Tuesday, August 31, 2010
August 25, 2010
9/11 debunkers violate the official 9/11 report while defending the official report. Getting a bit desperate are we?
NIST Admits Freefall
NIST Concludes WTC 7 Collapsed Due To Fire
9/11 Debunker Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Richard Gage - 20/07/2009
Debunking the Debunkers
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself
Pat, your strategy of posting their video to help out and then inspiring truthers to donate more by insisting that the campaign is failing is brilliant, simply brilliant, my good man! Your genius efforts have now aided in the raising of over $32,000!
This is just like when you claimed that NYC-CAN.org didn't reach the goal of 32,000 signatures for their ballot initiative when they actually gathered 80,000, while you also ridiculed the first weeks numbers of their recent fax campaign. You lit a fire under our butts on that one, helping raise the numbers from 133 in the first week, to 217 the second, 221 the third, and 408 the fourth! All the while, you downplayed our improvement and kept us striving for more!
Again, thank you for promoting our efforts to the uninformed, while also misrepresenting the numbers when we surpass our goals by miles, and for making us feel like not reaching overly ambitious goals is somehow a let down. You keep us inspired brother!
OK, now let's get serious.
Pat states, "LOL! The usual bit about how "nobody knows that another building, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed that day." I have always said that Building 7 is a thin reed to build popular support for the Troof, for the simple reason that it takes too many logical leaps to get to the point where it fits in with the conspiracy theory."
I'm not sure if Pat is really saying that it's false that many people don't know about Building 7, or if he is just saying that it's not surprising because in his mind it was a non-event. In either case, David Ray Griffin's essay "Building What? How SCADs Can Be Hidden in Plain Sight" debunks both of these notions. After providing evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was a "deliberately suppressed story," Griffin states, "...The collapse of WTC 7 has been effectively hidden, even though it has existed in plain sight all these years. Even the bare fact of the collapse itself has been so effectively hidden that in 2006 over 40 percent of the American public did not know about it, and in 2009 a judge in New York City, upon hearing a reference to Building 7, asked: 'Building what?'"
The essay also addresses a perceived "logical leap" in the idea that conspirators beyond the 19 hijackers had a hand in WTC 7's destruction, Griffin writes:
I need to respond to an obvious objection: If those who were responsible for bringing down Building 7 were going to need to suppress the video of its collapse, why did they wait until late in the afternoon, when the air was clean and cameras would be trained on this building, with the consequence that we have perfectly clear videos of the collapse of this building from various angles, each one showing its straight-down free-fall descent?Here is an answer to that objection akin to Griffins by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor AdamT.
Pat states, "It is interesting to see more of a side view of the collapse (at about 16-17 seconds in), because it refutes Box Boy's claim that the collapse was symmetrical, and straight down through the path of most resistance."
As we've demonstrated before, this video refutes nothing.
NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2
Building What? is up...
Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!
Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers
Shirley they can't be serious!
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted this bingo card mocking the evidence that Gage would raise.
Let's examine an important one there in the last row and see if Thomas can prove it's BS. In this clip he states that his colleagues made some thermite for him and that "there is no such thing as unreacted thermite, that's like being half-pregnant."
However, the peer-reviewed scientific paper Thomas refers to reports to have found a nano-engineered variant of thermite known as super-thermite, or nano-thermite, in dust from the WTC, which contains an organic substance "expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive."
If Thomas's colleagues would have made some of this material as Kevin Ryan has, they would have found that it does leave unignited fragments behind after the reaction takes place. Here is a 26 picture slide show Ryan produced, half of the images are nano-thermite residues and half are materials extracted from WTC dust samples. Can you tell us which ones are which, Mr. Thomas?
Looks like nobody is getting a T pattern!
As Steven Jones has noted, thermate (thermite plus sulfur added to lower the melting point of steel) was also detected chemically, he states, "Thermite incendiary without sulfur is not in evidence at the WTC to date... But sulfur is NOT needed for the function of explosive nanothermite and would not be expected to appear in the red/gray chips."
These distinctions are what Gage was referring to when he said that there was evidence of "ordinary thermite and nano-thermite" during the interview. The evidence for thermate includes another item on the bingo card labeled as "Eutectic/Swiss Cheese," which refers to the sulfidation and melting of steel from WTC 7. One of Gage's engineers recently conducted an experiment on this which forced 9/11 "debunker" Dr. Frank Greening to admit he was wrong about it.
Damn, there goes a diagonal and the X!
In this clip Thomas states that "nobody that's not in the 9/11 truth movement is alarmed or surprised by" the iron-rich spheres found in the WTC dust. Yeah Dave, that's because when people realise that by-products such as these are produced by thermite variants, and find that there are no other good explanations for their presence, and learn that the materials from the WTC in the slide show above actually produce these spheres when heated up, they automatically become members of the movement!
This one wasn't on the card, and I just want to listen to the rest of this debate without having to type a book, so I'm going to make this quick and start you off with a search on this blog for the first one "Freefall Speed." Go from there and yell bingo at some point if you want, but I'll be yelling bullshit right after.
A couple of weeks ago Mr. Joseph Nobles posted a response to my debunking of his posts on the thermal conductivity of the WTC steel and the corroded steel samples. And on Tuesday, he posted a request to me that I correct myself.
I'll be doing some correcting, but not of me.
Mr. Nobles claims that Kevin Ryan cherrypicked information in his critique of NIST's WTC 7 report.
Well obviously this upset me quite a bit. How dare Kevin Ryan cherrypick his info and trick me like that. Fortunately, I managed to get a message from Kevin Ryan about this issue. Here is what he wrote:
"If the question here is referring to my "Bush Science Reaches Its Peak" article on the WTC 7 report, and I think it is, then note that I did not say that NIST didn't "include a factor of thermal conductivity" in its model. You only have to read the article to see that the NIST manipulation I referred to had the set the thermal conductivity to zero, which is quite different than omitting it altogether. The fact that NIST set the thermal conductivity to zero in that instance is very clear and supported by the references given in my paper. As an analogy, if someone sets your thermostat to zero, that doesn't mean there is no temperature in your home, correct? Even if they set it to zero Kelvin (absolute zero), temperature would still be a factor (quite a substantial factor for you actually)."
