Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?

[scott3x]

Moderator note: It appears that a debate on this topic was started without clear agreement as to the debate format. Readers are warned that the resulting debate does not really fit the format of the Formal Debates forum. It is retained here for those who are interested, although the discussion thread is closed.

[thread=90058]Proposal thread[/thread]. [thread=90071]Debate thread[/thread]. [thread=90070]Discussion thread[/thread]

----

Ok, I'm going to temporarily wait for Macyver to open up the debate part of this, as he has already submitted his opening for it. This discussion is for everyone else to put in their 2 cents.

Please note the following: I may not respond if you people do any of the following things:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold's post 1451 from the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience.

When did I say that I wouldn't be allowed to confer with others?

post 1445 this thread:

However, MacGyver said he'd only participate in the debate if it was me alone. Since I have found him to be the most amenable of my opponents, I agreed.

What I -meant- was that I would be the only one in the debate thread responding to his posts. At no point in time did I say that I wouldn't be able to confer with my colleagues.

Anyway, I think an apology for the 'dishonest' accusation is in order

dream on.

Hopefully with the above point I made you will now see the error of your ways and in fact apologize

edit:
since this isn't the formal debates forum i will however retract the statement.
post deleted.

I've now transferred this discussion into the formal debates forum, so by all means, proceed.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Q's post 30 on page 2 of the "Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse?" thread.

I myself believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

That, despite the fact that a multitude of video cameras from a variety of angles showed no such explosions that would result from a controlled demolition?

I suggest you take a look at Gordon Ross's videos, wherein he patiently explains the evidence for the explosive devices used; he includes photographic evidence in his videos. Here they are:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdtOFNgrkTg&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MQtwTvBfVE&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok6OWr-JtrM&feature=related

If you're of a technical mind, you may appreciate this page of his as well:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

And, the fact that everyone could plainly see the collapse began where the fires were burning at the points of impact by the airliners?

Clearly, the people who did this wanted to make it to superficially -appear- as if the planes had taken down the buildings. However, I would argue that a more thorough examination of the evidence, such as the impressive work of Gordon Ross, proves otherwise.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Syzygys' post 35 in the "Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse? " thread.

Proposal thread: OP invites anyone or certain posters for a debate. They lay down the rules. Discussion should be limited to this and not to include the actual debate arguments.

Debate thread: Only the invited posters participate according to the rules. Some of these rules are already posted although I think they are a bit too rigid and anal.

Discussion thread: Anybody else can chime in and express their views on who won or extra info related to the topic.

I understood all this pretty much; -however-, I -didn't- know that once the rules for engagement were agreed upon, that any of the parties who were to engage in the debate could actually start it without moderator approval. A silly thing, but it meant that I was partial to essentially starting the debate right here, so we didn't waste time waiting for a moderator ;-).

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold99's post 3 in the debate sister thread of this subject.

In the Journal of 9/11 studies, a thoughtful, if anonymous writer had this to say in his letter to this site concerning the jet fuel:

this is exactly why i didn't accept your challenge scott.

I have now included the link to the letter in question. As to why he didn't put his name, perhaps he didn't want to be suspended from his work and/or fired, as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan were.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to tnerb's post 10 in the Let's be honest... thread in the SF Open Government forum.

tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.

Dude. It's 9-11. Long time ago story about planes crashing into the world trade centers. Blowing up and causing them to fall down and many people died. Conspiricy theory or truth about world trade center collapse whatthe****ever. But it's also possibility behind 9-11 that we don't know. Which is easy to figure out. "Did planes cause the buildings to explode or was it a setup?" These are all simple questions.

Simple questions, but not simple answers...

I'd put it in world events. It doesn't belong in psuedo-science.

I agree. However, the admins decide on such things. -However-, it may just be that we can talk in this forum; this forum may actually be better; I'm hoping that the rules for the discussions that I'm putting hold- that is, that certain insults aren't used. I hope that this may lead to a more productive discussion environment.

Then again this forum's quality is that of a to bitten danged mouse sometimes you'd think your thread belongs in "proper" places in which it does not.

However world trade center collapse is a load of bull at least you're still getting your thread to stay open!

 

[MacGyver1968]

Scott,

If you haven't been to busy responding to Shaman's posts in the 9/11 thread from 500 posts ago..you might have noticed that I have asked the moderators to close the formal debate thread on 9/11. I figured you probably wouldn't understand, so I thought better explain it to you very simply.

As you stated in your post above, you recently asked for the 9/11 thread to be moved from p.s. to architecture and engineering. You asked this because you thought the 9/11 thread was a respectable scientific argument, and should have it's place in a more respectable subforum than pseudoscience...you were flatly turned down.

