Critical thinking is a vital component of science and of true skepticism. Critical thinking involves conforming to scientific principles and engaging in rigorous logical reasoning[1]. Uncritical thinking then subverts the scientific process and uses illogic, usually in the form of logical fallacies. Many would like to think that current US foreign policy is based on critical thinking, but is it really?
The official theory of the pivotal events of 9/11, the falls of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, has no credible verifiable scientific evidence to support it. As such, this theory is faith-based not science-based. Like other faith-based theories such as young Earth creationism, its proponents often resort to illogical or fallacious reasoning. Let’s look at the most common fallacies and deceptive debating techniques the official 9/11 faithful use.
Argument from Authority
The bulk of “support” for the official story of 9/11 comes from pronouncements from authorities. Right after 9/11 government analysts pronounced that Bin laden and al-Qaeda were behind 9/11.[2] Many of us believed these statements simply because they came from experts. If you state something is true simply because an authority said it was true you are committing the appeal to authority fallacy.
Another common form of this argument is to state that a claim is true because it is backed up with peer-reviewed studies. For example, 9/11 “debunkers” will spuriously point to the Bazant paper[3] to “prove” that fire alone brought down the Twin Towers. The problem is that the peer-review process is merely part of the scientific error checking process. Peer review does not guarantee a study is gospel. All peer review does is to help ensure obvious errors are detected. The paper “A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus.” clearly shows how the peer-review process does not guarantee valid science.[4] The Bazant paper itself has been shown to be exceptionally flawed[5][6][7].
The Argument from Authority also occurs if someone states that a study or line of evidence is invalid because it has not been published in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal. Science is science no matter where it is practiced. If someone conducts an easily replicable experiment and posts a video of it on the Internet, that science stands until someone can prove it wrong.
Red Herring
A red herring is simply an argumentative device designed to lead attention away from a particular topic. Put simply, a red herring is an attempt to change the subject. This device is often used in 9/11 debates. For example, when discussing Building 7, official 9/11 myth proponents often try to shift attention toward discussing the Twin Towers or the Pentagon which are easier for them to deceptively claim victories over.
Red herrings are a sign you are dealing with a manipulative person. To deal with these people the most important thing to do is not fall for their bait. Always direct the discussion back to the main point and for the benefit of observers note that they are attempting to shift focus.
Ad Hominem
There are several forms of the Ad Hominem fallacy. In 9/11 related arguments we mainly see the forms abusive, tu quoque, circumstantial and guilt by association.
The ad hominem abusive logical fallacy involves verbally attacking a person or group instead of their argument as an attempt to persuade others that the argument is wrong. 9/11 researchers are regularly called stupid, insane or the old Orwellian doublethink standby, “conspiracy theorist” as an excuse to ignore their arguments. In Internet discussion groups, dissenting 9/11 skeptics are often called trolls simply because the majority of the group believes the official story without question. By merely pronouncing someone a “troll” often the dissenter can then easily be silenced by excommunication for violating the rule of “no trolling”.
The ad hominem tu quoque form occurs when a criticism is avoided by turning it back on the accuser. For example, if a 9/11 skeptic criticizes official story believers for having no evidence at all to explain the fall of the WTC towers, the believer responds that the skeptics can’t adequately explain the less relevant fact that Al-Qaeda admitted to the attacks and many others.
A form of ad hominem circumstantial occurs when an opponent’s circumstances are attacked instead of his arguments. For example, a debater responds to a physicist’s argument by showing a picture of the physicist in a clown costume at a charity event. Instead of dealing with the physicist’s argument, an attempt is made to manipulate the audience into believing the physicist is a bumbling incompetent and thus anything he says is suspect.
Guilt by association occurs when an opponent is attacked because he holds a position that is also held by some disreputable group. For example, suppose a mass murderer was found to be highly skeptical of the official 9/11 story. People that use this event as “proof” that 9/11 skeptics are dangerous are employing the guilt by association fallacy.
