9/11 was an inside job

[The Kilted Heathen]

For the 2 Towers there was a rapid onset of their explosions downward,

"Rapid onset" doesn't mean "all at once". Evidence that you've given that is verified by multiple angle video shots show that the buildings collapsed from the center outward and down.

NIST rejected FEMA's "floor pancaking" hypothesis. Do you know why?

Did they really reject it, or is this another thing that you didn't read closely? And if FEMA's report was rejected, why did you use it as evidence for your conspiracies?

Have you ever seen "another" building crush itself from the top down (than the top portion self-crush) due to scattered fires and asymmetrical structural damage?

Has there ever been structural damage to a skyscraper in the same manner as the WTC?

So who do you claim was the lone perpetrator who crashed 4 jetliners into buildings and the ground on 9/11, killing everyone on board?

"Lone perpetrator"--what the flippin' fragnons are you on about?

 

[LuisDantas]

Just kidding. I don't believe that, but I've heard it from so many people. Does anyone here think it was an inside job?

No. That the idea is even given traction shows how broken many of us are.

 

[Nous]

You've said.....

So my addressing the technical aspects of the proffered evidence & analysis wouldn't allow discussion.

Why not? What's wrong with quoting the experts who have written papers published in the peer-reviewed literature to refute your claims?

You haven't cited any evidence by which to conclude that anything I've quoted (e.g., about the evidence showing that temperatures in the WTC buildings were much higher than open-air office-materials fires, and the evidence of nanothermitic material in the dust from the WTC destruction) is false. Right?

Picking the first expert cited, Steven E Jones, let's see how qualified he is.

So you are unable to show that Jones is unqualified to perform the experiments, and reach the conclusions cited and linked to here.

Are you qualified to give an expert opinion on any issue raised on this thread relating to 9/11? I haven't seen any resume that I can verify to be yours.

 

[Revoltingest]

How does anything escape people's notice in a large building open to the public? People can find ways to blend into the background, infiltrate, disguise themselves as a work crew. Any number of possible ways.

One can certainly infiltrate as a member of the public in areas where the public is allowed.
But this would not be true for maintenance & management. In the landlording business,
security & liability are of great concern. So workers are identified & known to each other.
Rigging a building for demolition would be noticed. Unknown workers would be noticed.
Even on crappy commercial properties like mine, we monitor cameras. We monitor work.
Even my tenants monitor suspicious activity (because people are always trying to get away
with something.)

Why not? We're talking about the same government that set up the supersecret Manhattan Project with thousands of workers. Yet they still kept it a secret.

If it's so secret, then how do you know all about it?
The information came out afterwards.
Participants talked about it.
This hasn't happened with the 9/11 conspiracy.

But your claim of the Manhattan Project being kept secret isn't true.
They did indeed try very hard, & with some success to keep it so, but they failed at total secrecy.
Ref....
https://io9.gizmodo.com/secrets-of-the-manhattan-project-were-leaked-a-staggeri-1626524763

The World War II program to develop an atomic bomb was the largest secret project
ever undertaken by the U.S. government. But newly-declassified documents reveal
how it hard it was to keep things secret as the weapon neared completion. Information
leaks were everywhere, even in church sermons.

All spies had to do was go to church.

It was the same during the Cold War. Lots of secrets kept by the government, even to this day. Why is that so hard to believe?

I don't claim that secrets cannot be kept.
But even if a secret conspiracy is real, the probability
that it will remain secret is reduced by these factors....
- The number of people in on the secret
- The length of time the secret is kept
- Changing political regimes
- Feeling guilt & regret for one's actions & the results

It is extraordinarily improbable that such a massive & complex conspiracy with so
many participants both in & outside of government over nearly 2 decades would
still have not a single confesser or snitch. Note how difficult it is for government
to keep secrets in the age of Wikileaks.

I would suggest this to be a red herring, along with the entire argument about how the buildings collapsed. All the talk about architecture and structural engineering is all very fascinating, but it doesn't prove or disprove thing one about who done it.