So you figured you could move the 9/11 thread to Formal Debates, by proposing a debate thread on 9/11..formal debates has to be better than pseudoscience, right? I guess you were thinking that a formal debate is just like a discussion thread, except everyone is more civil. But a formal debate takes on different form.

I decided to take your challenge because I really wanted to see if you could put together a formal argument about your own position on the collapse.... or if you would do your same old thing and "quote mine" everything...reposting others thoughts that you agree with, and thinking that a response...offering no thoughts of your own.

What worse is the sources that you quote mine from. You will literally quote anyone. Here is your response to my assertion that:

Originally Posted by MacGyver
Thousands of gallons of jet fuel instantly ignited a fire across many floors.

Here is your rebuttal to this point:

In the Journal of 9/11 studies, a thoughtful, if anonymous writer, wrote the following in a letter to the aforementioned site titled Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers:


Let's assume that NIST is wrong- that no jet fuel actually went down the elevator shafts and that the full 100% of jet fuel remaining stayed right where it was. This would mean that the impact floors in the south tower had 5.932 gallons, or about 900 cubic feet to work with. A single standard 10'x10' office cubicle filled to 9 feet could house that amount of jet fuel. Approximately 300 such cubicles plus walkways and amenities could have been contained on each of the 110 floors (40,000 square feet) of each Twin Tower.

Here is a picture of a pool that has enough room for 1,017 cubic feet:

You offer nothing of your own...just the repost...and it's from an anonymous post from another 9/11 board. You completely lack the ability to understand why a source like this has ZERO credibility. There's no way to know who said it, where it got his data from or anything. When I confronted you with this, you told me "he said he got his data from the NIST report, you should look it up" or something like that. This was your source..it's not my job to prove he's not just some nutjob. This to you is evidence and you can't understand when people tell you it's not. I wasn't even sure what point the author was trying to make or what point you were trying to make by posting this. You mis-quoted the numbers 5.932 instead of 5,932..and I still don't know what point is being made..the author proposes something and doesn't follow through. He proposes that all of the fuel stayed in the impact area, then he gives that quantity in gallons and cubic feet. Then he notes how a 10 x 10 x 9 cubicle could hold this much. Then he gives an estimate on the total number of cubicles on one floor. Then he posts a picture of a swimming pool that hold approximately the amount mentioned before....and that's it! No point is made. What was the purpose of the data given? I said "thousands" of gallons started the fire. You seem to be confirming that with quote that mentions a number around 6000 gallons...which would definitely qualify as thousands.

I specifically set out in the rules that this debate was between you and me. And instead of debating me directly. You took my arguments and asked Tony and the TS guys what they thought..and then reposted their thoughts. I wasn't debating Tony. I was debating you. I couldn't get you to give me the opinion on the color of the sky without you having to ask the TS guys first. When you signed on for this Formal Debate, I guess you thought it would shine a more respectable light on the 9/11. I guess you forgot that you don't know how to formally debate someone.

I'm not going to waste my time anymore with it. You started a formal debate even though you had no pre-thought out argument to present, and no formal debate skills at all. I might drop in on the 9/11 thread from time to time, but this was a complete waste of time.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold99's post 28 in the "Let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.

The rinf.com link is dead, but I can get you even more evidence that Gordon Ross isn't the Real Estate Agent you probably hastily googled if you like...

i would like to see his credentials so i could determine his expertise at interpreting what he saw.

don't bother posting them here, i want to see them on his site.

As far as I know, he doesn't post his credentials on his site. However, although some JREF members have apparently decided that no Gordon Ross was born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th century born, he assures us that he was, in fact, born there, along with his father and great uncle of the name. Seriously, why would he lie about something like that anyway? Some JREFers probably did a mediocre job of looking for Gordon Rosses in Dundee, just as you did a mediocre job of finding out more about Gordon Ross, and came to erroneous conclusions.

Heck, even an official story supporter site that I found from a site that shaman_ frequently likes to quote (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/), has no quibble with saying that he's an engineer in the mechanical field. Do you really think he'd be giving presentations at the Indian YMCA, London if he didn't have some credentials to back up his claims? Anyway, here's another link, this time from prisonplanet.com, with the same video presentation, once again stating that he is, in fact, a Mechanical Engineer.

He's also written a peer reviewed paper over at the Journal for 9/11 studies.

 

[Tnerb]

tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.

ok will do thx

Simple questions, but not simple answers...