So yes Mr. Nobles, NIST did include thermal conductivity as a factor. But because they set the conductivity to zero or near zero, they might as well have not included it at all.
Further distortions in the NIST report on thermal conductivity are also noted by Jim Hoffman in his critique of the NIST's report on the Twin Towers.
"NIST apparently ignored thermal conduction within its model of the steel structure. Since steel is a good conductor of heat, and the steel in the Twin Towers' structures was well connected, their massive steel structures would have drawn heat away from the parts that were exposed to fire. The Report describes a model of "The Fire-Structure Interface", and describes the computation of heat transfer between the air and the steel structure, but it does not mention the conduction of heat along spans of the steel structure.(p 131-2/181-2) The suspicion that NIST simply ignored the conduction of heat within the steel is corroborated by the Report's disclosure that they used heat transfer tests on isolated steel elements to calibrate their model.(p 134/184)"
As for the corroded steel, Mr. Nobles barely offered any reasonable response at all.
That's the problem Mr. Nobles. You claim that it was corroded after the collapse. But as I already pointed out, the people who actually examined the steel stated that it is "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles continually makes the argument that since whatever corroded the steel only approached 1000°C, it could not have been thermate, since thermate burns much hotter. What Mr. Nobles doesn't realize is that thermate can be formulated to burn at varying temperatures based on the quantity of the elements in it. A calculation for how the eutectic mixture could have approached 1000°C has been worked out by Jerry Lobdill in discussing the molten metal flowing out of WTC 2:
"Now consider the problem of the molten metal flowing from the 82nd floor of WTC 2. Some have suggested that this metal was the eutectic mixture of Fe and S. Let’s discuss that possibility. We assume that the steel that is cut from the columns is essentially pure Fe. It is melted and mixes with the thermate reaction products and then flows away by gravity. As the mixture cools, if the original molten mix was at S less than 31.4%, Fe begins to crystallize out. This increases the S% in the remaining mix. As the cooling continues, the S% increases until it reaches 31.4%, and this remaining molten eutectic mixture solidifies at 994 C (or 988 C, depending on which measurement you believe). So unless the original S% was 31.4%, the molten mass is crystallizing out solidified Fe as it flows downhill and cools. When, in the cooling process, the molten mass reaches the eutectic composition, it also reaches the eutectic temperature. At that temperature the remaining liquid gives up its latent heat of fusion and crystallizes as a microscopically heterogeneous solid with a (macroscopically) 31.4% S, 68.6% Fe composition. Once all the material has solidified the entire mass resumes cooling. We thus have a plausible explanation of why the material flowing from WTC 2 was orange-hot liquid (~1000 C)."
There are clearly many variations of thermite, thermate, and other incendiaries that can be formulated to reach higher and lower temperatures, as pointed out by Dr. Steven Jones.
"Of course, there is a straightforward way to achieve 1000°C temperatures (and well above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate."
At the end of Mr. Nobles' response he offers a very obvious non-response to my other points.
First of all, yes, I did have to point out to you that the steel came from Building 7. Your first post on the topic mentioned nothing about Jonathan Barnetts's statement.
I responded to this post (a response that I know you read), and quoted Jonathan Barnett as saying that:
"They didn't use this particular type of steel in Towers 1 or Towers 2, so that's why we know its pedigree."
And in your post written after mine, you then included his quote.
You can call the fact that I had to point this information out to you as an "incredible assertion," but it's the truth.
Mr. Nobles is apparently unimpressed by Jonathan Cole's experiment, but others aren't, and that includes debunkers.
"I'm out of town most of the time of late so I have not been doing much 911 research these days. However, I did have a look at the video. I must say that I'm very impressed with Mr. Cole's experiment - nice job! It certainly looks convincing with regard to how the experiment was carried out and I'm very happy to see someone test something I suggested a few years ago.
I am prepared to admit that my initial proposal as to how steel was sulfided during the 911 events needs to be modified. Certainly it looks like diesel fuel, gypsum, concrete and aluminum alone are not going to do it ....."
-Dr. Frank Greening
Dr. Greening has suggested other natural causes of the sulfidation, but he acknowledges that his previous theories have been refuted.
This is the point I keep trying to get across to Mr. Nobles. If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then obviously something unnatural must have been placed inside the building to cause it. Debunkers have presented several explanations for the corrosion of the steel. Well, the explanations have been put to the test. The experiment has been done. The burden of proof is now on the debunkers to show that something natural could have melted and corroded the steel.
Well, I corrected the errors Mr. Nobles, just like you wanted. But of course, it turned out I wasn't the one needing correcting.
Side note: Special thanks to John-Michael Talboo and all his contacts for their help.
Joseph Nobles has responded to the above (sort of). He still insists that NIST adequately included thermal conductivity in their reports. I still see evidence of fraud in the reports, but this matter could be completely resolved if NIST would release their modeling data for review. And he ignored my sections on the eutectic steel, except for his claim that I didn't correct him about where the steel came from. Decide for yourself:
Mr. Nobles' response ends with the following:
Ignore me all you want Mr. Nobles. It does seem to be the debunker way these days.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Disinformation artists (debunkers), mainstream journalists and academics who push propaganda, to keep the public in the dark about staged terrorism, are condemning millions of people to needless deaths. Moreover, those engaged in the cover-up will not be spared in any new biological or nuclear attack. Pawns WILL be sacrificed by the "strategic thinkers" who are running the terrorist agenda.
It is therefore essential for the population to become educated about false flag terror so we can see a proper criminal investigation into 911 such that the criminals behind that attack, and other incidents, can be prevented from further monstrous crimes.
