Debate Over 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Radioactivity: Live Call-In (Thursday) Jun 28 2012 10:00AM Add to Calendar 

This Thursday (June 28th) at 10:06AM EDT WMNF presents a one hour debate between 9/11 "Truther" Richard Gage and skeptic Dave Thomas on the theory that the Twin Towers at the World Trade Center were brought down by deliberately placed explosives on 9/11/01.

Comments

undeniable evidence
 

henry about 11 months ago
I don't know who was behind it all, how they pulled it off, or why. But there is no doubt that these buildings could not have fallen in the sudden, symmetrical free-fall fashion that they did without the assistance of a controlled demolition. Especially WTC 7. The bottom 2/3s of WTC 1&2 were undamaged and it is inconceivable that the steel beams would not have put up enough resistance to slow the collapse or cause the toppling over of the top 1/3, as opposed to the demolition-style near-perfect collapse that occurred in less than 15 seconds, right before everyone's eyes.

Mr
 

winston smith about 11 months ago
Nice argument from incredulity there, Henry.

sigh...
 

Supinated about 11 months ago
Truthers like the first commenter spend time trying to sound professional talking about how the buildings could not have fallen they way they did without being demolished. 1. Take a physics course and stop depending on crackpot YouTube BS. 2. Why haven't Gage and his buddies expanded their arguments across all of the relevant fields...why just his small group of colleages. Real researchers don't depend on public OPINION to gain support....they seek professionals who agree. And there are none. BOO HOO.....this pathetic conspiracy theory will whither away soon.

none
 

Jesse Atencio about 11 months ago
Unfortunately, there is too much money to be made by people that can formulate conspiracy theories and promoting them to sell book, or speaking engagements because the general public is not well informed enough to know better. So, we will continue to see more conspiracy theories come forth as old theories are debunked . Thanks DAVE for taking some of your valuable time to debunk theories that shouldn't have to be exposed in the first place!

Simple physics people...
 

Blake about 11 months ago
Thank you so much Dave for airing such an important debate. To the commenter above, I would suggest taking your own advice and sitting in on a physics course. For an object to drop at free fall acceleration means that object is experiencing ZERO resistance vertically. The reason you feel comfortable sitting in your chair is because there are 4 legs providing vertical resistance against your constant acceleration due to gravity (your perceived weight) onto the floor bellow. Now imagine a small fire attacking one of the legs to your chair (not so different from the asymmetrical fires in building7). You would expect your body to lean towards the leg that is beginning to weaken and deform. Perhaps the fire is hot enough that the leg would give way (loss of vertical resistance), allowing your weight to fall through the path of LEAST resistance, tipping away from the legs that suffered no damage. Oddly enough this is not what we saw on 9/11. Building 7 (because of an asymmetrical loss of support) was able to globally (symmetrically) fall straight down (at free fall acceleration!) through the path of GREATEST (undamaged columns) resistance! This is as fundamentally impossible as you falling straight down through your chair if one of your four legs was damaged and gave way. I could go on and on with further tangible evidence of a cover-up, but one only has to have a basic understanding of the physical laws of nature to see the problems with the official story.

Simple physics
 

Carl Brannen about 11 months ago
The floors in a high rise building are designed to be strong enough to support the normal loads they experience. They're not built stronger because if they were, it would increase the weight of the whole building requiring everything else to be built that much stronger. Pretty soon you end up with a building that is solid steel. If a floor is hit hard enough, it will break loose and fall to the floor below. The breaking requires a certain amount of energy. But that energy is small compared to the amount of potential energy in the floor itself due to its being 10 feet higher than the floor below. In other words, every floor in a high rise has enough potential energy to easily break the floor below. After a floor breaks the floor below it loose, that floor will break the next and so on. So each floor only needs to break one floor below it. After that it can and will fall at the speed of gravity. It's only delayed by a single floor and that only slows it down by a few feet per second. This is simple physics. There's nothing magical keeping a building standing. Gravity is very powerful.