Argument from Incredulity
The argument from incredulity occurs when an argument is rejected because the person finds the argument too difficult to believe. For example, 9/11 “debunkers” often imply that the WTC controlled demolition theory is false because it would be too difficult to keep all the people involved quiet. They can’t believe that the WTC could have been a controlled demolition simply because they lack the imagination to consider that it could be done.
False Cause
The false cause (post hoc ergo propter hoc) is an argument where because one event preceded another, the first event caused the second event. For example, believers of the official 9/11 myth sometimes actually point to the fact that WTC 7 was on fire as evidence that the building came down solely because of fire. A conclusion can’t be based only on the order of events. You can’t say a preceding event caused another event unless you rule out all other possible factors that might have caused the event.
Bare Assertion
This argument involves an unsupported pronouncement expected to be taken on faith. Almost immediately after 9/11 the disaster was blamed on al Qaeda and Bin Laden even though no evidence existed so support this explanation. These claims then are examples of bare assertion fallacies. Bare assertions can be very convincing to most people when uttered with utmost confidence.
Genetic fallacy
This argument states that a conclusion is wrong because of its source. 9/11 “debunkers” will often reject any paper simply because it was published in the “Journal of 9/11 Studies”[8] for example. A scientific paper is bad if you can show that the science in the paper is wrong. Where science is published is irrelevant to its merit. The paper called “A Bacterium That Can Grow by Using Arsenic Instead of Phosphorus.” published in the prestigious journal “Science” clearly shows that where science is published does not guarantee valid science.[4]
Equivocation Fallacy
The equivocation fallacy occurs when two different meanings of a word are confused. Usually the original word used has strong connotations. Then that use is defended using a word with weaker connotations. For example, a 9/11 skeptic might point out that WTC 7 was in free fall for eight stories. A 9/11 believer might respond that free fall can only occur in a vacuum. The believer is equivocating the rarely used precise definition of free fall with the practical use which ignores the negligible resistance due to air on very large objects.
Argument from Conspiracy
This argument states that a theory is wrong or suspect merely because it involves a conspiracy, typically involving the government or large corporations. Conspiracies do happen. The history of civilization is a history of conspiracy. Before these conspiracies were uncovered they were conspiracy theories. There is nothing wrong then with entertaining a conspiracy theory provided it best accounts for the evidence. The Gulf of Tonkin incident is the case of a conspiracy theory that turned out to be true. This incident resulted in the brutal carnage of the Vietnam War. In 2005 we learned that the US lied that the Vietnamese attacked US forces on August 4, 1964 when in fact all they were doing was salvaging the torpedo boats attacked by the US two days before.[9] The US also lied that the Vietnamese attacked first on August 2 when in fact it was the USS Maddox that fired first.[10]
Gish Galloping
Gish Galloping involves spewing forth a list of arguments to bog down an opponent. The idea is to burden the opponent so they will be less likely to respond making it appear as a win. When asking for evidence to back up their claims, 9/11 “debunkers” may produce a lengthy series of links to articles and other information. They may also refer to a book to support a specific claim without mentioning page numbers.
PRATT – Point Refuted a Thousand Times
A PRATT is an easily refuted point that is unpleasant to maintain refuting. 9/11 “debunkers” regularly use PRATTs like the fact that WTC 7 was not in free fall from start to finish to deal with the eight-story free fall period that WTC 7 did in fact experience. Arguments are also sometimes labelled as PRATTs as a diversionary tactic to avoid dealing with an irrefutable argument. For example, when pointing out that the official explanation of how WTC 7 came down has no supporting evidence whatsoever, a “debunker” may simply indignantly label the argument as a PRATT as an excuse to walk away.
Appeal To Force
In this argument a threat is made against the opponent instead of refuting his argument. This fallacy can often be seen in presumed “science” and “skeptic” forums when discussing the topic of 9/11. Instead of dealing with the arguments you are threatened with expulsion for merely presenting an argument that conflicts with their unwavering unsupportable beliefs.
