Upcoming Interview on 9/11 Free Fall, 5/30/2013

This Thursday I will be featured on the No Lies Radio program "9/11 Free Fall" for the second time to discuss my recent paper published at scientificmethod911.org. Tune in this Thursday at 10:00 EST for a thorough discussion of why other steel-framed structure collapses are totally unjustified comparisons to the Twin Towers and Building 7.

See also:

Debunking Popular Mechanics on 9/11 Free Fall, 12/27/2012

Paper Accepted and Published at Scientific Method 9/11

I’m happy to announce that I’ve successfully had a paper accepted and published at the website Scientific Method 9/11. It’s an updated version of my paper Other Collapses in Perspective. In it, I present scientific explanations for why other steel structure fire-induced collapses are not comparable to the WTC buildings. It’s obvious that fire could not have brought down the Towers on 9/11. But don’t just take my word for it; read for yourself here and decide if I’m right.

http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Other_Collapses_Apr27_2013.pdf

Special thanks to the moderators at Scientific Method 9/11 for their review and helpful comments.

See also my SM9/11 profile page for other writings of mine.

Feeding a troll

I know that one policy at this blog we have tried to maintain is to not feed the debunkers and trolls, but in this case I must make an exception. For the past few days I have been in a heated debate with a youtuber called CaptMandrake360 (sadly, his name is a reference to one of my favorite movies). One need only look through the comments section of this video to see how pointless it has been trying to debate this person. He has also left several fallacy-rich comments on my channel and his own, constantly claiming that I have not answered any of the questions he has asked me.

For the record, I have answered his questions numerous times, as can be seen looking through the comments from our discussion. What has happened through the course of our debate is that he has simply not been happy with the answers I have provided. There is obviously an enormous difference between not answering someone's question, and that person simply being unhappy with the answers he's been provided with.


It shouldn't be necessary for me to continue to address such silliness, as I and others have already repeatedly addressed numerous issues raised by the debunkers. But for the sake of clarity, I will provide full responses to this person, in hopes that he will see how truly ridiculous he has been. Here are the basic questions he has asked:

Q:






A: The basic question being presented is how the explosives set in the Towers wouldn't have been affected by the plane impacts and ensuing fires. At one point, I provided this person with a link to 911research which tackles this very issues. Unfortunately, he dismissed this and claimed that





This evidently highlights CaptMandrake's nonsensical logic. Because it's a "truther" site, it must be untrue! Apparently Mr. Mandrake decides in debates what is a credible source. His reasoning is obviously ridiculous. In any case, before providing this link to 911research, I provided several of my own answers.





It's important to note that, when discussing the collapse of the Towers, the collapses began at the floors with minimal to virtually no damage. In regards to the North Tower, the collapse initiated at the 98th floor, which had the least amount of structural damage. Only the tip of the starboard wing cut through that floor.






The NIST Report clearly states that the collapse began at this floor:

“First exterior sign of downward movement of building at floor 98.” NCSTAR 1, pg. 87





Although it is true that the inward bowing occurred over several floors (as Mandrake felt the need to repeatedly tell me), the first floor to collapse was the 98th floor. This is significant because this shows that the collapse did not start at floors with significantly more structural damage, which means that any demolition devices placed on the 98th floor would not have been affected by the plane impacts. When I pointed out to Mandrake that NIST reported that the collapse began at the floor with the least amount of structural damage, his response was





Although it is true that the NIST report never specifically states that the 98th floor was the least damaged, the information provided in their report clearly demonstrates this. Mandrake's claim that floor 98 was "one of five seriously damaged floors" is unfounded. The 98th floor had only five perimeter columns severed, and one need only look through the table provided in NCSTAR 1-2, pg. 205 to see that NIST does not list floor 98 as having any of its core columns severed.

