how fire 'may' have been the source of the INTENSE heat?

What, do you think all that heat just vanished during the collapse of the tower? Everything that was burning, that was melted, that was smoldering and ready to go, all of that was what was generating the heat. When the tower collapsed, all these thing got buried and the heat began focusing, just like in a kiln, very efficiently and retaining a great deal of it's energy. Just because you no longer see flames does not mean the heat has disappeared. The heat remained, gathered, and continued radiating until it had a way out, which the firemen provided by raking it open and letting it cool.

A better question would be how you would justify a claim that all this heat came from anywhere else. It's a little bit like putting a kettle with water on a burner, and then claiming that the water was boiling from some source of heat other than the burner. You would need to be able to show not only where the other heat was coming from, but also why the heat from the burner wasn't responsible for the effects on the water.



I'm not insinuating anything. I'm saying it outright. I look at the picture and I see right through the glowing sheet. I see the shadowy outline of the bar behind it. That is no 'chunk' of material; whatever it is, it is a sheet.

And my explanation from before stands as strong as ever. The color chart is great if you know what it is you are melting, in the professor's example, a piece of aluminum. You can definitely remove aluminum from the list of suspects. Only several dozen more possible suspects to go. Unless you know exactly what temperature that glowing sheet is at, there is no way that you can match it to the chart.



Ah, of course...sooner or later, it comes down to what conspiracy theorists call evidence and what real researchers refer to as testimony.

But wait, you ask, I thought this debate was about the physical aspects of the WTC collapse? Besides, what's wrong with testimony? Surely, not everyone is a liar?

No, of course not. The problem with testimony, and why it cannot be considered anything other than circumstantial evidence, is because testimony, by its very nature, is based solely on perception, and in most cases, particularly this one, it is based on a perception that was drawn during adverse circumstances, to say the least.

So, when all is said and done, what do we have here? We have a bunch of people who claim to have heard and felt explosions during the fire. Is this really all that surprising? Not in the slightest. Any experienced firefighter will tell you that, in a fire, things blow up. Fire extinguishers particularly, due to their steel containers, are particularly notorious for their ability to mimic bombs. It is entirely possible, in fact, even probable, that these people heard explosions. That does not, however, mean that these explosions had anything to do with a demolition. Why? Simply because if they were in the building when the demolition charges went off, they would not be around telling the story.

Asides from that basic logic, are there any other problems with testimony? Well, yes. If we accept that several dozen people heard explosions, should we not also accept the testimony that several thousands did not? How about the timing of these explosions? Just how many were there, and how would a demolition possibly take place so haphazardly? People are reporting explosions right and left; frankly, that sounds more like the random destruction of a fire than any sort of controlled demolition.



Thank you, Elmer Gantry. Ladies and gentlemen, please don't forget to tip the dancing bear on your way out. Thanks for coming to the show.

Note the use of shame, of guilt, note the call for justice for an imagined crime, and the assumption that what we have the 'Truth', and it is up only us to act on it. Everything included in one little package except for...well, an honest to goodness case.

This is the meat and potatoes of conspiracy theorist. Assumptions of guilt are made. Accusations against a vague 'government' are thrown. A blitzkrieg wave of supposed 'evidence' is presented. Emotions run high, and are fanned by the conspiracy theorists.

But, when all is said and done, where is the argument? The assumption is made that the buildings were demolished, and, honestly, there is nothing wrong with making an assumption about the conclusion if and only if you eventually show that your assumption can be derived from the evidence that has been presented. If your conclusion cannot be independently derived by following the evidence presented, then you have nothing. If the only way to see the evidence as leading to a guilty verdict is by first assuming that the accused is guilty, then you have a big problem.