Proof By Example
Proof by example occurs when one or more examples are falsely claimed to be proof of a general conclusion. For example, when a 9/11 “debunker” claims that all high-rise controlled demolitions start at the bottom and therefore the Twin Towers were not controlled demolitions because they were top-down collapses.
Slothful Induction
A slothful induction occurs when the case for an argued effect is dismissed as a coincidence when it’s very likely not. For example, major terrorist attacks tend to have training exercises for the very type of attack that eventually happens. Those that blindly reject conspiracy theories will tend to dismiss this troubling fact as merely a coincidence.
Cherry Picking
Cherry picking occurs when only evidence supporting a desired conclusion is presented. Evidence that does not support the conclusion is ignored. For example, NIST engaged in cherry picking when it ignored eyewitness testimony of molten metal, the molten metal the color of molten iron seen dripping from the Twin Towers, the peculiar abundance of iron-rich micro spheres in the WTC dust, the very rapid and symmetrical destruction of the WTC buildings which till then was only ever seen in controlled demolitions and the FEMA report’s documentation of eutectic formations on WTC steel.
Burden of Proof
In the Burden of proof fallacy the burden of proof is shifted from the person making the claim to the person questioning the claim. For example, when asking for evidence for the official story of the WTC collapses, instead of providing this evidence believers of the official story will often instead ask for proof that it was a controlled demolition.
Argument From Ignorance
The argument from ignorance fallacy is a form of the burden of proof fallacy. It occurs when either an argument is claimed to be false because it hasn’t been proven true or claimed to be true because it hasn’t been proven false. It’s a type of false dilemma because a third option is excluded. It could also be that there has been insufficient investigation to prove the statement either true or false. For example, when Shyam Sunder states that WTC 7 was not a controlled demolition because no evidence was found of controlled demolition. NIST’s Michael Neuman however, admitted that they did not look for any such evidence.[12]
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning is a fallacy that occurs when the conclusion is one of the premises. A 2008 article in the Hartford Advocate contained a peculiar exchange between reporter Jennifer Abel questioning NIST’s Michael Neuman which comically illustrates this fallacy nicely:
Abel: What about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?
Neuman: Right, because there was no evidence of that.
Abel: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?
Neuman: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time.[12]
Thought-terminating Cliché
The thought-terminating cliché is possibly the most disturbing fallacy there is. In this fallacy a common phrase used to alleviate cognitive dissonance. It is thought-terminating when it is used to dismiss dissent or justify fallacious reasoning. Some examples commonly used by “skeptics” and the media: “That’s a conspiracy theory.”, “Meh.”, “Yawn.”
Understanding fallacies is possibly the most important tool available to dissect and counter propaganda. You can read up on other fallacies at various sites on the web. One good site is Nizkor.[11]
It is extremely disturbing that current US foreign policy is largely dictated by a wholly unscientific theory that not only violates basic principles of science but that can only be supported through the use of illogic. Purported skeptic organizations like the James Randi Educational Foundation, CSI, CFI and Skeptic Magazine either directly support this shoddy uncritical thinking or indirectly support it by not admonishing its members that regularly engage in it.
Notes
1.James Lett. “A Field Guide to Critical Thinking”. Skeptical Enquirer 14 (4). (1990) http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/
2. Michel Chossudovsky. “The Truth behind 9/11: Who Is Osama Bin Laden?”, Global Research (2006) http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3198
3. Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou. “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Simple Analysis,” J. Eng. Mech. (January 2002)
4. Carl Zimmer. “This Paper Should Not Have Been Published”, Slate Magazine (2010) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2010/12/this_paper_should_not_have_been_published.html
5. Steven E. Jones. “Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 3 (September 2006)
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf (section 9)
6. Gordon Ross, “NIST and Dr. Bazant – Simultaneous Failure”, Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 11 (May 2007) http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf
7. Crockett Grabbe, “Discussion of ‘Why the Observed Motion History of World Trade Center Towers is Smooth’ by Jia-Liang Le and Z.P. Bazant,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics (October 2012) http://www.sealane.org/writings/Bazantrpy.html
8. http://www.journalof911studies.com/
9. Robert J. Hanyok, “Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964″, Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1.: 177 http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/spartans/chapter5.pdf
10. Robert J. Hanyok, “Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds, and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964″, Cryptologic Quarterly, Winter 2000/Spring 2001 Edition, Vol. 19, No. 4 / Vol. 20, No. 1.