On page 196 of NCSTAR 1-2, we see that NIST shows that only 6000lb of debris went into floor 98. We see in their severe case scenario (page 212) 7300lb of debris was said to have went into that floor. Although the report does list floors 92, 97 and 99 as having even less debris on them, the 92nd floor had core columns severed and the 99th floor was not recorded as having any structural damage to any support columns. Floor 97 had major damage to the perimeter and damage to the core as well. Therefore, out of all the floors that received structural damage to the perimeter and/or core columns, the 98th floor was the least damaged. Mandrake's claim that this floor was not the least damaged is therefore groundless.

If the demolition was started at the 98th floor where there was the least amount of damage from the plane, then clearly the plane's impact would not have had any serious affect on devices placed on this floor. But it's important to note that some of the devices may actually have been affected by the impacts. However, this would still be consistent with the observations of the Towers. An example would be the spout of molten metal seen coming from the side of the South Tower. As Jim Hoffman explains:

Partly because thermate produces bright orange light while burning, Stage 1 is allowed time to run to completion before Stage 2 commences. In the South Tower, some thermate pushed by the plane crash from the building's core to its corner generates an orange spout lasting from about T-7 to T-2 minutes.

The plane impact, in the case of the South Tower, may have indeed affected the devices in some way. However, this does not mean the overall demolition of the Towers was affected.

Another issue Mandrake brought up was the fires and how they didn't affect the demolition devices either. A thermite based demolition, however, solves this problem. As Dr. Steven Jones explains:

It is important to note that initiating the thermite reaction requires temperatures well above those achieved by burning jet fuel or office materials -- which is an advantage of using thermite charges over conventional monomolecular explosives such as TNT, RDX and PETN. Below is a photograph of an experiment performed by the author and colleagues at BYU in which a sample of thermite was heated to orange-hot temperature (about 1700 ºF). We demonstrated that the thermite reaction would not ignite at this high temperature. Later, the thermite reaction was triggered by burning a magnesium strip in contact with the thermite. An electrical superthermite "match" could have been used and remotely triggered via radio signal.

















Thermite did not ignite when heated with a propane torch.

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition.

The third issue Mandrake raised concerned the planes and how they were guided into the Towers. 911research discusses this issue in some detail, so I will quote from there:

[T]he charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft, given that the planes may have been flown by GPS-equipped autopilots providing targeting accuracy to within a few meters.

Indeed, research shows that the types of maneuvers the planes executed on 9/11 would be entirely consistent with GPS-based control.

This particular issue was one I was not enthusiastic about addressing, as I felt it had more to do with speculation on my part rather than observable evidence. But Mandrake's insistence led me to address it, to which several times he ridiculed my sources as "conspiracy sites."

Mandrake's questions have been effectively answered, although I have no doubt that he will disagree. He will likely come up with any number of scenarios for how this explains nothing or how I'm "not answering" his questions. Let him think what he may. I choose to concern myself with more important matters, rather than answering every tiny problem brought up by faceless individuals on the internet.

The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts...

as long as you pretend they don't exist.

I've recently read the updated 2011 version of Popular Mechanic's book Debunking 9/11Myths, and I plan on writing a full response to their controlled demolition sections. However, I wanted to discuss one particular statement in their book that I feel deserves special attention.

Their book is updated with several new sections discussing topics such as the Active Thermitic Material paper, Barry Jennings, and the 2008 NIST report on WTC7. But less than thirty pages into their book, I discovered that PM apparently was not up-to-date on everything that's happened in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Here is what they say on pages 28-29:

"Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011, pg. 28-29 (Emphasis added)

I feel that the emphasised section bears repeating:

not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields.

And please don't take my word for it that their book says this. Read for yourself:


Well, I think it is plainly obvious to anyone who has payed attention to the 9/11 Truth Movement for the last 5 years why this statement deserves special attention. Popular Mechanics evidently chose to omit over 1600 credentialed experts who certainly have experience in "engineering, construction, or related fields," who question the official story of 9/11. Indeed, in all of PM's 216 page book, there is absolutely no mention of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. See if you can spot "AE9/11Truth," Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth," or "Gage, Richard."





And if we step back in time for a moment, we will see that this exact same statement appears in PM's 2006 book on the exact same pages.

