Applying Critical Thinking to 9/11

[TimmyG]

JREF

why are you on this forum? i am all for a debate with critics but most of your posts are just pathetic insults.

how is debating the very unusual collapse of the wtc1, 2 and (especially) 7 similar in anyway to talking about alien lizard people?

you are clearly blinded by your own opinions so much that rational consideration of other peoples is impossible for you.

at the moment you are the only critic who i think should be banned from this forum.

[scubadiver]

[Jay Ref]

[dodgy]

[Mark Gobell]

Jay Ref

I didn't notice the link to Captain Chris Boyle's interview at Firehouse but I have read the report now thanks.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

FEMA published their report in June 2002 and the Firehouse article quoting Captain Boyle and others was published in August 2002

So, if there were such huge fires and such fundamental damage at WTC7 why didn't FEMA know about them ?

Why didn't FEMA interview Captain Boyle ?

Maybe they just missed him.

Would Captain Boyle's evidence have been sufficient for FEMA to boldy proclaim that WTC7 was in fact the first steel framed building in history to have collapsed from fires alone, and have been able to explain why.

We will never know.

But the fact remains, the official story means that WTC7 suffered exactly that fate. The very first steel framed building in the history of the planet to have collapsed from fire.

I don't believe that story.

Anyway, I have read the critique of the section of the FEMA report dealing with WTC7 and even to a lay man like me the critique casts serious doubt over the FEMA report itself.

Sorry Jay Ref but I cannot find an official peer review of the FEMA report anywhere, so this one will have to do.

http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm

I watch the videos of the WTC7 collapse and I see a controlled demolition.

Nothing you, FEMA, NIST or anyone else says will change that.

Nothing you, FEMA, NIST or anyone else says will change what Larry Silverstein said on the PBS documentary.

I watch the videos of WTC1 & WTC2 in an explosive collapse and I see a controlled demolition.

No amount of words will change what I see with my own eyes.

I am astounded that "professional" bodies attribute the collapse of those buildings to aircraft impact and fire damage.

As my welder father in law says to me "I should have been buying jet fuel all those years instead of oxyacetylene"

Nothing anyone says, no amount of words will change what I see with my own eyes.

If I had the funds I would build a skyscraper and then crash an airliner into it so we could all end the argument one way or another.

But, if they did not collapse as a result, something tells me that people like you would try to persuade me that the weather conditions were different, or the jet fuel was contaminated or some such nonsense.

I will end my discussions with you Jay Ref by saying this.

I thought you and your colleagues might be able to add something to our knowledge and further our quest to find out what really happened on 9/11.

In a rather unexpected way you have.

I have never claimed to be an expert on anything in my life let alone the events of 9/11.

I agree with you on one thing and that is we must exercise caution in our claims and hypotheses for to do otherwise would enable our arguments to be easily dismantled and ridiculed.

I do not however see any evidence of you doing the same. Your delivery and the spiteful, abusive nature of your posts I have absorbed and tolerated in the hope that you will show yourself for all the world to see.

This, you have achieved without me responding in the nasty vindictive manner in which you address others.

If I was as sure of my story as you claim to be of yours, I would adopt a calm reasoned approach to debating rather than the arrogant, aggressive approach you exhibit. Still that is your choice and I say others will be the judge.

I like many others have serious doubts about many aspects of the official story of 9/11 and meeting you and your colleagues has reinforced those doubts by giving me some personal experience of what I see as a systematic process of smearing, denigration, abuse and ridicule.

Your motives I can only guess at. But at least I now know that you and the body of argument you represent actually exist, not at the corrupt and perverse level we all know exist in government but at some everyday level, from a less obvious quarter where we do not expect it.

I do not believe your claims to be students of critical thinking for you illustrate your case by uncritical acceptance of the official story and uncritical denial of everything otherwise.

That is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

This is my last post to you.

[TimmyG]

mark is spot on.


jref. i don't like to make bold statements about other peoples opinions.

but i can confidently say that you are not thinking critically about the collapse of wtc7

either apologise and revaluate your words.. or * off

[DeFecToR]

[DeFecToR]

Hey, J Wave. One other thing. These vents of yours, were they facing the windows or what?
Why do all the blasts look the same. Why arent they irregular?
Look at the distance between the collapse and the blasts. Is there just one long continuous vent running all that length?

Actually. Dont bother answering those. Just provide some actual physical data for us to look at. Perhaps some floor plans including these nifty vents of yours, and maybe some mathematical data showing how a pressure wave can excellerate so quickly and so far down the building.

If you cant. Then apologise for your racist comments (i come from a Jewish family) and admit that you cannot provide a decent, science based explanation for these blasts.

You have been a complete a**hole since you started posting here and i for one am sick of it. You have no interest whatsoever in answering the remaining questions of 911 as is evident by your slurs and insults. Ive said this once already, grow up or P**s off.

[Leiff]

For the 'pressure wave' theory to work, the ejected dust plume would be constant and prolonged rather than of short duration as observed.