11. Nizkor.org
12. http://web.archive.org/web/20080430203236/http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=5546 referenced in http://911debunkers.blogspot.ca/2011/08/my-top-10-debunker-fails.html
Mr. Fullerton should ask Box Boy* and his “experts” to show us on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and
the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY
If they ever HAD TO do it, this “debate” would be OVER.
*Box Boy’s ONLY 9/11 “research”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
Albury Smith is invited to show us how office fires managed to accomplish what he claims explosives or incendiaries could not do — bring down a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper with a sudden onset of free-fall acceleration.
NIST has already explained that in detail. WTC 7’s “sudden onset of free-fall acceleration” was of its EXTERIOR after the interior had already been collapsing for ~10 seconds, and it began at t=1.75 seconds after a much slower descent prior to that. Since the exterior W14 X 500 columns were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, they either all stood or all collapsed at once, and the ~2.25 seconds at g occurred immediately after they buckled in unison, providing a brief period with no MEASURABLE resistance to the ~150,000 TONS of falling mass.
According to Box Boy’s latest dog-and-pony show, he’s a huge fan of scientific method, so demonstrating his “theory” on a W14 X 730 should be done as soon as possible. Despite its misleading title, it’s totally devoid of EXPLOSIVE[S], EVIDENCE, and EXPERTS, but 2 of those obvious deficiencies can easily be addressed.
NIST didn’t explain free fall at all, in fact. Collapse of the exterior columns would still require force to buckle the columns, but as the building was in free fall, all its potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, meaning there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns.
Moreover, the assertion that the entire core had already collapsed is demonstrably false. In fact, apart from the local collapse resulting in the disappearance of the east penthouse, anyone can see from videos that the rest of the core doesn’t begin to collapse until the same time as the perimeter.
Furthermore, NIST’s claim of a 1.75 s “stage one” of collapse is false, clear evidence of scientific fraud: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/.
In fact, free fall occurred with sudden onset, which, again, means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling the columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
There is nothing fraudulent about NIST’s determination that the top ~242′ fell in ~5.4 seconds, and that g occurred only in stage 2, i.e. from t=1.75 to t=4 seconds. What IS fraudulent is Box Boy’s claim of 6.5 seconds for the entire 610′, right to the nearest 1/10 second. Look at any WTC 7 collapse video and tell me how that’s possible.
Real SEs don’t divine the cause of a building collapse by timing it, but the NIST model and collapse sequence clearly show why there was no measurable resistance to the ~150,000 TONS during that ~2.25 seconds that’s so precious to One-Trick Chandler and other troofers. The core had already been collapsing for the 6.9 seconds between the east penthouse collapse and the onset of the exterior collapse plus a few seconds, so g could actually have been EXCEEDED for part of that time.
You’re promoting foolishness and libeling many people in the process.
NIST’s claim is indeed fraudulent. Simply denying this not an argument. See the paper, “Video Analysis of NIST’s Claim of a 5.4 s Collapse Time Over 18 Stories for WTC 7”
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7
Again, the 2.25 s of free fall occurred with sudden onset. This did not occur, as you falsely claim, after a period of 1.75 s in which the columns were already buckling.
Beyond that, I’ve no interest in debating strawman arguments. Please keep your comments relevant (i.e., don’t talk about what other people who are neither the author nor participating in the comments here say and dismiss what is said here on their basis, which is a fallacy).
NIST VERY accurately determined that the top ~242′ of WTC 7’s EXTERIOR collapse, i.e. the part that could actually be seen in the videos, took ~5.4 seconds, and that includes your precious ~105′ at g. How did Box Boy and your other frauds get 6.5 or 6.6 seconds for the entire 610′ when they couldn’t see the bottom floors because of dust and buildings blocking the view? Time it yourself and you’ll also see that it took ~8.5 seconds and is impossible to determine to the nearest 1/10 second.