Reincarnated, i have deleted your post. Only the debaters themselves, as well as Debate Organisors, are allowed to comment on formal debates.

this is a blatant attempt at downplaying evidence-- the image in question is equivalent to the dna evidence in a paternity suit-- it is 99.99% conclusive-- there is no way fire and "shear force" created what is captured in that image-- to even suggest it speaks volumes concerning the integrity of your reasoning


i demonstrated multiple images that cannot be accounted to fire and witness testimony collaborating the most logical theory-- now let me remind you about the FACT that members of bush's own administration have come forward denouncing the official theory and proclaim their beliefs in the use of explosives in the collapse and 737's in the cover up of the demolition in karl schwartz and dr morgan reynolds --



this argument falls apart when you take into account the fact that the buildings sustained the impacts and initial explosions-- this also fails to explain bldg 7 which had no airplane strike it and yet your theory alledges that "small and insignificant" fires were enough to instigate the sudden simultaneous "melting" of all its structural supports and subsequent collapse into its own footprint--


to think that the wtc was under engineered goes against the recorded testimony of both the architect minoru yamasaki and the construction manager frank de martini-- both exclaimed their unwaivering resolution that the buildings could easily widthstand "multiple" impacts from commercial aircraft and related it to throwing a pencil through a screen mesh


the squib in the image did NOT come from a window it was clearly ejected from a corner support column


fire does not melt concrete and steel structures into their own footprint-- i was the one that included an example of a much more intense fire clealry uncomprimising the integrity of the concrete and steel building it consumed


please reference an image that supports the notion that 80 feet of the builing was exposed to an 1800 degree fire-- another red flag concerning the integrity of your reasoning is exemplified in the belief that office furniture and jet fuel could have created literal molten pools of steel(as detailed by peter tully and mark louirixeu of cdi controled demolition inc) in the sub level basement uncovered 8 WEEKS after the collapse


ok and all this before or after your "read" the paper containing the details of the materials in question-- there was never a doubt concerning where they found that slag or what it was composed of as an analysis had been conducted and the results had already been examined and plainly explained in the article by the proffessor of physics from byu--


this is hardly a vague description by unexperienced bystanders


clearly a spin as it defines your very own tactics and nothing else


ah ha where is it indeed?
my conclusion will be definitive and will expose the facts you avoided as well as the equations you failed to present and thoroughly detail the history and motives of the individuals that "PROFITTED"

Damn! With the wrong click of a mouse button, I erased an hours worth of typing! Pardon if I seem a bit short, but I am rather annoyed at myself just now.



Integrity...

You showed a picture of a sheared beam and claimed that it could not have occurred that way naturally. You offered absolutely nothing else. I explained that not only can an angled shear occur in a demolition, it is expected to, due to the forces involved in a collapse. In addition to that, I pointed out that the torn section at the top of the beam and the melted slag on the angle did not match the effects of a demo charge, which would have left a clean cut and little to no melt).

Please explain why "there is no way fire and "shear force" created what is captured in that image" before you start talking about integrity.

Good thing you aren't a paternity lawyer.





Not at all. After all, the towers were designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, and they stood strong against an impact of even greater mass. True, they were severely damaged, but they remained standing, and had there not been a fire, they might well still be standing today. The fire, unfortunately, raged full force for a good hour and a half, and the damage from that is what precipitated the collapse.

"Small and Insignificant" are words that I have not used. Even if the fires in the WTC7 were small and insignificant to start with, after being allowed to grow without any attempt to contain them in any way for over 7 hours, they would most certainly not have been anymore.

Also, to correct yet again another attempt by my opponent to lead you astray, I did not say that WTC7 (or any tower) collapsed due to the "sudden simultaneous "melting" of all its structural supports". The south tower collapsed due to the sagging (which is melting, of a sort, but not really) of the floor trusses caused by the fire, which collapsed and pancacked 8 times, finally accruing sufficient force to shear the weakened structural beams. WTC7, on the other hand, was not constructed in exactly the same way as the other towers. WTC7 had, on one side, a massive structural beam which bore the entire load of that side. Remember that the fire-proofing on these beams is designed with the pre-supposition that that it only needs to last long enough for the fire to be brought under control, but in this case, the firefighters pulled out an let it burn uncontrolled. Fed by several hundred thousand gallons of diesel (unlike the the other towers, who only had about fifteen minutes worth), this fire remained strong and hot directly under the beam. Over the course of seven hours of directly applied heat, the beam lost its integrity and failed. Meanwhile, the fire had spread to the rest of the building, weakening it in its turn, and when the beam on the one side failed, the rest followed suit. It was not, as my opponent alleges, a sudden and simultaneous collapse. I will be including an attachment showing the WTC7 collapse, from the damaged side this time, at the bottom
of this post (I still haven't quite mastered the Image command).