Don't let false flags fly.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
9/11 "debunker" Ryan Mackey refuses to do such debates anymore and according to commenter "SezMe" the Coast to Coast debate justifies his position, "This was a confirmation of Mackey's 'ignore 'em' stance. Gage threw so much crap up against the wall that Dave was unable refute all of it. Sadly, I score a win for the truthers."
That's one way of looking at Mackey's refusal to debate and the admitted victory of Gage, but I think "Serpent of Arabia" on Above Top Secret probably framed it better:
This was a horrible debate. It shouldn't even be called a debate.Now like I said, I didn't hear the debate, but I am confident that this assessment is accurate and is exactly what Mackey is trying to avoid.
Almost everything Richard, and Niels was saying went over both of the opponents heads. They couldn't agree because they simply did not have any TRUE understanding of what happened, and actual science.
Dave was simply not addressing the points with any true understanding. He is a second rate scientist (if he can even be called one). He lacks all form of reason, and most likely much less intelligent than Richard. He was also annoyingly not familiar with the research material/documents of the opposing party.
Mackey claims that:
...They can't be reasoned with. So the best way to convince them is to ignore them -- eventually they'll get bored and stop obsessing over it, though it could take years or even decades. Best way to piss them off, also, is to ignore them. The one thing the Truth Movement has always thrived on is drama...When he chimed in to say that he "never once thought this debate would go anywhere new" and that it's "surreal talking to these people in debate," his former sparring partner, mechanical engineer, Tony Szamboti, retorted:
What I find surreal is your not admitting your two major errors in our debate.Go ahead Ryan, ignore him. I have been asking 9/11 "debunkers" to put up or shut up for awhile now.
It is now proven that the factor of safety for the core columns was 3.00 to 1 for the loads they actually had on them. You insisted it was significantly less than this and tried to say that I was overestimating the energy they would absorb in a collision. Of course, in the Missing Jolt paper we don't even get into the factor of safety and simply use the known yield strength and sizes of the columns to determine their energy dissipation, so it isn't clear why you even made this comment other than to try and create the impression that I was wrong about the column strength. The reality is that you were wrong on this point in every possible way.
The tilt in WTC 1 was not anywhere near the 8 degrees that you portrayed it to be when the upper section started descending. In fact, it was provably no more than 1 degree and there is no chance the columns could have missed each other. This has been ascertained using the simple geometry you suggested.
When are you going to publicly admit that you erred in these two cases due to your insistence on assuming NIST was correct? Remember you said "NIST doesn't make those kinds of mistakes". Well it turns out they do, and you need to be a man and admit it.
Szamboti also left a message for Thomas:
Dave,Furthermore, Bazant's work has already been refuted twice in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Anders Bjorkman M.Sc. was published in July of this year and Bazant et al. did author a Closure, which Bjorkman called "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history" in his response. Is he right? Well, his response also included a challenge that puts his money where his mouth is!
I went to your NMSR site per the link provided on this thread and have to say I was surprised to see that you had Dr. Bazant's early hypothesis of a 31 g dynamic load posted there. This has been shown to be impossible by those arguing for the present official hypothesis as well as those arguing against it.
First, it isn't possible for an impacting object with a factor of safety of 3.00 to 5.00 to transmit a dynamic load of 31 g's. The upper section would have come apart and that would have been the end of the pile driver.
Second, Dr. Bazant is off by a factor of ten on the axial stiffness of the columns in the tower. Their stiffness was 7.1 GN/m not 71 GN/m. Maybe it was a misplaced decimal point, but nonetheless his stiffness estimate is seriously erroneous.
Third, your test of loose rice in a bag does not legitimately represent loose rubble as the bag provides a restraint causing the rice to act somewhat in unison, which would not be true of loose rubble developed in a building collision.
With the real axial stiffness of 7.1 GN/m the largest dynamic load possible was 11 g's and even then, with the full mass of the upper section participating, the impacting structure could not survive that and thus could not transmit it. This is not to say that a dynamic load was not possible but it would have to be a lower value to conform to the observation of the upper section remaining somewhat intact past the first several floor collisions.
However, to have a dynamic load the the impacting object needs to decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g and the amplification depends on how many multiples of g the deceleration value is. There was no deceleration in the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 and the perimeter walls of the upper section were stiff enough to transmit it if there had been any. Thus the lack of deceleration or constant acceleration of the upper section proves there was no dynamic load.
Apparently, in an article to be published in the Sept. 2010 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Dr. Bazant himself has finally entered the debate on this issue and attempts to argue that the velocity drop would have been imperceptible at the roofline. His opinion is refuted by every single Verinage demolition, where deceleration of the upper section does occur and is very perceptible and measureable at the roofline.
The evidence is that there was no dynamic load in the collapse of WTC 1. Ryan Mackey recognized this in our debate on Hardfire and tried to argue that the upper section fell on the floors due to the tilt causing misalignment of the upper and lower columns. Unfortunately for his argument, it has been shown that the tilt was not nearly significant enough to cause the columns to miss each other, and there should have been a perceptible jolt if the collapse was natural. The only reason there wouldn't be is if the column strength below was being largely removed in an unnatural way.
No structure of any kind collapses from top down! It is always from bottom up... So to win the Challenge you have to come up with some other type of structure that really can collapse from top down! I look forward to that. I will happily pay you Euro 10 000:- if you can do that. I cannot find any structure in Universe that meets my Challenge.If his opponents cannot find a way to collect the money offered, then it is indeed possible that they have written "the most shameful Closure in structural damage analysis history."
Find this all a bit confusing? As Bjorkman pointed out in his original paper, "simple observations of any video of the WTC1 destruction prove the Bazant... model wrong."
As Screw Loose Change Would Say: Moron Dave Thomas
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Errm... Excuse me SPLC, but I am not "radical right" and I believe in these things. Martial law has already happened - it happens every time the G20 comes to town, the elite brag in their own books and give talks on how they want to reduce population, and the 9/11 conspiracy was forensically proven almost 18 months ago. And no it wasn't "teh jooos", it was an international military intelligence operation.