There was a somewhat “sudden onset” to g at t=1.75 seconds, since the acceleration just before that slowed even more as the columns bowed to the point of failure and then snapped in unison because of the 100% moment connected framing.
Since Box Boy goes on and on about scientific method in his latest dog-and-pony show, let’s see whether it applies to him and his “experts” too. W14 X 730s aren’t that hard to find, and it’s central to his secret C/D “theory,” so it’s hardly a straw man.
I defer to my previous comment.
And since I’m familiar with your M.O., Albury, from our previous discussions, I’m also giving notice that insisting in strawman argumentation, ad hominem, etc., rather than addressing points made in the article or by other commenters here will be considered trolling behavior.
What “strawman argumentation,” Jeremy? I’d like to remind you that
libeling 230+ NIST investigators and countless others with junk science and nonsense is a form of ad hominem.
Mr. Fullerton is obviously unhappy with NIST’s investigations, and
since he cited “the eight-story free fall period that WTC 7 did in fact
experience, “and lamented that “NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of
explosives,” despite the lengthy and detailed discussion of it, including
software analysis, at 3.3 HYPOTHETICAL BLAST SCENARIOS in NCSTAR 1A, my
suggestion that the people with the explosives hypothesis back it up with testing and experimentation is highly appropriate and relevant. The only comment it’s evoked from your author is a prime example of “Uncritical Thinking in Support of [a] Faith-based… Myth.”
You know what strawman argumentation. I wasn’t unclear. You may refer back to my previous comments if you need to refresh your memory.
Saying that NIST engaged in scientific fraud is not an ad hominem argument. It’s an inescapable conclusion based on facts.
Mr. Fullerton is correct. NIST did not look for physical evidence of explosives. The reason it offered for why it did not do so was also precisely as Mr. Fullerton stated.
Nice illustration of the red herring fallacy Mark.
I’m not Mark, but how is a simple and straightforward demonstration on video with audio of the secret explosive demolition “theory” on some representative W14 X 730 columns a red herring? 4.91″ flanges and 3.07″ webs should be a snap for Box Boy and his “experts”:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135
Sorry Albury, your argumentative style is almost identical to Mark Roberts so I keep confusing you two.
Your arguments here are red herrings because this article is about how 9/11 pseudo-skeptics use fallacies instead of facts and logic to support their arguments. You are trying to shift attention away from this topic by citing irrelevant technical arguments. Because you can’t deal with the subject matter you must change the topic. You are in fact exemplifying the behavior the article talks about.
Since your gratuitous hit piece on “pseudo-skeptics,” their
“faith-based theories,” and their alleged lack of critical thinking skills is
nothing more than a lengthy and specious ad hominem itself, Michael, you are also “in fact” exemplifying the behavior the article talks about. My comment that you call a red herring and an “irrelevant technical argument” was not an argument at all; it was simply a very logical suggestion that you demonstrate for us on video with audio that Richard Gage’s newly-professed reverence for
scientific method doesn’t just apply to everyone else.
We already know what happens when empty cardboard boxes are dropped
on each other, so now let’s see – on video, with audio – what happens when “experts” try to cut W14 X 730 columns secretly with explosives (or is it incendiaries that “cut through steel like a hot knife through butter” today?)
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135
NCSTAR 1A was released nearly 5 years ago, and that’s also long enough for Mr. Gage and his people to run competing ANSYS and LS-DYNA models of WTC 7’s column 79 area using the reams of input data spoon fed to them in the NIST reports. NIST-bashing does nothing to advance the secret C/D “theory,” but my two suggestions would be a step in the right direction. The software’s
readily available to them for the NEW AND INDEPENDENT models, as are W14 X 730s for the TESTING AND EXPERIMENTATION mentioned so prominently by Mr. Gage in his
latest video.