Even a kid could master simple physics
 

Wil Clark about 11 months ago
Truthers today weren't as bright as they were when they first went to school. I find it funny that they would assume that the buildings fell through the path of greatest resistance and then fail to realise that their mistake if saying that they fell through "free fall". Now how can a building of great RESISTANCE be able to "free fall" when there's RESISTANCE already applied to it? Can any Truther out there answer that question?

An observation
 

Herman about 11 months ago
It's amusing how conspiracy theorists suddenly become structural engineers when they sit behind a computer. Keep it up folks.

Facepalm...
 

Blake about 11 months ago
@Carl, Designers regardless if they use ASD or LRFD will utilize a factor of safety either to the member itself (ASD) or the applied/inherent loads (LRFD). From there the worst possible loading case (ex 1.5 liveload + 1.2 deadload + 1.3 windload) is used to fail the member in its weakest state (usually Lateral Torsional Buckling governs). This establishes a BASELINE for member selection as outlined in the AISC Steel manual. Connections are calculated in a similar manner (taking the worst possible loading case and failing the connection in its weakest state) to establish a baseline for selection. Furthermore, the connections are designed in the neighborhood of 1.5 to 3 times as strong as the members themselves to ensure that the member will always fail first. By failure I mean large deformations that are slow and gradual, if a connection fails first it is an instantaneous loss of support which is why they are designed to an even higher factor of safety. Your comments regarding building design are either uneducated or outright lies, when it's all said and done the structural system of a building is an amazingly strong frame that can easily support its weight 3 times over (WTC7 a relatively modern skyscraper being built in the 80's is no exception). You also prove the official story false in your own comment. When floors fall on one another there is a loss of momentum as speed decreases (noticeable jolt) while being released into energy as the floors destroy one-another. Watch videos of all 3 towers falling and mark the frames as they come down, none even make a stutter! As a matter of fact, all 3 actually ACCELERATE during their dissent, a complete violation of Newtons 2nd law! An object can not both destroy itself and accelerate at the same time in a natural gravitational collapse! @Will, thank you, your question actually proves our "truther" point entirely! A building CAN NOT fall through its path of greatest resistance during a natural gravitational collapse (it will suffer resistance and tip/fall into the path of least resistance). The ONLY way for this to occur is if its path of greatest resistance is compromised to allow zero resistance (ie controlled demo to remove columns). @Herman, I find it more amusing that believers in the official government story offer no evidence to support their or debunk our claims, resorting only to childish personal attacks. Cheers!

@Blake
 

Herman about 11 months ago
All these words just to express that you are an uneducated conspiracy theorist? I guess you can't present even ONE reliable source that agrees with your ridiculous theories? Well how could. Your theories are based in faith, and not in science. Have fun with your delusions.

lmao
 

Blake about 11 months ago
@Herman, I'll take your lack of words to gauge your level of education. Maybe you'd like to refer to Steven Jones' unchallenged, peer reviewed discovery of military grade incendiaries in the WTC dust published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm). Or do you prefer your own faith based belief in the government's investigation that they them-self admit "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse" (page 4; http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf)?

Weight vs impact force
 

Carl Brannen about 11 months ago
@ "Your comments regarding building design are either uneducated or outright lies, when it's all said and done the structural system of a building is an amazingly strong frame that can easily support its weight 3 times over (WTC7 a relatively modern skyscraper being built in the 80's is no exception)." I've taught freshman physics for years. I'm a candidate for the PhD in physics. I'll try and give you a lesson on this. Yes, an individual floor could easily, EASILY, carry three times the weight of the floor above. I'm guessing it's closer to 10x, with engineering margins. And this would be easily demonstrated if you got a bunch of people together, dismantled the floor above, and carried it down piece by piece. I agree with this completely. But that's not the force exerted by a falling floor. I realize my small audience here is quite ignorant of physics principles so I will explain this in a way that you can understand intuitively. Your "weight" is measured by a bathroom scale. It only works if you're just standing still. If you jump 10 feet up into the air and land on your bathroom scale the momentary force you exert on the scale will be a LOT MORE than your weight. Depending on how you flex your knees, etc., your force will be at least 20x your weight. Similarly, your body is strong enough to support your weight several times over. By your logic, you should be able to survive a fall from any height. Nope. It's not your weight that kills you when you fall, it's the impact with the ground. And that impact is not equal to your weight. What breaks a floor in these situations is not the weight of the floor above, it's the impact of the floor above. To calculate that impact, you need to know some calculus and to estimate a distance over which the floor is decelerated and you haven't made that computation. Grade D.

