critical thinking about September 11, 2001

[W*GS]

Peer review has no meaning to gaffe. All that means is that the conspiracy is even deeper.

The funniest thing is that troofers are even more deluded than climate change deniers, and that's saying something.

[DenverBrit]

No kidding. They are 'hysterically deluded' by comparison.

Maybe Gaff can have Gage review the paper and tell him what to think.

[BroncoLifer]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Remember, that you didn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

I remember that well. For those who missed it, Gaff insisted that heat and temperature were exactly the same thing and repeatedly attempted to ridicule someone else who (correctly) pointed out the difference between them as ignorant. One of the funniest things I've read on this site.

[defilade]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It's pathetic that you continue to use that debunked con man and pseudo 'architect' then run over here expecting to be taken seriously.

Here's his 'masterpiece' of stupid.

Wow, Your kinda on the retarded side of things aren't ya! Here is a simple video for ya, Thought all the shock wore off people by now but I see some people are still clinging to the "Cavemen did it theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by defilade

Wow, Your kinda on the retarded side of things aren't ya! Here is a simple video for ya, Thought all the shock wore off people by now but I see some people are still clinging to the "Cavemen did it theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Another 'Troofer'.

So tell us YOUR version of the 'Troof' and explain why the peer reviewed paper is wrong. Assuming you're not Gaffney in drag.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by BroncoLifer

I remember that well. For those who missed it, Gaff insisted that heat and temperature were exactly the same thing and repeatedly attempted to ridicule someone else who (correctly) pointed out the difference between them as ignorant. One of the funniest things I've read on this site.

It's amazing that Gaffney didn't understand this concept.



But knows everything about structural engineering, demolition, nuclear fission and metallurgy.

[mhgaffney]

How a high school science prof upstaged and embarrassed the US government

In post # 24 I gave you the link to the final report about WTC-7 -- by the official government agency that did the investigation -- NIST.

I gave you the page number -- and the actual verbatim text -- the passage -- where NIST admits in its final report that building seven fell at free fall for 2+ seconds.

Thus, NIST itself supports the video by R Gage at the top of this thread.

It is curious that in its draft report on WTC-7 NIST denied that free fall had occurred. In the draft report NIST also stated that IF a free fall had occurred it would have been the tell-tale indicator for use of explosives.

The draft report was made public in August 2008. That same month NIST sponsored a public hearing for its draft report. A high school physics and math teacher named David Chandler showed up at the hearing and confronted the NIST scientists with his own mathematical analysis of the collapse of WTC-7 based on the videos of the collapse. His analysis concluded that free fall had occurred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

As a result of that presentation, NIST was forced to change its analysis - and this is reflected in the final report released a couple of months later. NIST conceded in its final report that Chandler was right - -that free fall did occur.

Curiously -- NIST dropped the passage where it stated that free fall is the tell tale sign of a demolition.

A high school science teacher embarrassed a gov't agency staffed with hundreds of scientists and funded with a nearly endless budget. This is one of the great stories about 9/11. This story should have been front pages news -- and rated a headline in the NY Times (i.e., NIST UPSTAGED BY HS SCIENCE PROF) But as we know --the US media never so much as mentioned it.

This is the state of affairs in America today. It's why I titled my latest book Black 9/11 --

Darkness has descended upon the nation. Fools chase their tails and call it normal.

The blind lead the blind.

Meanwhile we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

MHG

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

How a high school science prof upstaged and embarrassed the US government

This bull**** claim was covered over two years ago.

gaffe, you're constantly dredging up old debunked **** and presenting as new.

WTF is your problem?

You're as bad as the climate change deniers who state that the satellite record shows cooling - which was fixed back in 2006.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

The blind lead the blind.

And you're making money from the corpses of dead innocents. Truly a darkness.

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Meanwhile we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

That makes you orgasm, doesn't it?

[defilade]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Another 'Troofer'.

So tell us YOUR version of the 'Troof' and explain why the peer reviewed paper is wrong. Assuming you're not Gaffney in drag.

Yep, building 7 came down due to normal office fires according to nist. Wow, just wow. Do you know how to butter bread?

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by W*GS

This bull**** claim was covered over two years ago.

gaffe, you're constantly dredging up old debunked **** and presenting as new.

WTF is your problem?

You're as bad as the climate change deniers who state that the satellite record shows cooling - which was fixed back in 2006.



And you're making money from the corpses of dead innocents. Truly a darkness.



That makes you orgasm, doesn't it?

It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.

Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??

What was incorrect and why??

Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by defilade

Yep, building 7 came down due to normal office fires according to nist. Wow, just wow. Do you know how to butter bread?

The cause is well documented, it's only the Troofer wackos who ignore the facts and dream up looney conspiracy theories. So what have you got, other than sophomoric responses to real questions??

There was no mystery to those who fought the fires on the ground. But you know what they don't, right??

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by defilade

Wow, Your kinda on the retarded side of things aren't ya! Here is a simple video for ya, Thought all the shock wore off people by now but I see some people are still clinging to the "Cavemen did it theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Idiotic video that ignores the good engineering practices that go into building high rises.