As much as I appreciate your favorable comparison of me to Mark
Roberts, he hasn’t debunked 9/11 truthers for years, and there are more relevant matters to address. If you simply want a factual and well-documented reference
source however, he does still maintain his web site:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/
It’s a breath of fresh air from what you’ve apparently been reading.
Albury, it is not ad hominem argumentation to point out the logical fallacies of those who defend the official hypothesis.
If you want to debate Richard Gage, go contact him. If you wish to continue commenting here, keep your comments relevant to the article and the other comments you are replying to.
I would merely observe that you are arguing that fire could do what you claim explosives and incendiaries could not: remove all resistance in the form of steel columns to the collapse of WTC 7.
As for NIST’s ANSYS and LS-DYNA models, you’re illustrating precisely what Mr. Fullerton meant by “faith-based”. You accept NIST’s hypothesis solely on faith because they reject the scientific method and refuse to release their data for others to independently verify.
But we don’t need the data or to run our own models to know that NIST engaged in scientific fraud, such as inputting the worst case raging fire into their model on the NE corner of the 12th floor when their own analysis of the photo/videographic evidence showed that the fire had already burned out there.
You should explain to the FDNY how massive building fires:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
miraculously self extinguish in a few minutes, Jeremy. They evacuated
WTC 7 and set up a ~600′ safety perimeter in mid-afternoon because the fires were making the structure increasingly unstable, and their good judgment saved many lives.
Your fumbling attempts to “correct” NIST provide no evidence at all
for explosives, but you definitely DO need to run your own models if you want to be taken seriously. It’s also one thing to jabber stupidly about scientific method in a video with no EXPLOSIVE[S], EVIDENCE, or EXPERTS, and quite another
to apply scientific method to some W14 X 730 columns.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135
Your 9/11 “researcher” is as likely to demonstrate his hypothesis on one of them as he is to peddle his nonsense personally to the Local 40 & 361 Ironworkers, the FDNY, or the SEAoNY, PANYNJ, NSF, or FEMA BPAT SEs who were at the WTC site during the cleanup.
[Of course bringing up Richard Gage and his myriad lies is “strawman
argumentation” following an article parroting him and his junk science. I’ve been given notice of my “trolling behavior,” i.e. anything you don’t want to address.]
I defer to my previous comment. The facts about the fire in the NE on the 12th floor of WTC 7 are as I stated them, your attempt to obfuscate the point about NIST’s fraud notwithstanding.
It apparently still hasn’t registered with you that your fumbling assaults on the NIST investigators do nothing to support the C/D “theory,” and are simply one of those red herrings that Mr. Fullerton laments, but please feel free to present your WTC 7 fire spread data and evidence that’s contrary to the information in Chapter 5 of NCSTAR 1-9, along with the sources you used. I’m sure you realize that column 79 was ~65′ from the NE corner of the building, and that the wind on 9/11 was coming from the north.
I defer to my previous comment also. Please urge Box Boy* and his “experts” to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries secretly cut the 4.91″ flanges, 3.07″ webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7’s core, and
the 4 corner columns in each tower’s core:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135
Why, Albury, if you are familiar with NIST’s final report on WTC7, then you are already familiar of its analysis of the photo/videographic evidence that shows that the fires were already burned out in the NE on the 12th floor!
Please urge NIST and its “experts” to show us how fire could possibly do what you insist explosives and incendiaries couldn’t: cause the free-fall collapse of a 47-story steel framed skyscraper.
They’ve already done that in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, and 1-9A; it’s now Box Boy’s turn. Here’s what he’s presented so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
That’s one reason why Box Boy and his ilk are ignored by the ASCE, SEI, NCSEA, AIA, RIBA, structuremag.org, ENR…
Albury, “Box Boy” is neither the author of this article nor a commenter here. If you wish to debate “Box Boy”, go contact him. Seriously, final warning about this trolling behavior.
NIST does not in fact explain how free-fall could possibly be consistent with their hypothesis. They first tried to deny it, and then when they were forced to admit free fall for 2.25s over 100 feet, they simply ignored the implication.