Gage's pseudo science
 

Frances about 11 months ago
Gage should open his own circus, he is a hoot. Actually reminds me a lot of the televangelists that pulled off their shticks in the 80's. Maybe he is looking in the wrong places for support of his faith based pseudo science, I'm sure he will find some uneducated goons in the religious/creationist camp though.

Grade D is right.
 

Blake about 11 months ago
Let me put your argument into perspective. The government officially backed two explanations for the collapse of the WTC Towers, first the FEMA Report, and later the NIST Report issued to correct the previous FEMA explanation. Why is this important? Because your argument is based upon the initial FEMA findings. This initial report (unlike the later NIST inquiry) gave an explanation for the total collapse of the buildings in the form of Bazant's Theory (Later picked up in the media and popularized as the "Pancake Theory"). This theory was interestingly enough developed solely as a direct response to the towers collapse. It, along with your argument above, is so easily proven false through only Newton's Second Law and visual observation, that it quickly was abandoned in favor of the currently "accepted" NIST Inward-Bowing Theory that only describes the initial onset of collapse and nothing more regarding the total building dismemberment. Allow me to enlighten, yes, your weight on a scale will read significantly higher if you jump on it opposed to standing still. This is F=m(dv/t) hard at work (pun intended); the "quicker" (time) your velocity changes (dv), the greater the force exerted. This is why we have crumple zones in cars and you bend your knees when landing, we are trying to lengthen the time of impact (dv/t) so in turn we feel lower force. Why is this important? As force is exerted (floors breaking) dv/t (acceleration) MUST DECREASE which is visibly observed as a loss of speed. The problem with WTC is the towers visibly GAINED acceleration during the first seconds of decent, and later remained at a near CONSTANT speed during collapse! This is such a clear violation of the conservation of momentum that the government itself had to scrap Bazant's "Pancake" theory in favor for the Inward Bowing theory that explains nothing more than the initial onset of collapse. Further requests for explanation through the FOIA (the pdf I linked in a previous response) shows the government blatantly admitting they cannot explain the total collapse of the building. I wonder why, maybe it's because it's physically impossible to be explained without the introduction of outside forces (controlled demolition) to empirically explain what was seen? Ding Ding Ding!, this is (just one) of the major stances of the truth movement (one started by 9/11 victims themselves mind you). The fact you claim to be both a physics teacher and post-graduate student, yet fail to see these simple violations of physical laws, downright frightens me. Perhaps you are a visual learner; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YRUso7Nf3s

Conservation of Momentum
 

Carl Brannen about 11 months ago
A few days ago, Blake began a post with: "@Carl, Designers regardless if they use ASD or LRFD will utilize a factor of safety either to the member itself (ASD) or the applied/inherent loads (LRFD)." I explained that the load placed on a floor by the falling of the floor above is not equal to its weight. In response, Blake fails to defend his previous claims. Thus he implicitly admits that he was wrong. Thus the reader should expect further mistakes in his posts. I don't expect Blake to admit that he was wrong; I understand that I need to point it out. In general, truthers do not understand enough about physics and engineering to make intelligent commentary on how and why buildings fall down. These things are not as simple as they appear to some. <<<<>>>>> Blake's latest post claims that the towers "later remained at a near CONSTANT speed during collapse!" It's not clear that he really means this; an object in free fall constantly accelerates. The speed is never constant. And the usual truther argument is that the building fell in free-fall. So which is it. Does he claim that the building fell in free fall or does he claim that it fell at near constant speed? Can't be both. I think his post is an implicit admission that he does not understand the second lesson in Newtonian physics, "motion under constant acceleration". The first lesson is motion at a constant velocity. <<<<>>>> He says that this is a "violation of the conservation of momentum", but conservation of momentum is a difficult thing to understand in the vertical direction. To have a building fall at a constant speed (instead of the acceleration of gravity), without having external forces indeed would be a violation of conservation of momentum. But the violation is against the direction claimed by the truthers. In fact, the building did fall at close to the acceleration of gravity, in complete compliance with the laws of physics applied to a building naturally collapsing of its own weight. <<<<>>>> Blake claims that the government had to scrap a theory of why the buildings fell. I can't say whether this is true or not. But it doesn't matter to me. I think the government is, in general, quite stupid and it would not surprise me that people hired by the government make big mistakes. I think that the government's incompetence is one of the best sociological arguments against a conspiracy. In any case, this sort of argument is not physics, it's sociology.