And FYI, citing Popular Mechanics in any context, whether it's 9/11 or FEMA Camps = Epic Fail. The "Popular Mechanics debunked it" claim is so overused and so false that it should be considered its own logical fallacy... I'll call it: The Meigs Fallacy.
Obviously whoever wrote this piece of propaganda was to busy fellating satan to do any serious research.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Correct, but Lawyer doesn't claim otherwise.
Next up, Pat quotes a person who reports to have worked for a first responder K9 unit for FEMA as stating:
No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue. Not one.First off, the official FEMA report contradicts this person's statement that "virtually all the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected."
As 911research.wtc7.net points out:
During the official investigation controlled by FEMA, one hundred fifty pieces of steel were saved for future study. One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces! Moreover it is not clear who made the decision to save these particular pieces. It is clear that the volunteer investigators were doing their work at the Fresh Kills dump, not at Ground Zero, so whatever steel they had access to was first picked over by the people running the cleanup operation.It is also not a rumor that the N.Y. Daily News reported family members were outraged that 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.
As to the bomb-sniffing dogs, it was pointed out when Germany's gulli.com interviewed Dr. Niels Harrit in May of last year that:
A team of independent scientists from Denmark, USA and Australia... claim to have found a substance called Nano Thermite in the dust of the World Trade Center attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York City. Nano Thermite is an explosive, normally only used by the military, not available on the normal market. It is a relative to thermite, a substance used for welding.When Harriet was asked, "Why did no bomb sniffing dog bark?" he replied, "...They are trained on conventional explosives which smell rather characteristically."
But don't take his word for it, listen to a fellow JREFer who stated that:
I hate to give ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER to the Truthers, but they (the dogs) are trained to find incendiary devices. "Nanothermite" is rust and aluminum. Both of which are EXTRAORDINARILY common in wrecked buildings.But what does the nano-thermite article on Wikipedia say it needs to ignite?
thermite still needs something to ignite it, you can just put a sack of rustand aluminum somewhere and hope it goes off, dogs would be able to smell the ignition device
The ignition section states, "Nanoscale composites are easier to ignite than traditional thermites. A nichrome bridgewire can be used in some cases. Other means of ignition can include flame or laser pulse."
A nichrome bridgewire is just more metals, flames would burn their little puppy noses, and we all know dogs are confused by lazers.
As I've stated many times before, this material was chose because it is perfect for a covert demolition.
Heck, sometimes bomb-sniffing dogs can't smell TNT! As reported by the Los Angeles Times:
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Russell Lee Ebersole and his dogs were hired to help protect the Federal Reserve Board and the State Department from terrorist attacks. But in the end, they didn't pass the smell test.
Ebersole, 43, was indicted Friday for allegedly making a series of false statements in securing more than $700,000 in federal contracts for his bomb detection dog business, Detector Dogs Against Drugs and Explosives. Among other charges: His dogs and handlers flunked five explosives-detection tests, including one occasion when they failed to detect 50 pounds of TNT in a Federal Reserve parking facility.
The 28-count indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., also alleges that he misrepresented his credentials and once inflated a bill for services rendered at the World Trade Center by about $10,000.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wick The Heat Away
One of the primary faults of NIST's reports on the WTC is that they did not include the factor of thermal conductivity in their modeling. Mr. Nobles, however, has a different opinion on this.
Right. Because they say nothing about steel conducting and transferring heat throughout the building, obviously it's in the report.
Amazing that thermal conductivity would be so important, but at the same time NIST offers no detail about it in their report. They would do it for concrete, but not the steel.
Actually, someone already has put numbers to this assertion. Kevin Ryan, in his critique of the NIST report on WTC 7, wrote that:
"Structural steel has a thermal conductivity of 46 W/m/K, which means that any heat applied is easily wicked away. But if that value were set to zero, or near zero, any heat applied would allow the temperature to rise dramatically at the point of application."
Here is what NIST's report on WTC 7 had to say about their fire simulations of WTC 7.
"The major fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 in WTC 7 were simulated using the Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS), version 4, in a manner similar to the simulations conducted for WTC 1 and WTC 2 (NIST NCSTAR 1-5F)."
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Vol. 1, page 4.
And what did NIST say about their fire simulations of the Twin Towers?
"The steel was assumed in the FDS model to be thermally-thin, thus, no thermal conductivity was used." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 20
"The interior walls [including insulated steel columns] were assumed to have the properties of gypsum board [0.5 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
"Although the floor slab actually consisted of a metal deck topped with a concrete slab...the thermal properties of the entire floor slab were assumed to be that of concrete [1.0 W/m/K]." NCSTAR 1-5F, page 52
It is apparent that NIST went out of their way to include no thermal conductivity at all in their modeling.
Now let us turn to Mr. Nobles' section on the corroded steel from WTC 7.
The Pieces of Steel
Mr. Nobles presents what he considers to be conclusive proof that the steel was not attacked by thermate.
What Mr. Nobles seems to forget is that 1000°C is far hotter than the temperatures that NIST claims were in WTC 7. NIST states nowhere in their report that any of the steel in WTC 7 had been heated to 1000°C. Their most extreme claim is that the steel had been heated up to 675°C. And NIST has no evidence that any steel in the WTC had been heated up to 700-800°C.
As to why the steel was only heated to 1000°C, I cannot say for sure. But it's important to remember that, although thermate burns at temperatures much hotter than 1000°C, the steel would not necessarily have been heated to the exact temperature of whatever corroded it. For example, the NIST report on WTC 7 claims that the fires in the building were as hot as 2012°F, but that the steel only reached temperatures as hot as 1250°F (675°C). It is possible that the thermate that melted the piece of steel cooled somewhat as it reacted. But the main point is this: If nothing natural inside the building could have corroded the steel, then something unnatural must have been planted inside the building. This is the subject of the next part of Mr. Nobles' page.