Another example of scientific fraud NIST engaged in scientific fraud is NIST’s inputting the worst case raging fire into their model on the NE corner of the 12th floor when their own analysis of the photo/videographic evidence showed that the fire had already burned out there.
Since Fullerton’s article and your responses here do nothing more
than attack and libel the NIST investigators and the serious scientific and engineering communities represented by the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, AIA, RIBA, structuremag.org, ENR, etc. that are fully supportive of them, Jeremy, please review his comments on the ad hominem fallacy. Implicit in the article is the absurd and impossible secret C/D “theory,” so check out the segment on burden of proof too.
Real SEs don’t divine the cause(s) of building collapses by their acceleration, and if there’s any implication to ignore in the ~2.25-second period that WTC 7’s EXTERIOR fell at g, you’re the ones doing it. The perimeter W14 X 500 columns were 100% moment connected to spandrel beams, and at t=1.75 seconds they all buckled in unison, creating a period of no MEASURABLE resistance from columns that were bent, broken, and sideways. Since uncritical thinking in support of a faith-based myth has led you to conclude that 81 columns weighing 500 to 730 pounds per lineal foot were all secretly cut multiple times with explosives or whatever, a demonstration of that remarkable feat on just ONE representative column is reasonable to expect from you. If these explosives melt metal and keep it molten for months, that’s something else that you could scientifically establish.
NIST engaged in no scientific fraud, but since both of you are promoting the red herring of NIST-bashing instead of supporting any alternative hypothesis, you could also do that in a professional and competent way. ANSYS and LS-DYNA are readily available, and the input data’s spoon-fed to you in NCSTAR 1A, 1-9, 1-9A, etc. You’re both soi-disant peers of SEs with doctorates and PE certification, as well as recognized IT experts from respected civilian consulting firms, so NEW AND INDEPENDENT modeling would be far more appropriate than simply saying “Nuh-uh!”
Hit pieces on NIST and those who support their WTC findings do
nothing more than waste time and bandwidth.
Albury, I’ve already addressed all the problems with your assertions here. Constantly repeating the same tired talking points without actually addressing the arguments made is trolling behavior, and will be treated as such if you offend one more time. I see no need to repeat myself, and so defer to my previous comments. If you wish to debate, substantively address the points others make. If you are unwilling/unable to do that, don’t reply at all.
***Edit***
I’ve changed my mind. For your convenience, I’ll go ahead and repeat myself to address your errors.
Once again, it is not “libel” to point out NIST’s numerous instances of scientific fraud, e.g., refusing to release its data, inputting raging fires into the NE on the 12th floor when its own video/photographic analysis showed the fires there had already burned out, its false claim of a 5.4s collapse over 18 stories and 1.75s “stage 1” of collapse, etc., etc.
It is also nonsense to argue that free fall tells us nothing about the building’s collapse. It tells us a great deal. It tells us that all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling the columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
A simple demonstration on one of these:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png&imgrefurl=http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/sustainability8.html&h=478&w=638&sz=404&tbnid=q-S41Ix2mT4HeM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=122&zoom=1&usg=__UlCatIoHNuaIBUbQaF2PuEchSxU=&docid=adi9gO1tvsGG9M&sa=X&ei=FIbgUaLxFOr54APlsYHABA&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAw&dur=135
would tell us a lot more than the junk science of divining the cause of a building collapse by its acceleration. A ~2.25-second portion of WTC 7’s EXTERIOR was the only period at g for any of the 3 buildings, and any competent SE could explain why, although apparently not to you.
My “same tired talking points” are limited by your “Logical Fallacy” fallacy, i.e. anything substantive and to the point is “strawman argumentation” or “trolling behavior” with the implicit threat of banning me.
If you were really interested in the truth, you’d WANT to see your “theory” applied.
It was not only the exterior, as I’ve already explained, but even if it was, columns would have had to buckle, which would have meant resistance to collapse and hence not free fall acceleration.