Carl Brannen is right
 

Tony about 11 months ago
Carl, reading your conversation with Blake, something dawned to me: Conspiracy theorists like Blake don't come on the internet to win debates about 9/11 physics (they lack basic education anyway). No. They do it just for debate's sake and solely PARTICIPATING in a 9/11 discussion is a victory for them. Good to have people like you with actual knowledge of physics (again, something that internet warriors for 9/11 truth never had and will never have).

Sorry bub
 

Blake about 11 months ago
<<A few days ago, Blake began a post with: "@Carl, Designers regardless if they use ASD or LRFD will utilize a factor of safety either to the member itself (ASD) or the applied/inherent loads (LRFD)." I explained that the load placed on a floor by the falling of the floor above is not equal to its weight. In response, Blake fails to defend his previous claims. Thus he implicitly admits that he was wrong. Thus the reader should expect further mistakes in his posts. I don't expect Blake to admit that he was wrong; I understand that I need to point it out.>> Are you even reading my posts? First, I never made any claim regarding the weight of one floor falling on another, and even agreed with your original statement when I said: ~yes, your weight on a scale will read significantly higher if you jump on it opposed to standing still.~ Nice try, but if you really want to play the quote game, lets look at some of the things you say.. <<The floors in a high rise building are designed to be strong enough to support the normal loads they experience. They're not built stronger...>> After I correct you, you continue <<Yes, an individual floor could easily, EASILY, carry three times the weight of the floor above. I'm guessing it's closer to 10x, with engineering margins.>> So which one is it? Are floors built to just barely support their own weight, or are they strong enough to carry their weight 10x over? It would seem to me that you're the only one running in circles here, if I were reading this I would find it hard to give you any credibility. Let's continue: <<...an object in free fall constantly accelerates. The speed is never constant. And the usual truther argument is that the building fell in free-fall. So which is it.>> It's a shame your tactics resort to claims made by others rather than the actual discussion between you and I. Again if you actually have read my posts you would have seen this: ~The problem with WTC is the towers visibly GAINED acceleration during the first seconds of decent, and later remained at a near CONSTANT speed during collapse!~ Lets put that into perspective when you later say <<To have a building fall at a constant speed (instead of the acceleration of gravity), without having external forces indeed would be a violation of conservation of momentum.>> WOW, I couldn't have said it any better myself, the FACT that the towers fell at a near CONSTANT speed without any external force IS a violation of the conservation of momentum! You prove my case for me! But wait, there's more <<In fact, the building did fall at close to the acceleration of gravity, in complete compliance with the laws of physics...>> The towers initially fell at close to free fall, indicating there was little to no resistance vertically bellow them, this is in complete INcompliance with physics that show a structure below a falling object will offer resistance to NOT ALLOW free fall acceleration let alone a constant speed during collapse (that you yourself agree to be a physical violation). You go on to say <<...physics applied to a building naturally collapsing of its own weight.>> Collapsing under its own weight? Didn't we agree that <<...an individual floor could easily, EASILY, carry three times the weight of the floor above. I'm guessing it's closer to 10x...>> You somehow manage to not only contradict physical laws, but your own previous statements in one fail sentence, brilliant! <<Blake claims that the government had to scrap a theory of why the buildings fell. I can't say whether this is true or not. But it doesn't matter to me.>> ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Investigations ) I find it disturbing that you don't even know what theories the government has or has not produced, yet you continue to defend something you know nothing about through willful ignorance because it just <<...doesn't matter to me>> To quote our friend Herman, "Your theories are based in faith, and not in science. Have fun with your delusions."