It is painfully obvious what Popular Mechanics has chosen to do: update their book only where it benefits them, and pretend that any experts in engineering and building construction we have don't exist.

Welcome to 2011 PM. Your journalism never ceases to amaze.


Related Info:

There Are No 9/11 Whistleblowers If You Claim They Are All Confused or Lying

The Reading Comprehension of Debunkers...

...never ceases to amaze me.

Youtuber "TheSkepticalIdealist" recently commented on my video "Demolition Expert Debunks the Debunkers" and tried to misrepresent the expertise of Tom Sullivan.


I pointed out to him that Sullivan's position at CDI was not just a photographer, but also a Powder Carrier. However, this wasn't good enough for this "skeptical idealist."


He linked me to the nyc.gov "study material for the certificate of fitness examination for powder carrier." Apparently, he either missed this part of the document or didn't understand what he was reading:
______________________________________________________
Storage

All explosives must be stored in magazines specially made for that purpose. A magazine must be approved and have a permit to store explosives. Magazines must be under the direct supervision of a magazine keeper holding a Certificate of Fitness. Magazines must be kept locked when explosives or blasting caps are inside. Only the Blaster, Powder Carrier and Magazine Keeper may have keys to the Magazines and accept delivery of explosives at the work site.
______________________________________________________

So, Tom Sullivan was in charge of the exact aspect of handling explosives that this "idealist" said he wasn't in charge of.

It astounds me that several debunkers seem to have trouble with simple reading these days. First Joseph Nobles misunderstood what David Griscom said about the Active Thermitic Material paper. Then Pat Curley of ScrewLooseChange couldn't be bothered to read a post from 2008 before accusing someone of lying. Is reading getting too difficult for debunkers?

Now, am I implying that all debunkers can't read just because they're debunkers? Absolutely not. I would never make that sort of judgment of debunkers as a whole, because I am not a debunker, just a "rebunker." :)

The Argument of the 911 Truth Debunkers as Analogous to Denying the Existence of a Car.

These are some of the debunker "arguments" that have been made against the existence of the physical evidence proving nanothermite explosives, the freefall collapses of the towers, the evidence of melted steel etc:

"Your car has a poor choice of tires, no sensible person could call that thing a car with those tires"

"The colour is all wrong. No car of the type you describe is of that colour. You're not describing any car known to science."

"The engine in your car is not a known or standard type, your car therefore has no engine. It can't really be called a car."

"The windshield on this car doesn't exist, even though it might appear to exist, is solid, is see-through, and keeps the wind and rain out. A car without a windshield is not a car."

"Your car cannot possibly be found where you claim, even though there are pics, witness reports, scientific reviews etc. Because we deem it impossible, the car cannot exist. Everyone who says it does, no matter the evidence, is a wacko."

"Because of all these "proven" deficiencies you don't have a car at all. It's not a car."

"Furthermore, we have calculated (even tho the official investigators couldn't) what you may think is a fully functioning car is actually just a bicycle. Of course, being troofers, you will be unable to see or understand what we are pointing out to you. Just trust our brilliance and accept what we are saying."

Dear readers, if you can suppress common sense, the laws of physics, a multitude of credible eyewitness reports (many from trained observers), and the findings of independent researchers & scientists, then you can believe in anything.

If you can think for yourselves you will believe only what the established evidence tells you.

911 was an inside job. The evidence is clear cut. (AE911truth.org)

Collapse Rates of the WTC Consistent With Controlled Demolition

An argument against controlled demolition debunkers have raised is that the WTC did not collapse at free fall rates. It is well known that a free fall drop from the height of one of the Twin Towers would be about 9.2 seconds. I except that the Towers took closer to around 15 seconds to collapse, so to the layperson like myself the addition of a few seconds doesn't seem to make a huge difference. However, debunkers have noted it does in fact make a very big difference. They point out that in order for an object to free fall in 15 seconds, it would have to be dropped from a height more than twice that of either Tower.