The laws of physics are not “junk science” and applying them to understand the behavior of objects in this universe is not “divining”. Junk science is what NIST did when it ignored the implications of free fall, input raging fires into its models when it knew the fires had burned out, refuses to release its data, etc.
Here’s video of a real C/D, Jeremy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
No “whistle blowers” close by were needed to inform the people of Dallas/Ft. Worth that cutter charges were being detonated, and everyone working on the Landmark Tower site after the demo could tell you just from looking at the debris steel which columns were explosively cut and which ones broke at their connections. Try your cause-divining junk science on that collapse too. Every column on every floor in real C/Ds isn’t cut, so just analyze the
acceleration and tell me which floors collapsed because of explosives and which ones solely or almost solely from gravity.
Your NIST-bashing has reached the level of total absurdity. You have no WTC 7 fire spread information that the NIST engineers didn’t have, yet you’re claiming that they faked the data but contradicted their own hypothesis. As I’ve already noted, your fumbling assaults on NIST are a red herring, but where’s the intrinsic logic in that claim? If the visible portion of WTC 7’s collapse wasn’t primarily the exterior, what was happening inside for the ~6.9 seconds between the east penthouse collapse and the start of the exterior collapse? You’re not even making sense.
Since you’re fixated on the asinine notion that secret C/Ds in Manhattan are possible, get some W14 X 500s (the SMALLEST columns in WTC 7 at a mere 500 POUNDS PER FOOT), and show us on video with audio how it was done. I’d once again suggest asking the con man running an “educational” organization and getting 501(c)(3) status to do it with the donation money he milks out of
gullible saps, but mentioning him here is “strawman argumentation” and “trolling behavior,” so pick your own crackpot. If your 9/11 “truth movement” ever HAD TO do it, we’d never hear another peep out of them about secret C/Ds.
There was no plausible and coherent MOTIVE for demolishing a ~14
year-old ~$800 million hi-rise that was nearly fully occupied with long-term
tenants, no EVIDENCE was found in the debris, and it’s IMPOSSIBLE, but enjoy your faith-based myth.
Albury, I have warned you repeatedly about your trolling (i.e., ignoring points made by others showing the errors in your arguments only to just repeat those same fallacious assertions over and over and over again).
Once again, the laws of physics are not “junk science” and applying them to understand the behavior of objects in this universe is not “divining”. Junk science is what NIST did when it ignored the implications of free fall, input raging fires into its models when ITS OWN analysis of the video/photographic evidence showed the fires to have already burned out (rendering your argument “You have no WTC 7 fire spread information that the NIST engineers didn’t have” puzzlingly and humorously irrelevant), refuses to release its data, etc.
Once again, it isn’t mere “NIST bashing” to point out that NIST engaged in such scientific fraud.
Once again, your claim that the entire core had been completely gutted by the time the exterior collapsed is visibly false (only the east penthouse collapsed; the rest of the penthouse roofline doesn’t begin to descend until the same moment the entire building “as a single unit” [NIST] began coming down at free-fall acceleration).
Once again, what is IMPOSSIBLE is for fire to have caused all of the load-bearing steel columns in the building to have completely failed at the exact same time such that they offered no resistance to the collapse of the building.
You are banned for trolling.
poor all blurry shill smith..
will carry on kicking and screaming right up until his boss tells him .. until then, he will continue to argue that black is white, if it was truly his honest opinion, youd have to pity him, but as he is nothing but a paid shill.. tasked to troll the internet 24/7, commenting on every 911 post he can.. he deserves nothing but contempt and derision, or perhaps, for the crime of perpetuation of such outlandish bulldust.. maybe a kick in the backside.. but the gutless coward will never reveal his true identity.. for shame and embarrassment.
http://rethink911.org/
Scroll up to the ad hominem part of this article.
again… you cant tell the difference between ad hominem and a simple statement of facts.
fact.. you have been trolling the internet for years, posting on any and every post about 911..
ive said to you before id reveal who i am, and debate you on video.. any time, any where.. but you wont.. youre too scared..
poor sad allblurry smith..
doesnt even believe his own lies, no courage of conviction..