From Yamasaki and Co.:

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires."
Reflections on the WTC

The 'multiple aircrafts' thing was merely what they thought. The actual design was to withstand one impact, and it did that quite excellently. In this very quote, Yamasaki is explaining that it was the fire, not the impact, that caused the eventual downfall.



Your definition of "clearly" is of a lower standard than mine. If you want us to believe that this is proof of a demolition charge destroying the corner support column, you will have to explain why, just as I have explained why it could be a variety of other things. Please begin by telling us why a charge designed to destroy a corner column has utterly failed to show any sort of breakage on the visible side, and why the charge is pointing out away from the column, and not into it.



You are mistaken. The Windsor Building was most certainly compromised by the fire. It had to be torn down. The part that you left out was that the building was under continuous barrage of water and the temperatures never got higher than 800 degrees.

And no, fire does not melt concrete and steel structures into their own footprint, and only conspiracy theorists claim that anyone has said so. Fire does melt a variety of metal furniture and building materials, however, and the towers had many tons available of it for the melting.




Well, I can reference the picture (down below), but you will have to take the word of the source that the temperature was there. Unfortunately, there is little way to tell from a picture what the temperature in a given fire is at without knowing a lot more variables.

In regards to the molten steel..what are you asking? Are you saying that structural members can melt into a puddle of fire, but metal furniture can't? Are you questioning the amount of office furniture in what was one the largest office building in the world? I once worked in the equiptment room of a corporation, and we had over 3000 pieces of metal furniture for the 6-story building, that together would have easily filled a swimming pool with molten metal.

Perhaps you are wondering at the amount of time they stayed molten? Well, if you are going to claim that a pool of molten metal is not going to stay molten, then would you be so kind as to give us something other than you "I don't believe it." as a reason? Can you tell us how long a pool of molten metal will remain molten when buried, or are you just kind of hoping no one is going to ask?



Then stop dodging and post the explanation. I read the paper, and I did not see what you claim is so plainly explained. I would be most interested in seeing how this particular picture, which has no name, date, or source, is nonetheless tied into the paper. By all means, post the explanation. We can't just take your word that it is given.


Seems pretty vague to me. What was it you said earlier?

"A1 how can you expect to sustain any credibility when your attention to detail is so flawed?

I have already pointed out the problems with using witness testimony. For starters, they are often confused, since the people involved where smack-dab in an extremely high-stress situation. Secondly, they could be right, but not in the way others think, such as in hearing explosions, and having other people interpret them as demolition charges.

Another reason is that people, on occassion, LIE.

Karl Schwartz, is indeed the president of I-Nets Security Systems. He is also 1 of 3 employees. If you search the web, you will find his (unfinished) website, which claims that they are on the leading edge of Carbon Nanotube technology (must be 3 really hard-working people!). The phone number is invalid. The other companies that were under Karl Schwartz's name have had their charter revoked by the state (a quick glance through his practices will reveal why). He will not be buying out Global Enterprises for 815 mill. He will not be running for president in 2008 (yes, he made both claims).
Who is Karl Schwartz?