Yea. That's where you and I are at a threshold or cross-way. I'm sure there's been numerous threads devoted to the purpose of debating and many of the debates about what happend to the quality of the steel, evidence of set ups, etcetera, but as I see it it's a big hoax, intended for most people to discuss until they see fit. Many people don't like mass discussion (anyone?) about something they already know.

The only thing we're missing is the evidence of possible suspicion to discuss in thread. In which I will read your guidelines.

 

[Tnerb]

it is in formal debates afterall.

 

[Tnerb]

and why are you posting your response here?

If I may.

twas because the thread in which you're quoted depends somuch on keeping the real threads safe from harm.

Of course, I'm all down for someone proving 9-11 buildings didn't just blow up kuz planes :bugeye::bugeye:

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Enmos' post 25 in the "let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.

He's got a website- whether it's free or pay shouldn't really matter. Are you saying that one's expertise rests upon how much money one has at any given point in time ?

Anyone with a job can afford a website. In fact, unless you're a hobo you can most likely afford a website anyway.

This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.

 

[Enmos]

This post is in response to Enmos' post 25 in the "let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.

This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.

Apparently. I didn't draw any conclusions or take sides, I just said what I said

 

[scott3x]

Scott,

If you haven't been to busy responding to Shaman's posts in the 9/11 thread from 500 posts ago..

Very funny

you might have noticed that I have asked the moderators to close the formal debate thread on 9/11. I figured you probably wouldn't understand, so I thought better explain it to you very simply.

As you stated in your post above, you recently asked for the 9/11 thread to be moved from p.s. to architecture and engineering. You asked this because you thought the 9/11 thread was a respectable scientific argument, and should have it's place in a more respectable subforum than pseudoscience...you were flatly turned down.

Yep. The injustice of it all, sigh

So you figured you could move the 9/11 thread to Formal Debates, by proposing a debate thread on 9/11..formal debates has to be better than pseudoscience, right? I guess you were thinking that a formal debate is just like a discussion thread, except everyone is more civil. But a formal debate takes on different form.

I decided to take your challenge because I really wanted to see if you could put together a formal argument about your own position on the collapse.... or if you would do your same old thing and "quote mine" everything...reposting others thoughts that you agree with, and thinking that a response...offering no thoughts of your own.

"thinking that a response... offering no thoughts of your own"? That is definitely syntactically incorrect. In any case, I have certainly offered my own thoughts as well as quoted the thoughts of experts in the field of the WTC collapses.

What worse is the sources that you quote mine from. You will literally quote anyone.

I certainly haven't seen you provide any evidence that that is indeed the case.

Here is your response to my assertion that:

Thousands of gallons of jet fuel instantly ignited a fire across many floors.

Here is your rebuttal to this point:

In the Journal of 9/11 studies, a thoughtful, if anonymous writer, wrote the following in a letter to the aforementioned site titled Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers:

Let's assume that NIST is wrong- that no jet fuel actually went down the elevator shafts and that the full 100% of jet fuel remaining stayed right where it was. This would mean that the impact floors in the south tower had 5.932 gallons, or about 900 cubic feet to work with. A single standard 10'x10' office cubicle filled to 9 feet could house that amount of jet fuel. Approximately 300 such cubicles plus walkways and amenities could have been contained on each of the 110 floors (40,000 square feet) of each Twin Tower.

Here is a picture of a pool that has enough room for 1,017 cubic feet:

You offer nothing of your own... just the repost...

That's not true. But more important, it's also not the point. Whether I say something or whether someone else does, I think you should be focusing on the evidence presented.

and it's from an anonymous post from another 9/11 board.

It's from a peer reviewed site that has gained a fair amount of respect; if it hadn't, why in the world would even debunkers take the time to write responses to papers written there by the likes of Gordon Ross, as http://911guide.googlepages.com/newtonsbit chronicles.

You completely lack the ability to understand why a source like this has ZERO credibility. There's no way to know who said it, where it got his data from or anything.

MacGyver, I personally found where he got his data in one instance; from the NIST report he said he got it from. I even provided the link and the page number in NIST's report. I could check more of the NIST reports he cites, but I really would like you to acknowledge that the report I checked out -is- valid.

When I confronted you with this, you told me "he said he got his data from the NIST report, you should look it up" or something like that. This was your source..it's not my job to prove he's not just some nutjob.

You are right to some extent, which is why I -did- check out one of the reports he cites. Apparently you didn't notice though...

This to you is evidence and you can't understand when people tell you it's not. I wasn't even sure what point the author was trying to make or what point you were trying to make by posting this.

There were many points made. Please quote something you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you better.

You mis-quoted the numbers 5.932 instead of 5,932..and I still don't know what point is being made..