Nice work, Mr. Thomas
 

Joshua Berns about 11 months ago
Richard Gage got utterly destroyed...for the 23476th time. And twoofers still donate to him? LMAO

Some papers:
 

Carl Brannen about 11 months ago
<<So which one is it? Are floors built to just barely support their own weight, or are they strong enough to carry their weight 10x over?>> I did not say that floors are "built to just barely support their own weight". What I said was that they were designed only to support the "normal loads" they experience. LOAD is not equal to WEIGHT. In the language of engineering, the "normal loads" that a floor experiences is far in excess of the "weight" of the floor. The excess happens due to things like earthquakes, wind, even people jumping up and down in unison (exercising), etc. And designs include margin for things like aging material, defects in construction, later ill-advised modifications, etc. My point is that there's no surprise that floors collapse when they're hit with another floor. <<WOW, I couldn't have said it any better myself, the FACT that the towers fell at a near CONSTANT speed without any external force IS a violation of the conservation of momentum!>> You're still not making physics sense here. The only way an object moves with a constant velocity is if all the forces on the object are balanced. Since there is an obvious force of gravity on the falling building, the only way it could move at constant velocity (speed) is if there were some supporting force. That's not what the truthers claim and it's not what you claim in the next sentence. You just don't understand the difference between acceleration and speed. This is a problem I faced in teaching students every day, let's just "move on", LOL. <<The towers initially fell at close to free fall, indicating there was little to no resistance vertically bellow them, this is in complete INcompliance with physics that show a structure below a falling object will offer resistance to NOT ALLOW free fall acceleration.>> I believe that this is a more accurate description of your belief and so this is what I will addresss. You've not given us a calculation for how much that resistance is. My calculation shows that it is negligible. Here it is: http://brannenworks.com/Gravity/wtcsog.pdf <<Collapsing under its own weight? Didn't we agree that ..>> Only the first floor collapses due to its own weight. It took a long time for this to happen and it's obviously visible in the images of the buildings as they burned. Look for floors that are sagging in photos showing the floors visible through the windows. That first floor collapsing has nothing to do with the truther complaint that the building fell at the "speed" of gravity. If you have questions about this, I can answer them as the above paper should make clear. It shows that the length of time for gravity to pull the building down should be around 9.0 seconds, but the resistance of the floors below slows the collapse to around 9.3 seconds. The calculation assumes that it's the top floor that collapses. If a lower floor collapses the difference between the collapse time is proportionally smaller. The fastest way to bring the building down would be to collapse the bottom floor of course. Since the collapse times are so close, it appears to the viewer that the building fell with no resistance. I have two other papers on the tower collapse. This one is on the cause of the collapse (which I do not believe was caused by a lack of strength in the steel due to heat, but instead was caused by excessive stresses due to thermal expansion: http://brannenworks.com/Gravity/wtcexp.pdf and this paper discusses the ability of a floor to withstand the impact of a single floor: http://brannenworks.com/Gravity/wtcflr.pdf Keep the conversation going, I think your questions are very reasonable. My language is that of an engineer / physicist and it can be difficult for the general public to understand our lingo. So I expect more comments.