I will admit a little bias concerning Morgan Reynolds, because, well...the man gave me a D in the statistics class I took with him. True, I earned the grade, and he was no doubt brilliant...on the subject of economics...but as a third year architecture student, I knew more about engineering than he did. Frankly, his arguments and my opponents are nearly identical, and share many of the same faults, mostly that they center on pretty much the vague accusations on sees all over the internet, and that they generally really on the argument "I don't believe it could happen that way." with no further explanation.
Morgan Reynold's Trojan Horse

At this point, many CT's begin whining about how the evil skeptic is attacking the person and not the argument. Well, they are going to have to deal with it. It's called "Credibility of the Witness", and there isn't a lawyer on the Bar who wouldn't be laughed out of court if he failed to question the witness to make sure they knew what they were talking about. If a known liar tells you that someone stole your car, I would caution against accepting his testimony at face value. If a mathematician tells you your ulcer is caused by indigestions, I reccomend a second opinion. Sure, they may be right, but testimonies should never be considered proof positive.



No, it would only be a spin if I had pretended to be serious, instead of telling the audience, in my very first paragraph, what to expect. These tactics describe Conspiracy Theorists to a T. You will find them repeated over and over again, and when this debate is through, you will see absolutely no change whatsoever. CT's will insist that Sunofone provided all the evidence and theories, I provided nothing. He rebutted all my explanations easily and with great eloquence, while I sat in the corner and sucked my thumb. Anyone who thinks I may have done a better job must be a panting lap-sheet of the government, deaf and dumb to anything except the rosy little world that all of us except for the CT's believe in.



Right, because the purpose of the debate isn't to actually argue the validity of the argument, but rather to win at all costs. That explains why you haven't actually done anything other than accuse so far. I recommend you provide explanations for your accusations a bit sooner than the conclusion though. I really don't think that the avoidance tactic is being seen so much as a clever move as much as an a lack of ability.

Edited forgot the pictures, sorry!):

3 Pages of WTC fires (note the floor numbers)

are you admitting it was demolished?-- im sorry but in this case reason is all that is needed to determine the absolute lunacy in your hypothesis-- if my friend falls off his skateboard and breaks his leg bad enough to expose the bone it does not take a doctor to determine he has a "compound fracture"-- that solid steel box column could not have been sheared at that angle without the slightest bit of distortion without the use of some sort of chemical reaction involving the most likely culprit in thermite--



no doubt the adjectives small and insignificant were my description-- did you offer any type of image to counter the one i included that demonstrated exactly what i described-- as far as yamasaki goes you are truly mistaken-- yamasaki died in 1976 and could not have made the quotes attributed to him by you-- the examples put forth by me concerning the windsor building and the 24 hour fire that raged there is a testament to the absolute ridiculous notion that a hydrocarbon fire could have comprimised the integrity of steel much less been responsible for the angled "cut" in the box column-- again i stress there was no need to bring fire into the equation of integrity concerning the high grade steel that was used as well as the design of the towers themselves which included hypoberically sealed segments within the core to eliminate any kind of chimney effect--



you explained scenarios that defy physics and expect me to accept them as justified -- as far as the squib goes it is really a simple example of a "shaped charge" with more velocity than necessary to cut that corner-- here is a link to a video that i implore you to view-- it demonstrates the all the arguments discussed here and shows the squib in question followed by more and explains the absence of resistance in the time it took the building to fall and how it prooves the supports were removed simultaneously--
MUST SEE VIDEO



yes it did need demolition after the fire-- but it certainly did not collpase within its own footprint like bldg 7-- which you claim(or the govt) was the cause for the collpase-- of course you will conclude you 5 bodily posts with out referencing any govt experts or explanations-- but i do not blame you as to actually put it into print would force you to re examine the absolute impossibility of their hypothsis-- of course it was in your best interest to not include their ridiculous theories for true scrutiny



ok the image you included was nothing more than a pile of rubble and the link you referenced lead to three pages of "black smoke" which is in itself a testament to the lack of fire and oxygen necessary to fuel a fire at all


the exact quote from that clip was as follows "yeah detonaters planted,the kind you would use to bring down a building with,boom,boom,boom,boom,boom,boom"


oh now they are liars-- the fact is he is not alone-- besides morgan reynolds there is stephen jones,stanly hilton and many more -- here are a few references to who is saying what and who profitted and the connections that are not included in the fox reports--