Far from being a red herring, it's the best explanation for what we observe.

But if one eschews technical analysis of what happened, one can believe anything.
Perhaps God smited the buildings using magic. (Anger at our blasphemous ways.)
I can't disprove that one either.

 

[Revoltingest]

Correct. I feigned no hypothesis about anything. The experts have already deduced the important conclusions from the evidence. I merely provide their information.

You cited "experts" who support your view, but not the greater number who oppose it.
On the internet, everything is true.
This is why it's useful for us to provide our own analysis & meta-analysis.
Otherwise, one would just be linking bias confirming walls of text.

You haven't explained what happened to the resistance of the mass of WTC7 when it was dropping at free fall speed.

I haven't explained it because no explanation seemed necessary.
Note that falling at a rate 40% slower than "free fall" would be accounted
for by accelerating the mass of each floor after the impact of those above,
& overcoming structural resistance.
Did explaining it change your opinion?

And you haven't explained why NIDT was unable to show that its unreasonable worse-case scenario did not produce a simulation that even vaguely resembles the dropping WTC7.

There are a great many things I won't be explaining.
Opponents will simply ignore my analysis & questions,
& then move on to another thing not explained.
I avoid playing whack-a-mole.
And few here on RF are conversant in the technical aspects.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why not? What's wrong with quoting the experts who have written papers published in the peer-reviewed literature to refute your claims?

Limited peer review, & harsh criticism by one's peers makes his work highly suspect.

You haven't cited any evidence by which to conclude that anything I've quoted (e.g., about the evidence showing that temperatures in the WTC buildings were much higher than open-air office-materials fires, and the evidence of nanothermitic material in the dust from the WTC destruction) is false. Right?

Since you don't address the technical aspects I've covered, it
doesn't seem worthwhile to further pursue a technical argument.

So you are unable to show that Jones is unqualified to perform the experiments, and reach the conclusions cited and linked to here.

I cannot show that Michael Behe is unqualified to debunk evolution,
but this doesn't prove that Intelligent Design is true.
I can't show Jones is unqualified either.
But this challenge cuts both ways....you've
not debunked any of my reasoning or sources.

Are you qualified to give an expert opinion on any issue raised on this thread relating to 9/11? I haven't seen any resume that I can verify to be yours.

I don't claim to be an expert.
But at least I understand the terms you so perfunctorily sprinkle about.

 

[Nous]

NIST rejected FEMA's "floor pancaking" hypothesis. Do you know why?

Did they really reject it, or is this another thing that you didn't read closely?

Closely read this:

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.​

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

That sounds to me like a rejection of the floor pancaking hypothesis.

Of course, NIST specifically shunned any analysis of any evidence that contradicted their worst-case scenario models for the Towers, that contradicted their assumptions that the Towers would explode downward as they did after the Towers were supposedly "poised for collapse," or anything that occurred after either of the buildings began moving.

And if FEMA's report was rejected,

Read closely what I said. I never claimed that "FEMA's report was rejected". I did not promote anything from the FEMA Report that was rejected by NIST or that is remotely disputable.

why did you use it as evidence for your conspiracies?

I haven't alleged any particular conspiracy--especially one that depends on FEMA's floor pancaking idea.

You still haven't explained your lone perpetrator theory or how all those separate events were caused by a single person.

I'm thinking the thread I linked to about people's freakish ideas about conspiracies is probably over you head. Is that right? You don't seem to have taken in any of the information in that OP.

Has there ever been structural damage to a skyscraper in the same manner as the WTC?

A number of high-rise steel-frame buildings have suffered much greater structural damage than any of the 3 WTC buildings, and none of them have collapsed as a result, much less exploded downward. 9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires

"Lone perpetrator"--what the flippin' fragnons are you on about?

You don't know what the word "concpiracy" means, do you?

 

[Revoltingest]

You still haven't explained your lone perpetrator theory or how all those separate events were caused by a single person.