Where Did The Sulfur Come From?
Like other defenders of the official story, Mr. Nobles offers several possible sources for the sulfur found in the WTC 7 steel, including rubbers, plastics, water, and gypsum wallboard. Wallboard has been cited most often by debunkers due to the fact that sulfur-based drywall was the third most used ingredient in the construction of the WTC complex. But as others have pointed out, calcium is also in drywall, and the sulfur and calcium are tightly bound into calcium sulfate. Because the piece of steel was found to be intergranularly melted, it means that the sulfur chemically entered into the steel. But calcium was found nowhere in the steel. Also, because it is calcium sulfate and not pure elemental sulfur, it could not have reacted in such a way that it would actually corrode the steel. Mr. Nobles closes this section with the following:
Unfortunately Mr. Nobles, these sources HAVE been ruled out.
In the last two parts of Mr. Nobles' page on the corroded steel, he acknowledges that the piece actually did come from WTC 7 (something that I in fact pointed out to him). But he claims that this piece has no real importance to NIST in their investigation. And contrary to what Mr. Nobles claims, the investigators did suggest it was "possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."
Mr. Nobles' final statement is quite astounding.
In other words...
Thursday, August 12, 2010
WTC 1 - The Obvious Case Against the Collapse/Crush Down Hypothesis - Debunking the Conspiracy Theories of Prof. Bazant and NIST
Just drop Anything on Something
Start with a solid rubber ball, mass m (kg) and drop it on the floor from height h = 3.7 meters height = the height that WTC1 upper part is assumed to drop. The ball free falls with acceleration g (9.81 m/s²) due to gravity, makes contact with the floor and normally bounces. The ball was not rigid and deformed upon contact with the floor. Why? The floor applied a force on the solid rubber ball, so that it deformed, absorbed some of the kinetic energy E involved (E = m*h*g) and then released it and bounced up. Evidently the ball also applied a force on the floor that also deformed, absorbed the remainder of the energy involved; maybe the floor vibrated a little. This is Newton's third law at work.
Then do the same thing with a solid sphere of steel. Drop it on the floor. If the floor is strong enough, the same thing will happen as with a rubber ball! The steel sphere bounces. If the floor is not strong enough, i.e. it cannot produce a force big enough to deform the steel sphere, so that it bounces back, the floor will be damaged - maybe a hole is formed in it, and the steel sphere drops through the hole at reduced speed and contacts something else below, or the floor is just partially damaged ... and catches the steel ball, i.e. arrests it.
Finally drop anything weak (an egg or a lemon?) on something strong! PLAFSH! The weak anything (the egg or lemon!) is crushed against the strong something!
Don't forget that!
Try to compress a lemon with another lemon. What happens? Both lemons compress.
Now you have learnt a little what can happen when you drop anything on something and try to compress something. This basic knowledge is used in this paper.
If the upper, 53 meters tall, 13-15 storeys upper part of WTC 1 actually dropped on the structure below is a matter of semantics. Drop suggests that it was not being held at all. I prefer that it came into contact after local structural failures and downward displacement and that it was prevented from dropping by the connections between the two parts. Anyway, only the velocity at contact is of interest and it was not high in the WTC 1 case. Assuming a 'drop' of 3.7 metres, it does not produce a big velocity; it is around 8 m/s. If the 'drop' is dampened by intermediate connections the velocity is much less.
Dr Bazant (described below) and NIST suggest that the energy initiating or released at the WTC 1 destruction was enormous but in a serious ships collision it can be up to 10 times bigger!! NIST should learn from ship collisions! Bazant also assumes that the WTC 1 upper part was rigid (!). A rigid object is indestructible and will destroy anything non-rigid. But ships and WTC 1 upper part are not rigid.
The official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 (photo left) global collapse (sic) is that the alleged release of potential energy (PE), of the mass of an upper part C above all supporting columns after sudden, local deformation and buckling, due to downward, alleged near free fall movement in an initiation zone (indicated by red) and impact of a structure below, exceeds the strain energy (SE) that can be absorbed by the same columns below and above and that all this was due to gravity only.
[SEE THE PICS AT THE LINK]
Evidently this crush down model and theory is complete nonsense, but it is the official explanation(s) of the WTC 1 destruction on 9/11! A small, fairly weak part C, 95% air, cannot possibly crush a big part A of similar structure only due to gravity and compress it into a 87.3 meters tall tower of rubble on the ground after 10 seconds! Anyone that has just dropped anything on something knows this. Try then to crush this something! You need a big force for that, which gravity alone cannot provide.
Note the pic above: There is no upper block crushing the lower sections- it's been obliterated. Furthermore gravity alone will not cause the debris to be thrown out laterally as is seen. Where is that pile-driving mass ? It does not exist. The building here is being ripped apart by forces other than gravity.
By: Darcy Wearing & John-Michael P. Talboo
Joseph Nobles of ae911truth.info recently wrote:
The Tom Sullivan episode has been quite embarrassing for AE911Truth. They have been forced to release a long walk-back of a lot of speculation they used the former CDI photographer and two-month powder carrier to confirm.Here are some things to consider after your vacation Joseph.
It’s always worthwhile to point out their standard lines whenever their shoddy arguments are even seen by them to be worthless. They never, ever mean to imply an actual hypothesis for how these demolitions were carried out. These problems with their arguments are 'why we need a real investigation.' Their opponents always focus on these little details and not their strongest evidence or their overall argument.
That’s simply not true. Thermite IS a major part of their argument. It allows their presenters to waffle on the extremely loud sounds standard explosives require, while not ever providing a workable, testable hypothesis for actual demolition. When debunkers show their claims about thermite delivery devices to be bunk, this is not a clarion call for a new investigation. It’s a sign that AE911Truth needs to remove their heads from their posteriors.