Structural Design 101
 

Blake about 11 months ago
<<LOAD is not equal to WEIGHT. In the language of engineering, the "normal loads" that a floor experiences is far in excess of the "weight" of the floor.>> While I'm sure you do have some basic background in physics, your comments regarding building design and engineering concepts to this point have been at best an educated guess. A "normal load" in engineering context is any load that acts perpendicular to its supporting surface. What you are referring to is a "dead load". The DL computation for a member (a floor joist in this example) is a combination of the members own weight (plf) + the weight of permanently supported objects (steel deck & concrete floor in psf). See that little p, it stands for pounds, b/c Load = Force = Weight. <<The excess happens due to things like earthquakes, wind, even people jumping up and down in unison (exercising), etc.>> What you refer to as "excess" is properly called a "live load". LLs include occupants and equipment (again in psf) taken from valued tables depending on the floors use... Earthquakes, wind, snow, etc are not live loads, but external loading cases that are treated differently depending on where the building's being built and relevant building codes. (As a side note, the WTC Towers were explicitly designed to take into consideration an impact from a 707, a loading case surely factored as well ((side side note, we don't know the factor for sure b/c the buildings performance model was lost in the collapse and its only copy was strangely enough kept in wtc 7, feel free to fact check))) <<And designs include margin for things like aging material, defects in construction, later ill-advised modifications, etc.>> I think you're referring to a phenomenon called "creep", where a material becomes permanently deflected over time due to stress. With the current practice of load and/or member factoring, this effect is practically negligible in calculation. The last two you mention are rarely given thought with the exception of a owner request to be able to change the future occupancy type for a floor in which case the LL would increase as a buffer. <<My point is that there's no surprise that floors collapse when they're hit with another floor.>> Maybe to someone with no structural background, a falling floor represents an instantaneous global loss of connection, exactly what the buildings were designed not to do. Regardless you are (again) referring to the "pancake theory" of collapse which is no longer backed by either the scientific community or the U.S. Government. (Side note; I think it's important enough to point this out a second time, but the government still has no explanation for the collapse of the towers, only an explanation for the initial onset in the form of "inward bowing". I highly recommend you research this, but like you said before, it <<...doesn't matter to me>>. I find it pathetic that backers of the official conspiracy theory (OTC) have absolutely not idea what they're even defending, and in your case you don't even care to find out. <<The only way an object moves with a constant velocity is if all the forces on the object are balanced. Since there is an obvious force of gravity on the falling building, the only way it could move at constant velocity (speed) is if there were some supporting force.>> Correct, but a moving object will always de-accelerate when it comes into contact with another stationary object. The towers initially accelerated and then remained at a near constant speed, this is not physically possible. It's why the government itself had to scrap Bazant's theory and currently offers no explanation! The remainder of your post is just a continued defense of this dead theory. For a better idea of what should have happened check out these series of computer models; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUikmLufHrs&list=PL1139A04D24A093BD&feature=plpp_play_all

A short physics lesson
 

Carl Brannen about 10 months ago
<<The towers initially accelerated and then remained at a near constant speed, this is not physically possible.>> The acceleration of gravity is about 32 feet per second per second. "Free fall" means that at one second the speed is 32 feet per second (fps). At two seconds it is 64 fps. At three seconds it is 96 fps. At 4 seconds it is 128 fps. At 5 seconds it is 160 fpgs. At 6 seconds it is 192 fps. At 7 seconds it is 224 fps. At 8 seconds it is 256 fps. At 9 seconds it is 288 fps. At 10 seconds it is 320 fps. At no time was the speed "constant". That you keep claiming the towers fell at "constant speed" when what you want to say is that they fell in "free fall" is pretty good evidence that you don't know much about physics and aren't going to learn anything any time soon. || The only significant comment you've made is to the effect that you *are* surrpised that a floor cannot withstand the impact of another floor falling on it. I stated previously that the force that a falling floor exerts is far in excess of the weight of the floor and gave an estimate. This is basic physics. I doubt that the scientific community fails to believe it or came to a different conclusion. If not, why don't you give a link. But again, I'm not here to defend any official theory; I will critique their errors just as happily. || I see you've posted a link to a simulation. Making simulations isn't easy, it's not surprising when a simulation fails. Without the source code it's as useful as a cartoon for evidence. || Finally, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I'd forgotten all about this.

