Damian Penny Reviews Debunking 9-11
Our buddy Damian covers Popular Mechanics' new book:
For people who are on the verge of joining the "9/11 truth movement" but haven't quite made the leap, however, the book may bring them back from the edge. Debunking 9/11 Myths illustrates how the conspiracy theorists use pseudoscience, rumours, half-truths, logical fallacies, quotes taken out of context and blatant lies to make their case.
posted by Pat @ 2:08 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
An expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)
Happen to be where they only show him one angle and don't show him the structural damage or inferno?
looked like a "classic controlled demolition"
Simile - noun - a comparison using "like" or "as".
An expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)
Oh really? You mean this expert?
Funny how the twoofer left that part out when they posted the video about WTC, huh? Bunch of shameless lying cunts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Goddamn you're a stupid woman. Here's a quick analysis of some more of the crap you posted. Keep in mind I only bothered with the ones which weren't video or audio, and were in English.
* A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded
The guy wasn't told that he was looking at a building which had been on fire and heavily damaged. The same guy also says that WTC1 and WTC2 were "clearly not demolitions", and offers an explanation of why they came down the way they did. Check the link I posted above to see the video.
* A U.S. professor of physics stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition
That's referring to Steven Jones, and we all know just how reliable his work is.
* A U.S. professor of mechanical engineering argued that the trade centers were brought down with explosives
And this part refers to Judy Wood, who thinks the twin towers were demolished by the kibbler elves.
* The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"
The article which that part comes from also says this:
"Each tower was struck by a passenger aeroplane, hijacked by suicidal terrorists, but remained upright for nearly an hour. Eventually raging fires melted the supporting steel struts, but the time delay allowed hundreds of people to escape.
"Most buildings would have come down immediately," says John Hooper, principal engineer in the company that provided engineering advice when the World Trade Center was designed."
The collapse of the WTC towers mirrored the strategy used by demolition experts. In controlled demolitions, explosives are placed not just on the lowest three floors but also on several consecutive floors about a third of the way up the building.
The explosions at the higher floors enable the collapse to gain downward momentum as gravity pulls the full weight of unsupported higher floors down into lower floors in a snowballing effect.
On Tuesday, the impacts of aeroplanes on the higher floors replaced the explosives. The collapse of the higher floors caused the floors below to be crushed. "It cascaded down like an implosion," says Taylor.
Joan, you've got to be one of the stupidest people I've ever met. Every time you post something, you provide more material to debunk the CT's than you do to prove them!
ok, so find me one, just ONE, structural engineer who studied all of the recovered evidence, has read the NIST report, and has concluded that the NIST engineers are wrong about WTC7. Otherwise, these guys opinions are as useless as nipples on a mustang.
That is unless you like the idea of a doctor diagnosing you with lung cancer without listening to your lungs and doing an XR and CT scan.
TAM
Naw, don't put down the Swiss, they're probably being misquoted and used just like that poor Dutch guy.
Hey Joan, question for you. (Or any other truther out there pleasuring him/herself over this Dutch guy saying WTC7 was a controlled demolition.)
Would you guys grant us victory if we presented testimony of ONE guy who watched ONE video (sans audio of course) who concluded that WTC7 collapsed due to structural failure brought on by fire and extensive damage from debris?
Yeah, I didn't think so, either.
He's researched it extensively since the filming of the interview and sticks to his original conclusion.
Source? That's pathetic if so. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt about just seeing that one angle.
He's researched it extensively since the filming of the interview and sticks to his original conclusion.
And yet somehow I get this feeling that the numerous people involved in NIST's report on building 7(which isn't even out yet 'cause it actually takes time to investigate things), who've spent the past 2 or 3 years researching this collapse, will be promptly written off by you guys.
I should call them up, tell them to take one person from their team, sit that person down in front of Google Video, and have him/er study the collapse "extensively".
That's what passes for an investigation for you guys.
Wait a minute! Engineers who do no more than review a video and some pictures are more authoritative than ones who've actually done firsthand analysis??!! How in God's name does a superficial analysis override an in-depth one?!
Artistic Macrophage's challenge is still unmet: Fine one structural engineer who's "studied all of the recovered evidence, has read the NIST report, and has concluded that the NIST engineers are wrong about WTC7"! Provide proof that any of the cited engineers from overseas have done so! No evidence exists that they have! The afore linked stories do not do so, and heck, the translated story about the Swiss engineers comes out and says the opposite: That all one of the engineers did was view video! That's not research!
Remote viewing of a video or some static pictures is not the same as hands-on analysis of primary evidence!
On top of that, what would those quoted engineers say after reviewing the NIST report, reviewing the physical evidence, talking with the people who actually conducted the hands-on studies, etc.? It's one thing to form an initial opinion - doctors are forced to do it all the time - but it's another to not change and adapt as information is processed. What would those engineers say? Anyone think they'd stick with their original opinion that it was CD that brought down the towers?
And last, and this is just a pet peeve of mine: Why the hell is there such an emphasis on relying on structural engineers opinions to the exclusion of all others? Note what I'm saying: "To the exclusion of all others"; I fully realize that the primary questions must be answered with people holding knowledge in that field, but it also misses the point that other fields of expertise are needed to contribute to the overall analysis of the events. For example, note that 8 of the 13 members of the NIST WTC investigative team hold expertise in analyzing fire's effect on structures:
Shyam Sunder - Deputy Director of the Building and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL) at NIST
William Grosshandler - Chief of the Fire Research Division in the Building and Fire Research Laboratory of NIST
Therese McAllister - researches performance of structures in fire, structural stability and progressive collapse
James R. Lawson - National Bureau of Standards project leader or team member on a wide range of studies such as fire resistance of thermal insulation materials; fire tests for flooring, smoke generation, flame spread, heat of combustion and heat release rate
NIST also includes a metallurgist, who'd be better placed to determine the truth about the performance of the steel in the WTC than anyone else the fantasists have come up with, including Dr. Jones from BYU:
Frank Gayle - Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division in the NIST Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory and as Group Leader for the Division's Materials Structure and Characterization Group.
Yet, the conspiracy fantasists rely on a muon-catalyzed fusion physicist, a mechanical engineer specializing in dental stresses? And selectively quotes from demolition experts, who may in fact be saying the opposite of what the fantasists are claiming (thanks for the vid link, Alex). And tout structural engineers who've only reviewed video, and haven't commented on the publicly available findings??!! Where's the expertise?? And where's the firsthand knowledge of the facts?? Where's the analysis using firsthand evidence? Where's the disciplined, methodical research??
What have conspiracy fantasists done other than Google each other's sites and rely on single sentence quotes from people merely reviewing video??!! And how in the world is any of that conclusive?
9/11 believers
Call us gravity believers while you're at it.
Actually, I feel safe that we have structural engineers, members of the NIST Fire Research lab, a certain Dutch demolition expert that Alex linked, reality, and science on our side. It's more than one single person, it's the totality of the evidence plus the rationality of the narrative.
As opposed to the wandering, meandering, so dependent on context-less quotes, hearsay, and mere video viewing that fantasists depend on.
And also as opposed to the "Israeli spook behind every rock" fantasy you keep throwing out there, Pop.
Post a Comment
<< Home