Furthermore, debunkers have dealt with their other arguments. I’ll get more into detail when I’m sitting in front of a full-sized keyboard, but take some time to explore the links on the left. For now, I’m getting back to the vacation part of my vacation.
The Tom Sullivan episode has been quite embarrassing for AE911Truth.
This statement is not true on any level. This article has brought great attention, in a positive way for the movement and AE911truth. The article has gotten global attention.
the former CDI photographer and two-month powder carrier to confirm.
First off Joseph, what is a a powder carrier?
The nyc.gov "study material for the certificate of fitness examination for powder carrier" states:
There are several kinds of persons who work with explosives. Each one should know and understand what they are permitted to do. A person working with explosives should never attempt something that they have not been trained to do. Every person who works with explosives in N.Y.C. must have an F.D.N.Y. Certificate of Fitness ( license ). Following is a list of explosives Certificates of Fitness. A person may only perform work with explosives that their level of license allows.So, a powder carrier is just one step down from being a top explosives expert. Sullivan's FDNY licence for being a powder carrier was issued on July 09, 2001 and was good for one year. While he may have only done work for a few months with this licence, we can safely assume he had done such work before. It is true that when CDI was contacted about his credentials by some of your fellow JREF "debunkers" that they were told by Stacy at CDI that Sullivan worked for them as a photographer and nothing more. But this doesn't make sense. Did he just all of the sudden go from photographer to powder carrier after working for CDI for 3 years? It would make more sense that he had obtained that position after working his way up the ranks. The position of explosives loader (which sounds more impressive but isn't) would be a logical stepping stone, and that is exactly what he said he did for CDI in addition to being a photographer. Remember the part about Sullivan personally placing hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome in Seattle Washington?
The Blaster is the most highly qualified person at the blasting site, having total responsibility for the use of explosives, record keeping and safety of both workers and the public. The Blaster lays out all shots, supervises explosives loading and setting off the shots. Only the Blaster may give permission to fire a blast.
The Powder Carrier is essentially an apprentice Blaster, assisting the Blaster with loading:( preparing primer cartridges and charges, wiring / hookup, setting off the shots ) and paperwork, such as recording quantities of explosives used and shot times.
Explosives loaders help the Blaster and Powder Carrier in transporting explosives to and from the magazines and handling explosives during loading operations.
The Magazine Keeper accepts delivery of explosives at the work site and keeps records as they are received and returned to the magazines or the vendor. The Magazine Keeper is responsible for the safe keeping of explosives in the magazines. They are not permitted to do any other work with explosives.
Explosives Handlers are the drivers of the trucks used to deliver explosives to the blast site. Explosives handlers are responsible for the safe transport and handling of explosive materials and record keeping pertaining to pick-ups and deliveries. They are not permitted to do any other work with explosives.
They never, ever mean to imply an actual hypothesis for how these demolitions were carried out
This is not our job, it is Congress's and the media. There has yet to date been a scientific investigation into the collapses. If you think there has, explain how, when NONE of the steel was tested for explosive residue. FEMA, documents sulfidation, and eutectic, intergranular melting. They told NIST about it and they ignored it. Instead, they DON'T investigate at all the actual "collapse" of 1 and 2, only what CAUSED it, they state:
The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence,' although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable. (p xxxvii/39)This "best guess" ignores the many global collapse features indicative of the use of explosives. Even more erroneous, is there "hypothetical computer model", that nobody could argue with as it spit out the answers they wanted it to. This is what they made up instead of testing for explosives residue. NONE of the NIST investigation was scientific, just speculation and hypothetical guesses.
Thermite IS a major part of their argument
Actually you're wrong again Joey, thermite has nothing at all to do with our evidence. What does have a place however is NANOTHERMITE. Let us educate you here for a bit, Nanothermite and thermite are two different things. Thermite, is an incendiary, it only burns really hot (4500F) in seconds. Nanothermite, is thermite but with the particles engineered 1000 times smaller, this, along with the addition of Carbon, an organic gas that was also found by the independent team of scientists in the WTC powder, along with silicon, gives it fast reacting explosiveness. The downsizing of the particles is called "nanosized particles". Regular thermite does not have the capability of cutting steel. I hope we made this clear to you.
When debunkers show their claims about thermite delivery devices to be bunk, this is not a clarion call for a new investigation
Debunkers have done no such thing, in order for ANY debunker to be right, who is in favor of the the official story, including the fraudulent NIST, has to re-write the fundamental Newtonian laws of physics and thermodynamics. Good luck boys!
And as far as a new investigation goes, you must mean a REAL investigation, because there has not been one as of yet.
Adam T. of Debunking the Debunkers blog also has been responding to Joey (AKA debunking him) a lot as of late, take a look:
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Freefall Speed
Debunking Joseph Nobles: 7 Problems With 7 Responses
Responding to a Response to my Response
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Three Big Issues Indeed
Debunking Joseph Nobles: Other Buildings
Hello Joseph Nobles
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
As we will see, Mr. Nobles has a talent for addressing one point out of a huge argument and acting as if it is the central point to the whole argument. Thus, he holds great promise in the debunking community.
He apparently thinks I don't have good reasons to distrust NIST.
Well, given the fact that I very clearly demonstrated that NIST falsified the data in their report about the lack of shear studs in WTC 7 (a point which, by the way, was supposed to be a reason that other steel skyscrapers had not collapsed from fire) and that NIST failed to factor in any thermal conductivity in their models, I'd say I have very good reason to distrust NIST. Given the fact that NIST obviously didn't factor in these parameters in their models, I'm not surprised that the NIST models found a "design flaw" in Building 7. I guess it also doesn't bother Mr. Nobles that NIST's report states that column 79 failed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate in 1/5 of a second, a virtual impossibility.
Mr. Nobles acts as if I don't address NIST's report as much as I obviously did. But perhaps that is why he didn't even provide a link to my original post.
