They REALLY oughta know better

• Joe Rogan Interviewee, Mick West, Discusses 9/11 and Conspiracies with JM Talboo of 911debunkers.blogspot.com
  
• Debunker Interviews 911debunkers.blogspot.com Contributor Adam Taylor

Critiques of claims made by several prominent and semi-prominent 9/11 debunkers

-Joseph Nobles/boloboffin of AE911Truth.INFO-
Joseph Nobles’ claims about “free fall” shown to be false.

Mr. Nobles attempts to refute NASA engineer Dwain Deet’s website 7problemswithbuilding7. I show his claims to be false and misleading.

My critique of Mr. Nobles’ “The Big Three: Parts 1, 2 and 3.”

Mr. Nobles claims that other skyscraper fires are not comparable to the Twin Towers and Building 7. I show this assertion to be false.

My take on Mr. Nobles’ claims about thermal conductivity and the eutectic steel.

Mr. Nobles responds to my many refutations of his claims. I respond back here, here, and here.

Joseph Nobles criticizes AE911Truth and Tom Sullivan's credentials. Darcy Wearing and John-Michael Talboo respond.

My thoughts on Joseph Nobles' criticisms of the BuildingWhat? site.

Nobles claims that that the explosion in the 'Seven’s Exploding' video is fake. John-Michael Talboo shows otherwise.


-Mark "Gravy" Roberts-

My extensive critique of Mark Roberts’ video “WTC Not a Demolition.”

Honest mistakes are apparently “big news” to Mark Roberts.

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

Mark Roberts debates with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth on Hardfire.

Scootle Royale and John-Michael Talboo address Mark Roberts’ assertion that the red/gray chips are primer paint.

Mark Roberts claims that “no one said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe."

He oughta know better: Mark Roberts and the iron spherules.

Email debates, and more about Mark Roberts.


-NASA engineer Ryan Mackey-

Jim Hoffman critiques Ryan Mackey’s essay “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking.”

Mackey insists that the initial tilt of the upper section of the North Tower explains the lack of deceleration in the North Tower. Scootle Royale and I explain why he is incorrect.

Mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti questions Ryan Mackey about claims he made during their Hardfire debate.


-Protec employee Brent Blanchard-

Jim Hoffman replies to Blanchard’s paper “A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE COLLAPSE OF WTC TOWERS 1, 2 & 7 FROM AN EXPLOSIVES AND CONVENTIONAL DEMOLITION INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT”

Blanchard constantly claims that parts of explosives such as det cord should have been found in the debris. However, a phone conversation with Dr. Steven Jones suggests otherwise.

Former Controlled Demolition Inc. explosives loader Tom Sullivan on Blanchard’s claims about finding parts of explosives in the debris.

Andrea Dreger on Blanchard’s claims about molten metal at Ground Zero. Pg. 145


-Mike Williams of 911myths.com-

John-Michael Talboo examines Mike Williams’ claims about intercepts and the NORAD stand-down.

Forum poster Beached critiques numerous claims made by Mike Williams.*Note: I do not agree with everything on this page.

Mike Williams takes on Pakistan's ISI link to the 9/11 funding. Here’s the other side of the argument. More on this subject here.


-Physical chemist Dr. Frank Greening-

Dr. Greening makes a lazy attempt at refuting the Active Thermitic Material paper. Dr. Steven Jones responds.

Dr. Greening hypothesizes that there could have been natural thermite reactions within the WTC buildings. Mechanical engineer Gordon Ross addresses these claims.

Dr. Frank Legge addresses Dr. Greening’s criticisms of David Chandler’s analysis of WTC 1’s collapse.

David Chandler responds to Dr. Greening’s letter regarding Newton’s 3rd Law and falling buildings.

Andrea Dreger on Dr. Greening’s article “Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster.” Pg. 113

Dr. Greening’s theories about what caused the sulfidation of WTC steel are put to the test by civil engineer Jonathan Cole.


-Explosives expert Ron Craig-

David Menzies and Ron Craig Debunk WTC Demolition*

Ron Craig debates with Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Former explosives loader Tom Sullivan on Ron Craig’s claims about explosives causing damage to other buildings.


-Mathematician Dave Thomas-

Analysis of Dave Thomas’ debate with Richard Gage, including comments by mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti.

Further analysis of the claims made by Dave Thomas during his debate with Richard Gage.

Tony Szamboti comments on Dave Thomas’ physics model of the WTC collapse.