In the case of the 5,932 gallons of jet fuel, it was how much fuel NIST estimated remained in the South Tower (WTC 2) after 20% of it was burned off in the fireball. The point was that there was a lot less fuel to do all the things this magical jet fuel did then some may have believed.

the author proposes something and doesn't follow through. He proposes that all of the fuel stayed in the impact area, then he gives that quantity in gallons and cubic feet. Then he notes how a 10 x 10 x 9 cubicle could hold this much. Then he gives an estimate on the total number of cubicles on one floor. Then he posts a picture of a swimming pool that hold approximately the amount mentioned before....and that's it! No point is made.

The point is that it wasn't a whole lot of jet fuel relative to the building. When he said that there were about 300 10x10 cubicles on every one of the 110 floors of the Twin Towers, I think that this would be self evident. NIST itself has stated that the precise amount of fuel is rather irrelevant as it didn't seem to make much of a difference in their tests.

What was the purpose of the data given? I said "thousands" of gallons started the fire. You seem to be confirming that with quote that mentions a number around 6000 gallons...which would definitely qualify as thousands.

No one is disputing that they started a fire. The dispute is whether the fires they started could have done much other then burn some office furniture and (unfortunately) people.

I specifically set out in the rules that this debate was between you and me. And instead of debating me directly. You took my arguments and asked Tony and the TS guys what they thought..and then reposted their thoughts. I wasn't debating Tony. I was debating you.

At first, I wanted to have Tony and others directly in the debate. You didn't like this idea. But I made it -very]- clear that I would -not- isolate myself from their knowledge. To do so, in my view, would have been patently foolish.

I couldn't get you to give me the opinion on the color of the sky without you having to ask the TS guys first.

Come on MacGyver, I would expect this type of reasoning from John99 or from shaman_, but not from you. I drew on the knowledge of Tony when I was unsure of some points, that's all.

When you signed on for this Formal Debate, I guess you thought it would shine a more respectable light on the 9/11. I guess you forgot that you don't know how to formally debate someone.

My understanding of a formal debate is this:
That 2 sides agree to certain terms to discuss an issue. I felt that we had done so. I thought that you understood that, though you didn't like it, I wasn't going to isolate myself from people who could advise me if I wasn't sure about something.

I'm not going to waste my time anymore with it. You started a formal debate even though you had no pre-thought out argument to present,

I had many thought out arguments and I presented them in my very first rebuttal; they're here:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/index.html

I might drop in on the 9/11 thread from time to time, but this was a complete waste of time.

Well, I felt that I made many good points, but to each their own.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Leo: I received your complaint about Scott's posts. I wish one of the other moderators would respond who has any interest in this thread. I haven't even been following it.

Nonetheless, after perusing it I'm not inclined to sympathize. Scott has explained why he felt it was permissible to bring material from those other threads here. Why not? They're on topic and it's not like you're being overwhelmed with contributors.

If you're expecting the kind of "formal debate" where people are marked down for not slavishly following the rules, I think you're going to have to join a university debate club. Those debates are not won or lost on the basis of who makes the most compelling case for his side of the issue. It's strictly a matter of who has the discipline to never deviate from the rulebook. That's hardly the kind of arguing we'd like to foster on this website. We want to teach and learn, not keep score.

In any case I don't see anyone here breaking new ground and illuminating the issue with information that was heretofore generally unknown. This reads more like a plain old argument than like a group of scientists trying to discover the explanation for a strange phenomenon.

None of you has brought up the asbestos issue. Halfway through the construction of the WTC, the incredibly bright and caring people who run New York City decided to outlaw asbestos... without grandfathering in projects that were already under construction. It's been estimated statistically that that decision may have prevented three deaths from respiratory damage... over the course of the entire next century. One engineer whose report I saw quoted several years ago claimed that no other insulator is as effective, pound per pound, as asbestos. So in order to avoid overloading infrastructure in the lower floors, they had to settle for an inferior job of fireproofing the upper floors. He said that if the original specifications of the building had been fulfilled, it would not have collapsed, because after all the prospect of an airliner crashing into a building is exactly the sort of risk that a good architect would plan for. It was bound to happen some day eventually and nobody wants to be the guy who gets blamed for skimping on the fireproofing.

People right here on SciForums are asking angrily why they've not heard or read any interviews with the pilots of that plane that just went down in the Hudson River. And nobody died in that one! Tell me how many interviews you've heard or read with the people who procured and installed the insulation on the WTC? Hmm?

I don't know if this is true. Exactly one engineer has told me that it's not, so at this point it's one yes and one no. I would think that if you guys are really interested in this topic you would go to the trouble of tracking this down. I'm not, so I didn't.