I am well aware of the ARUP study. But, as you made clear in your original post Mr. Nobles, it is not impossible for steel buildings to collapse from fire, whatever their construction. But in any case, we are just talking about one building out of several buildings that all had more severe fires than the Twin Towers and Building 7.
Mr. Nobles, you constantly claim I ignore important points. And yet you don't address the points I do bring up in great detail. If you want to just take NIST at their word, then fine. But please try to point out anything that I get wrong, or else this will get quite repetitive. In other words, (as others on this blog have said) put up or shut up.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
A quick note: I will be citing NIST several times in this response to refute many of Mr. Nobles’ arguments. Some may criticize me, saying things like “but if you disagree with NIST, why do you cite them?” I cite them because there are parts of their investigation that do seem to be backed up by empirical data and common sense. And this is supposed to be the official explanation for what happened to those buildings, so if anyone disagrees with NIST, they should complain to NIST and not me. I will also be pointing out several things that NIST does get wrong. But if anyone thinks they’re right, then explain why I’m wrong.
-No structural damage: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: This detail can be seen as least significant, as NIST mostly blames the collapse of the Twin Towers on fire and entirely blames the collapse of WTC 7 on fire. Although it can be argued that the plane impacts greatly damaged the buildings, NIST seems to have exaggerated the amount of damage the buildings actually took. And given the fact that the initial tilts of both Towers were not in the direction of where most of the structural damage was, the loads the buildings had to take as they collapsed would not have been a major factor.
-Lower floors were not on fire: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: This argument obviously applies more to Building 7 than the Twin Towers, as the fires were on the upper floors of Towers. While there were fires on the lower floors of WTC 7, the question is if these fires were severe enough to cause collapse in the first place. More on this will be discussed below.
-Fires were fought by firefighters and/or sprinklers: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: To some, the severity of the fires has been based on how much they were being fought. This, however, did not appear to be an important factor to NIST. NIST, in reference to the First Interstate Bank Building, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, and WTC 5, stated that:
“[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.”
Many debunkers have suggested that the partial collapse of WTC 5 supports the theory that fire could have brought down Building 7. In fact, if anything, it does just the opposite.
Debunkers also point to the firefighters' testimony. That is addressed here and here.
-Fire was always in “one place”: East Tower, First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza
Response: Again, NIST doesn’t seem to feel the floor locations of the fires were a huge point of dissimilarity to fires in other buildings, stating that:
“The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant).”
It is often claimed by debunkers that these photos show that Building 7 was almost totally engulfed with fire.
But as others have pointed out, the large amount of smoke on Building 7’s south face was most likely caused by a negative low air pressure, which caused smoke from the burning WTC complex to cling to Building 7. Multiple photographs show that the same thing happened to WTC 1.
NIST itself states that there were 10 fires in Building 7, with only 6 of them being out of control. Also, although the Mandarin Oriental did not burn as long as Building 7, the building was completely engulfed in flames, which meant it would have had an extremely low amount of thermal conductivity. Dr. Vytenis Babrauskas, an expert on fire temperatures, has written that:
“It is common to find that investigators assume that an object next to a flame of a certain temperature will also be of that same temperature. This is, of course, untrue. If a flame is exchanging heat with an object which was initially at room temperature, it will take a finite amount of time for that object to rise to a temperature which is 'close' to that of the flame. Exactly how long it will take for it to rise to a certain value is the subject for the study of heat transfer. Heat transfer is usually presented to engineering students over several semesters of university classes, so it should be clear that simple rules-of-thumb would not be expected. Here, we will merely point out that the rate at which target objects heat up is largely governed by their thermal conductivity, density, and size. Small, low-density, low-conductivity objects will heat up much faster than massive, heavy-weight ones.”
Although steel has somewhat lower heat conductivity than that of other metals, compared to non-metallic materials its conductivity is extremely high. If a fire does not consume the entire structure, the structure will conduct the heat away from the main source of the fire. This would not have applied to the Mandarin Oriental, as its entire structure was almost totally engulfed by massive flames. NIST did not even include thermal conductivity as a factor in the collapse of WTC 7.
In any case, NIST accepts that fires in other buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC 7, stating in their FAQ page on Building 7 that:
“There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5 (2001).”
And even in their report, they state that:
“NIST therefore concluded that the fires in First Interstate Bank and One Meridian Plaza were at least as severe, and probably more severe, than the fires in WTC 7.” (Page 341)
It should also be pointed out that the characteristics of the fires in other buildings were quite different than the fires in the WTC. In the other building fires listed, the fires produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.
Ultimately, while blaming the fires in WTC 7 on the collapse, NIST claims that the significant difference between Building 7 and other building fires has more to do with the differences in design than the severity of the fires. This is discussed below.
-Different design and construction: East Tower, One Meridian Plaza, One New York Plaza, Mandarin Oriental
Response: Admittedly, these buildings were designed and built quite differently than the Twin Towers and Building 7. However, this does not necessarily mean that they were stronger buildings. In particular, the East Tower and the Mandarin Oriental had the hollowness that the 9/11 Commission deceptively attempted to attribute to the Twin Towers. One of the main differences between the Towers and Building 7 and these other buildings is that many of these buildings had a concrete structure. But again, this does not necessarily mean the buildings were better. As 911research.wtc7.net points out:
•Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.
•Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.
NIST discusses the differences in design of WTC 7 and other building fires. One of the most crucial differences they claimed was the fact that Building 7 had no shear studs. According to NIST, shear studs would have provided lateral restraint to the girders in WTC 7. In discussing the differences between Building 7 and three other buildings-- the First Interstate Bank, One Meridian Plaza, and the Cardington Test Building-- NIST stated that:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in the other three buildings.” (Page 341, August 2008)
At first, this argument seems justifiable. The three buildings listed by NIST all had shear studs and none of them collapsed. Building 7 had no shear studs and it did collapse. It sounds like a good correlation. However, in NIST’s Final Report released in November of 2008, this passage was altered. It now states:
“Non-composite girders in WTC 7 rather than composite girders (presence or absence of shear studs) in two of the other three buildings.” (Page 341, November 2008)
So, NIST now admits that one of the three listed buildings also did not have shear studs, but it did not collapse. This greatly decreases the credibility of NIST’s arguments.