Even your 'expert', Mr Jones, claims many perps, not a single person.
Is Jones wrong about this?

 

[Nous]

You cited "experts" who support your view, but not the greater number who oppose it.

There is a greater number of experts such as architects and engineers who oppose what I've quoted, who endorse FEMA's or NIST's or someone such gravitational collapse hypotheses about the WTC buildings? There are more the 2700 architects and engineers who have signed the petition of A&E for 9/11 Truth. Give the the names of the greater number of experts who oppose what I've quoted or said here.

I haven't explained it because no explanation seemed necessary.
Note that falling at a rate 40% slower than "free fall" would be accounted
for by accelerating the mass of each floor after the impact of those above,
& overcoming structural resistance.
Did explaining it change your opinion?

How did you arrive at the figure "40% slower than 'free fall'"?

So you disagree with NIST that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds?

Obviously you haven't explained what happened to the resistance of the mass of the building during that free fall.

You also haven't explained why NIST was unable to showed that their worst-case scenario models for any of the 3 WTC buildings would result in the destruction of the buildings that is observed.

 

[Nous]

Limited peer review, & harsh criticism by one's peers makes his work highly suspect.

You haven't quoted any peer's "harsh criticism" of anything in any paper that I've quoted in which Jones has been involved, nor have you shown that any of the findings in any paper that I've quoted here in which Jones was involved have been refuted. Correct?

Since you don't address the technical aspects I've covered, it
doesn't seem worthwhile to further pursue a technical argument.

I did respond to your claims about "creep". You were able to show that "creep" accounted for the any of the findings of extremely high temperatures in the buildings or nanothermitic material in the dust.

Have you "covered" some other "technical aspect" of something?

I don't claim to be an expert.

So what good are your analyses?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is a greater number of experts such as architects and engineers who oppose what I've quoted, who endorse FEMA's or NIST's or someone such gravitational collapse hypotheses about the WTC buildings? There are more the 2700 architects and engineers who have signed the petition of A&E for 9/11 Truth. Give the the names of the greater number of experts who oppose what I've quoted or said here.

Give the names?
That's your argument....giving an unreasonable challenge?

How did you arrive at the figure "40% slower than 'free fall'"?

It's in the NIST report I linked.

So you disagree with NIST that WTC7 was in free fall for 2.25 seconds?

I'm suspicious of your rephrasing what's in their report,
given your aversion to the technical aspects.
So it begs the question....
Did they say exactly that?

Obviously you haven't explained what happened to the resistance of the mass of the building during that free fall.

I did explain.
Remember the acceleration of the mass of each impacted floor & structural resistance?

You also haven't explained why NIST was unable to showed that their worst-case scenario models for any of the 3 WTC buildings would result in the destruction of the buildings that is observed.

You've dismissed all technical explanations I've given so far.
No soup for you!

 

[Revoltingest]

So what good are your analyses?

If you understood the basic engineering aspects, my analyses would stand on
their own. But I've yet to even get across basic structural & metalurgical concepts.
I recommend some study in this area....it would be more illuminating than
cherry picking screeds from the internet.

 

[Nous]

Even your 'expert', Mr Jones, claims many perps, not a single person.

That's correct. Everyone person with a working brain understand that the events of 9/11 occurred as a result of a conspiracy. People who are too ignorant to understand what a conspiracy is promote the idiotic idea that the events of 9/11 were not the result of a conspiracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's correct. Everyone person with a working brain understand that the events of 9/11 occurred as a result of a conspiracy. People who are too ignorant to understand what a conspiracy is promote the idiotic idea that the events of 9/11 were not the result of a conspiracy.

Well....that was clear as mud.

 

[Nous]

It's in the NIST report I linked.

False. The greater number of experts have signed the petition of A&E for 9/11 Truth.

I'm suspicious of your rephrasing what's in their report

And I guess you don't have the technical expertise to look up NIST's report to read what is said about WTC's 2.25 second free fall? Will this help you: http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 ?