 

[leopold]

then why call it a "formal debate forum"?
that is one of the reasons i never accepted scotts challenge is because i felt i was not equipped to argue these points formally.

scott,
you can drag my posts over here if you want but i will not respond to them.

edit:
apparently we can use quotes from people we can't even prove exist.

 

[scott3x]

tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.

ok will do thx

Simple questions, but not simple answers...

Yea. That's where you and I are at a threshold or cross-way. I'm sure there's been numerous threads devoted to the purpose of debating and many of the debates about what happend to the quality of the steel, evidence of set ups, etcetera, but as I see it it's a big hoax, intended for most people to discuss until they see fit. Many people don't like mass discussion (anyone?) about something they already know.

What's a big hoax?

The only thing we're missing is the evidence of possible suspicion to discuss in thread. In which I will read your guidelines.

The evidence of possible suspicion? Again, not sure I know what you mean...

 

[scott3x]

and why are you posting your response here?

If I may.

twas because the thread in which you're quoted depends somuch on keeping the real threads safe from harm.

Yep, they'd say it was off topic in SF Open Government and probably either shut the thread down or cart it off to pseudoscience, where a lot of people seem to think it's just peachy to use foul language as much as they please.

Of course, I'm all down for someone proving 9-11 buildings didn't just blow up kuz planes :bugeye:...

Woot, another for the truth movement !

 

[scott3x]

This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.

Apparently. I didn't draw any conclusions or take sides, I just said what I said

True. I must admit it's nice being a fence sitter sometimes; just make a small comment here and there while everyone else gets hammered

 

[scott3x]

Leo: I received your complaint about Scott's posts. I wish one of the other moderators would respond who has any interest in this thread. I haven't even been following it.

Nonetheless, after perusing it I'm not inclined to sympathize. Scott has explained why he felt it was permissible to bring material from those other threads here. Why not? They're on topic and it's not like you're being overwhelmed with contributors.

Thanks . I simply felt that Stryder would have closed the thread down in the SF Open Government forum; the original topic had to do specifically with the SF forum, but some participants veered off into the WTC collapses issue, and Stryder's already closed a thread on that topic in the SF Open Government forum, so I figured it would be best not to push my luck.

If you're expecting the kind of "formal debate" where people are marked down for not slavishly following the rules, I think you're going to have to join a university debate club. Those debates are not won or lost on the basis of who makes the most compelling case for his side of the issue. It's strictly a matter of who has the discipline to never deviate from the rulebook. That's hardly the kind of arguing we'd like to foster on this website. We want to teach and learn, not keep score.

Sounds good to me . Besides, like you said, it's not like we have a plethora of university type debaters in this forum right now .

In any case I don't see anyone here breaking new ground and illuminating the issue with information that was heretofore generally unknown. This reads more like a plain old argument than like a group of scientists trying to discover the explanation for a strange phenomenon.

Aw c'mon !

None of you has brought up the asbestos issue. Halfway through the construction of the WTC, the incredibly bright and caring people who run New York City decided to outlaw asbestos... without grandfathering in projects that were already under construction. It's been estimated statistically that that decision may have prevented three deaths from respiratory damage... over the course of the entire next century. One engineer whose report I saw quoted several years ago claimed that no other insulator is as effective, pound per pound, as asbestos. So in order to avoid overloading infrastructure in the lower floors, they had to settle for an inferior job of fireproofing the upper floors. He said that if the original specifications of the building had been fulfilled, it would not have collapsed, because after all the prospect of an airliner crashing into a building is exactly the sort of risk that a good architect would plan for. It was bound to happen some day eventually and nobody wants to be the guy who gets blamed for skimping on the fireproofing.

There have been tests done on building steel where essentially no fireproofing was used and it still didn't collapse. Apparently NIST even did a test with no fireproofing at all; they claimed it was a 'calibration' test or something and never revealed the results.

People right here on SciForums are asking angrily why they've not heard or read any interviews with the pilots of that plane that just went down in the Hudson River. And nobody died in that one! Tell me how many interviews you've heard or read with the people who procured and installed the insulation on the WTC? Hmm?

I don't know if this is true. Exactly one engineer has told me that it's not, so at this point it's one yes and one no. I would think that if you guys are really interested in this topic you would go to the trouble of tracking this down. I'm not, so I didn't.

I haven't investigated this either because I think there is overwhelming evidence that there's no way in hell that the towers could have come down the way they did with anything other then explosives. However, I fully admit that persuading official story supporters of this is indeed quite challenging.