But there are even more problems with NIST’s shear stud argument. In 2004-- before NIST had developed a theory around the idea of girder failures-- it stated that shear studs did connect girders to the floor slabs. In its 2004 Interim Report on WTC 7, NIST stated:
“Most of the beams and girders were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 1 ft to 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for many of the core girders.” (Interim Report on WTC 7, L-6-7)
As this passage points out, many of the core girders in WTC 7 did not have shear studs. But the critical girder NIST claims failed-- the one connecting column 44 to column 79-- was not a core girder. It was in the building’s eastern region. Therefore, according to NIST’s Interim Report, this girder would have been anchored to the floor slab with shear studs. And because NIST stated that the studs were placed from one to two feet apart, and the girder was 45 feet long, there would have been at least 22 shear studs connecting the girder to the floor. However, NIST rewrote this passage for their Final Report, now stating that:
“Most of the beams were made composite with the slabs through the use of shear studs. Typically, the shear studs were 0.75 inches in diameter by 5 inches long, spaced 2 ft on center. Studs were not indicated on the design drawings for the girders.” (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, page 15)
It appears, therefore, that NIST, having developed a theory that would seem plausible only if the girders were not connected to the floors with shear studs, simply made those studs vanish. Any significant differences in the design of WTC 7 and other fire engulfed buildings that NIST and Mr. Nobles claim would seem to exist because of NIST’s falsifying of data.
The Towers And These Buildings
Mr. Nobles makes an amazing statement.
This statement is quite rich, considering that debunkers have tried to compare the WTC to things like high schools and badly constructed toy factories. To debunkers, if it’s made of steel and collapses from fire, it’s comparable to the WTC. This is complete nonsense. Even if there were some differences in design, if we can’t compare the WTC skyscraper fires with other skyscraper fires, then what can we compare them to?
Mr. Nobles offers three arguments for why the Towers were doomed to fail (my comments in red, some links).
The fires were never fought by any means in either building. The task of simply arriving at the floors proved to be too much for first responders to accomplish before the towers had fallen. Perhaps, but given the fact that neither of the Towers burned for even two hours, it is questionable how significant this would have been.
The fires were started over several floors simultaneously. Office buildings are designed to resist a slow-moving fire in one location. Fires were started in the WTC Towers simultaneously over several floors and over immense areas of these floors. And the floors, by the way, were the size of city blocks. Pictures show these fires burning entire lengths of the building in places. While this may have been true for the North Tower, the fires in the South Tower appeared to be going out shortly before its collapse. The fires did not even spread to the other side of the South Tower.
Strong fires tend to spread.
The fires were ignited with jet fuel as an accelerant. A large portion of jet fuel was consumed in the initial fireball on impact, but hundreds of gallons were left to help feed the fires in their first few minutes. In fact, the amount of fuel that remained in the Towers would have fit into a mid size U-Haul truck. The pictures you might have seen of weak or non-existent fires in these buildings were taken in the first few moments, when the fireball had robbed the fires of much oxygen. Again, very few flames were visible in the minutes before the South Tower’s collapse. The heat energy remained, however, and as oxygen returned through the immense holes left by the airplanes, the fires found plenty of jet fuel to reignite and start the massive office fires that resulted. But unfortunately, NIST has no evidence for high temperatures in either building.
World Trade Center 7′s (Alleged) Unrecognized Design Flaw
To show that WTC 7 was also doomed to fail, Mr. Nobles refers to a series of computer simulations NIST did of WTC 7.
Of course. When all else fails, use a computer model! NIST’s assertion that the failure of column 79 would have led to the total collapse of the whole building isn’t backed up by any independent verification. NIST has never released their modeling data, so it’s not open to peer review. As I have already shown, NIST has clearly distorted the data in their report. What’s more, NIST’s data shows that column 79 collapsed and accelerated at an extremely fast rate within only a fifth of a second, even though it was still supported by more than 30 floors of restraints. This would have been virtually impossible. The only evidence we have that column 79 was an “unrecognized design flaw” comes from NIST. Does that sound credible?
Mr. Nobles believes there is no comparison between the WTC and other building fires. This is obviously ridiculous. When one looks at things in perspective, it becomes obvious that the Twin Towers and Building 7 should never have collapsed because of the fires in them.
Friday, August 6, 2010
What's even more ironic is in all these case you claim there's no debate. "The debate is over" say the man-made global warming proponents - as you're producing lengthy "rebuttals" to lectures by Lord Monckton. Well evidently there is a debate or else you wouldn't be trying so hard to refute him, would you?
"9/11 conspiracy theories are as baseless as holocaust denial" say thermite deniers like Michael Shermer - as you regurgitate the same old lies from discredited authorities to "rebut" us time and time again. Put a bent spoon in it, Shermer!
So stop comparing your opponents to flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers, stop saying there isn't a debate, stop using straw-man arguments and ad-hominem attacks, stop putting blind religious faith in discredited "scientific" authorities and biased computer simulations, stop making up false claims about the peer-review status of the science supporting the other side, and put up or shut the f*ck up!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
This is a two year old clip from Jay Leno I stumbled across today of actor Shia Labeouf revealing that an FBI consultant on a film he starred in told him that one-in-five phone calls are recorded in the US, and proved it by playing back a recording of a phone call he made two years prior!
Eerie truths occasionally do come out in the celebrity world, but are buried and tend to be laughed off like it's no big deal. Back in February, an Indian film star revealed on a British chat show that images of his body scan were printed and circulated by staff at Heathrow airport - contradicting claims by authorities that body scan images can not be saved or printed.