[blackcat]

[DeFecToR]

I can guess what he'll say. He'll parrot the nonsense at those 911 debunk sites. There is a clip of one of the squibs (very close to the top of the collapse) that shows the ejection speeding up rather than slowing down. This, they say, is evidence that it is not a detonation of explosives as the ejection from this would slow down.
The obvious problem here though is that the clip used as an example is of a squibb close to the collapse, so you would well expect a continuation of debris being ejected as the collapse comes closer to the hole that has just been blasted out.
Also, i have seen many other clips that show initial squib detonations that do indeed slow down once fired.

Jesus. It really does make me sad that there are people who cant see what happened on 911 despite having looked at the evidence.

[blackcat]

[scubadiver]

So is Jay Ref going to respond to the picture above of WTC7 which he claims has raging fires on 20 floors?

[doubting _thomas]

Just to weigh in a little on the discussion regarding the collapses and squibs.

I do have a problem with the theory of the "squibs" being caused by explosives during the collapse of buildings 1 and 2. This is mainly because of the unlikelihood of anyone being able to plant explosives throughout these two buildings without being discovered and also because any resulting explosions would probably shatter numerous windows near the point of detonation.

If you wanted to demolish towers 1 and 2, there would probably be sufficient energy created by just cutting all the core columns at the base. The effect would be such that the outer columns and internal floors would be left holding up what remained of the core and, as the buildings were exceptionally high (and thus the cores exceptionally heavy), the inevitable collapse of the cores would pull the buildings down with the external visible effects starting at the top of the towers and/or at the point of impact from the planes.
This might explain the huge dust clouds ejected and the apparent exploding of the buildings from top downwards. In addition, it may explain why the buildings fell so quickly i.e. the core columns, severed at the base, would be pulling them down at roughly free-fall speed.
In the scenario above, the "squibs" are likely to be pressure release point as the core shunted downwards causing the internal floors to collapse.

It is likely that the considerably smaller WTC 7 would have been demolished in the standard way with explosives throughout and that the squibs in this case were from demolition explosives.


DT

[Leiff]

Fair comment doubting _thomas

I would say however, there are some big chunks of debris and steel girders ejected a long way horizontally during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. It is hard to account for this large lateral movement if there was only a collapse of the building. 911 Revisited has some good footage showing this and it is quite small to download (94 mb).

http://www.archive.org/details/911revisited

[Mark Gobell]

Regarding the issue of opportunity to plant explosives in WTC.

Could this be such an opportunity ?

We are told by Scott Forbes, a British Database Administrator who worked in the South Tower for the Fiduciary Trust that the South Tower had a planned "power down" from the 48th floor up on the weekend prior to 9/11.

"As a result of having its electricity cut, the WTC’s security cameras were rendered inoperative, as were its I.D. systems, and elevators to the upper floors."

“Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

"The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth. "

This has been widely reported on the web and was followed up when Scott Forbes was further interviewed here about his claims.

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forb es.html

I have worked in IT for 30 years and just cannot see why a building or half a building has to have no power whatsoever in order that engineers can upgrade cables to increase the WTC's computer bandwidth.

I have been involved in many projects where IT Networks are upgraded. If you want computers, data routers, switches or any ancilliary equipment powered down to perform a cabling upgrade you just simply switch them off.

You do not have to lose power to every other systems, access security, lights, air con, elevators and the vending machine to do a network upgrade.

It would be worth knowing if it was actually just the 48th floor up and if indeed it was just the South Tower.

But I guess we'll never know that.

[DeFecToR]

[scubadiver]

Its interesting that Jay Reff hasn't replied to the picture I posted regarding WTC7?

[Mark Gobell]

[Mal Jones]

DeFecToR

I wouldn’t get too carried away with the significance of the amount of dust created by the collapses. One of the notable design features in the construction of the towers was the amount of gypsum planking used, both to save weight and also as fireproofing. Anybody who has done any DIY with gypsum plasterboards will know how much dust they produce and how easily they are pulverised. Also the passive fire protection sprayed on the steel floor trusses is lightweight mineral fibre.
You will notice from video footage taken before the collapses that there was already a good deal of dust over everything just from the planes punching through.

Cheers
Mal

ps can you link me to Steven Jones's work on this?

[Mark Gobell]

Hello Mal

Stephen Jones work can be accessed here http://www.st911.org

Estimates for the amount of concrete in each of the twin towers WTC & WTC1 vary from between circa 66,000 to 90,000 tons each.

This paper uses a mid range estimate of 78,000 tons each.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/trumpman/CoreAnalysisFinal.htm

[Mark Gobell]

Here are some more resources and peer reviewed work.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[DeFecToR]

[Mal Jones]

Thanks DeFecTor & Mark

Interesting stuff

Cheers
Mal

[DeFecToR]

No prob MJ. It certainly is interesting stuff. And its good that you are asking questions about the various aspects of 911 in with a genuine attitude, unlike some of the tw&ts we've had here recently.

[Jay Ref]

[gypsum]

[Jay Ref]

[scubadiver]

[Jay Ref]