I have decided that this argument is invalid because it assumes that controlled demolition causes a building to fall at free fall. This is hardly ever the case. However, this particular argument gave me an idea on how to figure out if the rate of the Towers' collapses was consistent with demolition.

A free fall drop of 15 seconds would be from a height of approximately 3617 feet. The Towers were approximately 1368 feet tall. 3617/1368 = 2.64
Therefore, a 15 second free fall drop would be from a height approximately 2.6 times higher than either of the Towers. Now let's do this with buildings that are all known demolitions.

15 story building. 155 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 3.1 seconds.



Its actual fall time was about 6.25 seconds. How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in that amount of time?



629/155 = 4.05
A 6.25 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

30 story building. 380 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 7.375 seconds would be from a height of about 875 feet.



875/380 = 2.3
A 7.375 second free fall drop would be from a height of over twice that of this building.

31 story building. 376 feet tall. Free fall time would be approximately 4.83 seconds.



A free fall drop in about 10 seconds would be from a height of about 1640 feet.



1640/376 = 4.4
A 10 second free fall drop would be from a height over 4 times higher than this building.

24 story building. Approximately 288 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 4.23 seconds.



A free fall drop in 8.4 seconds would be from a height of about 1139 feet.



1139/288 = 3.95
An 8.4 second free fall drop would be from a height about 4 times higher than this building.

20 story building. Approximately 240 feet tall. Free fall time would be about 3.86 seconds.



A free fall drop in 6 seconds would be from a height of about 590 feet.



590/240 = 2.45
A 6 second free fall drop would be from a height about 2 and a half times higher than building.

So, to summarize:

(15 story building) 629 ÷ 155 = 4.06 About four times higher

(30 story building) 875 ÷ 380 = 2.3 About two and a third times higher.

(31 story building) 1640 ÷ 376 = 4.4 Almost four and a half times higher.

(24 story building) 1139 ÷ 288 = 3.95 Almost four times higher.

(20 story building) 590 ÷ 240 = 2.45 Almost two and a half times higher.

And for the Towers:

3617 ÷ 1368 = 2.6 About two and a half times higher.

It was seem that, based on the debunkers' own arguments, the Towers evidently did fall in time intervals that would be considered consistent with buildings brought down with controlled demolition. But this is extremely problematic because:

a) Both of the collapses started from the upper sections of the buildings, not the bottoms.

and b) Supposedly no explosives were used to bring the buildings down according to the official story.

The only other example of a steel structured building collapsing from top-down due to fire is the partial collapse of the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands. This building was a 13-story structure that burned for over 7 hours. A section of its facade collapsed from the fire. Here's how long it took to collapse.



10 seconds for 13 stories to partially collapse. (13 stories equals approximately 160 feet) How tall would the structure have to be to free fall in 10 seconds?



About ten times taller.

In conclusion, the rate of fall of the Twin Towers appears to be consistent with the rate of fall for buildings brought down with controlled demolition. At the same time, their fall rates are inconsistent with the rate in which other steel framed buildings have fallen top to bottom from fire. So ask yourself, "what is more likely to have destroyed the buildings? Fire or explosives?" You decide.

Update:

This is extremely problematic in the case of Building 7.

47 story building. 610 feet tall. Free fall time would be 6.1 seconds.

See: Clarifying the Collapse Time of WTC 7



A free fall drop in 6.6 seconds would be from a height of about 701 feet.



701/610 = 1.1

A free fall drop of 6.6 seconds would be from a height less than 100 feet shorter than the height of Building 7. In other words, NIST would have us believe that fire accomplished something that even explosives don't always accomplish.

25% Scooped Out?... I THINK NOT!

At the Screw Loose Change blog, a few new pictures of WTC 7 are featured to back up the claim that the building was heavily damaged. Funny that they didn't show this one!

Looks like the building wasn't scooped out after all. Shyam Sunder's "25% of the building" claim has officially been put to bed. Although Pat ignores it, the investigation Sunder led already realized this claim was too dubious to try and hoodwink people with.

Related Info:

9/11 debunking arguments...

Fabled Enemies