I did explain.

Quote your explanation for what happened to the resistance of the mass of the building during that free fall.

You've dismissed all technical explanations I've given so far.

You haven't provided any "technical explanations" for any of the findings I've noted here that require explanations, such as the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the buildings, the evidence of nanothermitic material in the dust, or why NIST was unable to show their unrealistic worse-case scenario model of WTC7 did not result in a building that dropped like WTC is observed to have dropped.

If you had any such explanations, then you surely would not hesitate to provide them now for all to see and be informed by.

 

[Nous]

Well....that was clear as mud.

What do you not understand about what I said? I am happy to explain what I have said.

 

[Revoltingest]

False. The greater number of experts have signed the petition of A&E for 9/11 Truth.

And I guess you don't have the technical expertise to look up NIST's report to read what is said about WTC's 2.25 second free fall? Will this help you: http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610 ?

Quote your explanation for what happened to the resistance of the mass of the building during that free fall.

You haven't provided any "technical explanations" for any of the findings I've noted here that require explanations, such as the evidence of extremely high temperatures in the buildings, the evidence of nanothermitic material in the dust, or why NIST was unable to show their unrealistic worse-case scenario model of WTC7 did not result in a building that dropped like WTC is observed to have dropped.

If you had any such explanations, then you surely would not hesitate to provide them now for all to see and be informed by.

We aren't getting anywhere, are we?

When you challenge things I didn't claim...
....things which don't even make sense, eg....

"Cite the evidence that "creep" produces "oxidation and sulfation with
subsequent intergranular melting" of the near-surface microstructure."

....it just doesn't inspire providing a remedial education in metalurgy
necessary to begin discussing failure modes.

 

[Nous]

When you challenge things I didn't claim...
....things which don't even make sense, eg....

"Cite the evidence that "creep" produces "oxidation and sulfation with
subsequent intergranular melting" of the near-surface microstructure."

Did you not use the term "creep" in response to my post about the A36 "Swiss cheese" piece of steel flange, which is unexplained by the office-materials fires in WTC7?

Your claim about "creep" was in response to something I said. Except it just isn't relevant to any finding that I've noted here that isn't accounted for by NIST's or FEMA's reports.

You still haven't accounted for the evidence of the temperatures unaccounted for by NIST or FEMA, nor have you accounted for the evidence of nanothermitic material in the 9/11 dust. Right?

 

[Revoltingest]

Did you not use the term "creep" in response to my post about the A36 "Swiss cheese" piece of steel flange, which is unexplained by the office-materials fires in WTC7?

Your claim about "creep" was in response to something I said. Except it just isn't relevant to any finding that I've noted here that isn't accounted for by NIST's or FEMA's reports.

You still haven't accounted for the evidence of the temperatures unaccounted for by NIST or FEMA, nor have you accounted for the evidence of nanothermitic material in the 9/11 dust. Right?

There are many things for which I've not accounted nor ever will.
And there are some which I've answered, but without notice.
At this stage, I'm not inspired to add more.

 

[Nous]

Did you not use the term "creep" in response to my post about the A36 "Swiss cheese" piece of steel flange, which is unexplained by the office-materials fires in WTC7?

Your claim about "creep" was in response to something I said. Except it just isn't relevant to any finding that I've noted here that isn't accounted for by NIST's or FEMA's reports.

You still haven't accounted for the evidence of the temperatures unaccounted for by NIST or FEMA, nor have you accounted for the evidence of nanothermitic material in the 9/11 dust. Right?

There are many things for which I've not accounted nor ever will.
And there are some which I've answered, but without notice.
At this stage, I'm not inspired to add more.

So far you haven't added any explanation of the findings I've noted that are unexplained by NIST's or FEMA's reports.

You haven't added any explanations that you are even willing to repeat for those who don't have the time to dig through the thread. Someone who actually has explanations for these findings would be happy to provide them for all to see and understand.