I expected more
 

Blake about 10 months ago
<<That you keep claiming the towers fell at "constant speed" when what you want to say is that they fell in "free fall" is pretty good evidence that you don't know much about physics...>> This is a joke right? You blatantly put words in my mouth to make a point? Pathetic. For the 3rd time, yes, I know the difference between speed and acceleration, if I've made that mistake please point it out instead of making things up. Now for the last time, what I said is ~The towers initially accelerated and then remained at a near constant speed~ as evident in this observation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJf7pWVyvIw ). <<I stated previously that the force that a falling floor exerts is far in excess of the weight of the floor and gave an estimate. This is basic physics. I doubt that the scientific community fails to believe it or came to a different conclusion. If not, why don't you give a link.>> Hello, McFly, the "pancake theory" of collapse is DEAD. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Investigations ) "FEMA developed an early explanation of the collapses, which had come to be known as the "pancake" theory. It was defended by Thomas Eagar and popularized by PBS." ... "After the FEMA report had been published, and following pressure from technical experts, industry leaders and families of victims, the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a three-year, $16 million investigation into the structural failure and progressive collapse of several WTC complex structures." ... "The scope of the NIST investigation was focused on identifying "the sequence of events" that triggered the collapse, and did not include detailed analysis of the collapse mechanism itself (after the point at which events made the collapse inevitable)." ... "The NIST report, however, would ultimately vindicate the floor connections; indeed, the collapse mechanism depends on the strength of these connections as the floors pulled the outer walls in." Let me make this crystal clear, the pancake theory solely depended on failing floor joist connections to initiate and maintain collapse. After much scrutiny this theory was abandoned in favor of NIST's "Inward Bowing" theory, which now depends solely on floor joists maintaining their connection to pull the exterior columns inward. Perhaps Underwriters Laboratory is a more verifiable source ( http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html )? Hey, do you want to really know why the pancake theory is complete garbage? ( http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/doc/pac1TowerA/A-A-86_1.png ) You see that maze of interior columns taking up a third of the buildings area, it's called the inner core and it's an almost entirely separate structural entity than the floor pan. The floor pan is supported by joists that are bolted to an angle on the exterior columns and welded to a beam supported by those huge rectangular columns on the outer grid of the interior core. What this means is the floor pan is supported vertically solely by the exterior columns and outer grid of the inner core. There is no correlation for a falling floor to initiate collapse of the inner core, end of story. This is why the government to this day has NO explanation for the total collapse of the towers, are you starting to get the picture? <<But again, I'm not here to defend any official theory; I will critique their errors just as happily.>> Then what are you here for then? You've done nothing but defend the pancake model which I've already shown you to be a complete wash. Why have you yet to comment on the "inward bowing" theory, the currently "accepted" stance from the govt? <<... it's not surprising when a simulation fails. Without the source code it's as useful as a cartoon for evidence.>> Oh Carl, you make this too easy. Perhaps you are aware of the NIST simulation for the collapse of WTC7? It's the one that they refuse to release input data for fear that it might "jeopardize public safety". Begin at 48:28 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4 ). << Finally, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I'd forgotten all about this.>> Perhaps you should have, would've saved yourself the embarrassment.

Dr.
 

Rudy about 8 months ago
Blake wins hands down. Brannen's arguments are technical junk. Most of the other commentary is standard ad hominem fallacy junk.

undeniable evidence
 

MT about 8 months ago
Either way you guys are trying to discredit thousands of engineer's and architect's that have ph d's in these fields. Even if you could disprove it which none of you have since none of you (atleast that I assume) have a phd in physics or engineering. That would not account for the molten medal found at the bottom of all 3 of the towers that contained barium nitrate and sulfur. This has been corroborated from 100's of firefighters and workers at ground zero in the days and weeks following that day. Then you go to the pentagon that had a hole 5 meters wide for a plane that is 38 meters wide and 13.5 meters tall. But somehow the more damageable part of the plane survived and bashed through multiple layers of the pentagon. You guys need to open your eyes. Even more than that the FBI came out and said they didn't have prove that Osama had anything to do with 9/11 that is why he wasn't listed for the 9/11 attacks on the fbi webpage.

 

Chris Steiner about 26 days ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46H-Pl2k9jw Academic Dave Thomas talking about lost debate with Mr Richard Gage Mr Dave Thomas of New Mexicans for Science and Reason( http://nmsr.org/) speaking at a local ABQ restaurant in front of a small group on September 19th 2011, is still trying to debate Mr Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 truth( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ) in a one sided crafted presentation. In this first part, UNM grant enabled Mr Dave Thomas speaks about his lost debate with Mr Gage. Thomas also talks about micro spheres. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjrloyclh8k Academic Dave Thomas thinks WTC7 collapsed due to fire p2

Your Ad Could Be Here