-Pat Curely and James B. of Screw Loose Change-

Pat Curley debates with 9/11 truth activist Jon Gold.

Pat Curley attempts to debunk the "rebunkers." John-Michael Talboo responds.

After 16 months of debunking Screw Loose Change, James B. comments on the Debunking the Debunkers blog to discuss pretty girls.

Pat Curley: the king of scientific peer-review.

Pat Curley attempts to cast doubt on the results of the Active Thermitic Material paper. John-Michael Talboo demonstrates why he is wrong.

Pat Curley claims that Steven Jones makes a strawman argument, but only exposes his own failed logic and poor research.

James B. claims that “trutherism is a mythology, not a science.” I show why he is completely wrong.

Pat Curley attempts to discredit Sibel Edmonds. John-Michael Talboo exposes his errors.

Pat Curley misrepresents the firefighter testimony and then accuses 9/11 truthers of doing the same thing.

Pat Curley attempts to use the firefighter testimony to prove WTC7 was engulfed in flames. John-Michael Talboo shows why he is wrong.

James B. and Pat Curley attempt to discredit the film Zeitgeist and 9/11 truth through association to a killer. Scootle Royal and I show why these claims are baseless.


-Dr. Zdenek Bazant-

Structural engineer Anders Björkman’s discussion of Bazant’s paper "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York."

Chemical engineer James Gourley’s discussion of Bazant’s paper “Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.”


-Physicist Manuel Garcia-

Jim Hoffman critiques Manuel Garcia’s articles on 9/11. Part 1. Part 2. Part 3.

Dr. David Griscom addresses Dr. Manuel’s CounterPunch articles on the WTC collapses.

Francisco González comments on Garcia's Sept. 12, 2007 article in CounterPunch.

Dr. Crockett Grabbe on Dr. Garcia’s WTC arguments.

Kevin Ryan shows that Manuel Garcia sees physics that don’t exist.


-Dr. Keith Seffen-

Dr. Crockett Grabbe’s discussion of Dr. Seffen’s paper "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: A Simple Analysis."


-Joseph Welch-

Stewart Bradley responds to Joseph Welch's "15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer."


Youtube debunkers
---------------------------


-Ryan Owens/RKOwens4-

Ryan Owens’ debunking videos refuted by my “9/11 Un-debunked” series. Version 1. Version 2.

My open letter to Ryan Owens.

My comments on Mr. Owens’ response to my open letter.

John-Michael Talboo shows Ryan Owens that controlled demolition is possible.

Ryan Owens debates with Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley.

Ryan Owens accuses me of taking money for my 9/11 videos. I inform him that he is incorrect.

Jason Bermas addresses Ryan Owens’ claims about the temperatures in the Ground Zero debris.

Mr. Owens makes numerous assertions about WTC7’s collapse. I show his claims to be wrong.

The US State Department uses one of Ryan Owens’ videos as “debunking” of 9/11 controlled demolition theories.


-AlienEntity-

John-Michael Talboo refutes AlienEntity’s video “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Lies and Distortions,” then debates with him on the subject.

AlienEntity claims his measurements corroborate NIST’s results. I show why he’s wrong.


-Dan Stevens/dsglop-

Dan Stevens appears in Nathan Moulten’s film “Activist.”

Dan Stevens attempts to answer Charlie Sheen’s 20 Questions to Obama. I show why his answers are nonsense.


-K.T. Penn/loosechangeexposed-

My refutation of many of K.T. Penn’s claims.

The many absurd beliefs of K.T. Penn.


-deRoyLight-

Stewart Bradley addresses deRoy's video "Defusing Nanothermite: Integrity."


-dprjones-

Stewart Bradley addresses dprjones' video "Advice and a challenge for 9/11 'truthers'"

Debunking Dave Thomas, Ryan Mackey, and Zdenek Bazant et al.

So the 9/11 debate between Richard Gage, from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Dave Thomas, a physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason took place on Coast to Coast AM last night, and I forgot to tune in. A commenter at the JREF forum says they are going to post it, if so I will link it here later. In the meantime, I was scanning the comments there and in the Above Top Secret forum and found some interesting stuff.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Go ahead Ryan, ignore him. I have been asking 9/11 "debunkers" to put up or shut up for awhile now.

Szamboti also left a message for Thomas:

Dave,

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.

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!

Bjorkman states:

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."



Related Info:

As Screw Loose Change Would Say: Moron Dave Thomas