Hint: High rises are designed to fail as gracefully as possible. If the WTC buildings had not been well designed, they might well have toppled over like dominoes instead of failing relatively gracefully as they did.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

The cause is well documented, it's only the Troofer wackos who ignore the facts and dream up looney conspiracy theories. So what have you got, other than sophomoric responses to real questions??

There was no mystery to those who fought the fires on the ground. But you know what they don't, right??

...not to mention the energy equivalent of two small tactical nukes being detonated near/under its foundation (i.e. the energy from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2).

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.

Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??

What was incorrect and why??

Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.

He won't even tell us what Venus is.

He's a cowardly chicken****. That's all. Oh, and with pervasive mental illness. A true nutjob.

[StugotsIII]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Richard Gage presents a 10-minute primer on 9/11

that will change the way you think about the issue.

Not to be missed...

http://youtu.be/vZAHp_zSGd8

Didn't watch.


**** you…by the way.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by W*GS

He won't even tell us what Venus is.

He's a cowardly chicken****. That's all. Oh, and with pervasive mental illness. A true nutjob.

I doubt Gaffney could make himself look any more ridiculous, but he'll try anyway.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.

[SIZE="4"]Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??

What was incorrect and why??[/SIZE]

Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.

Bazant's paper dealt only with WTC 1 and 2 -- not building 7. Citing him here was off topic-- because this thread is primarily about WTC 7.

Nonetheless, let's look at Bazant's paper.

He claimed that the top floors of the WTC acted like a hammer and crushed the floors below -- causing a so called "classical collapse" of the remaining floors -- all the way to the ground.

Bazant's paper has been discredited. There are a number of fatal problems with his analysis.

1. Energy can only be expended once. If you look at the collapse videos -- one can clearly see that the top floors disintegrate before our eyes. They turn to dust in mid air.

This disintegration expends the potential energy contained in the top floors. Once it is expended -- that energy is no longer available to exert a crushing effect on the floors below. This is according to the law of conservation of energy.

Therefor, the top floors could not and did not cause the lower floors to fail. Only explosives could have done it.

2. Also -- Bazant's paper fails to explain why the collapse continued all the way to the ground. As you move lower in the WTC the steel beams get heavier and stronger. The lightest beams are at top. For this reason -- even assuming he was correct about the crushing effect -- the collapse should have self arrested long before it reached the ground. At least a third of the WTC would have been left standing.

3. The symmetric nature of the collapse is another fatal problem. The planes and fires affected only certain floors and only a part of the WTC. Any collapse should have been asymmetric. The top of the tower would have tipped over. Only explosives can cause a perfectly symmetric collapse -- a perfect foot print.

I have given you three reasons why Bazant's analysis was wrong. Any one of them is sufficient to overthrow his paper. All three together leave no doubt. He got it wrong.

MHG

[DenverBrit]

.

Yep, still looking ridiculous.

The paper was peer reviewed by some of the best in their field.

You, on the other hand, are a hack, with absolutely no credentials or expertise and one wacko, narcissist!

Oh, and your comments are bull****!!

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

.

Yep, still looking ridiculous.

The paper was peer reviewed by some of the best in their field.

You, on the other hand, are a hack, with absolutely no credentials or expertise and one wacko, narcissist!

Oh, and your comments are bull****!!

Someone requested that I not provide links to "truther" sites - so I explained the problems with Bazant's paper myself in plain English.

Your reaction shows you can't handle substance. As usual, you attack the messenger.

Sad -- so sad.

MHG

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by mhgaffney

Someone requested that I not provide links to "truther" sites - so I explained the problems with Bazant's paper myself in plain English.

Your reaction shows you can't handle substance. As usual, you attack the messenger.

Sad -- so sad.

MHG

First. You're not remotely qualified to critique a peer reviewed paper on the WTC tower's collapse.

Second. As the sources of the comments you posted are not yours, where are those sources of the critique? Troofer sites?

Third. Why is it that you, of all people, think you are more knowledgeable than the Engineering PHDs, from around the world, who signed off on the paper?

As I said, you're a wacko narcissist.

Here. Discredit these papers with your knowledge of organic gardening.

Building 7.

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf

And how about Dr.Keith Seffen, of Cambridge University and his paper on the collapse? Are you also qualified to critique that paper too??

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm


Get over yourself Gaffney, you're a money grubbing fraud and nothing more.

[defilade]

It's amazing how one could not believe for a moment that bombs could not have been the reason for the buildings to come down like they did! Really it's only posted all over MAINSTREAM MEDIA during that day!!! stupid idiots! and guess what? people that were there said the same thing!

MAINSTREAM REPORTING--------->>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT8aYGtyi-M

[defilade]

Dam office fires! Hate it when it throws steels I beams the size of cars into other buildings 300 feet! Gotta get a grip on those Explosive Office fires! Are you for real! Oh and hurry up and put that steel on barges on a one way trip to China.. We wouldn't want any evidence around! Oh and we won't mention how concrete turns to dust befire hitting thr ground... OFFICIAL STORY IS FOR MOONBATS!!!

[myMind]

Originally Posted by DenverBrit

Here's his 'masterpiece' of stupid.

My god that man is an idiot.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by defilade

Dam office fires! Hate it when it throws steels I beams the size of cars into other buildings 300 feet! Gotta get a grip on those Explosive Office fires! Are you for real! Oh and hurry up and put that steel on barges on a one way trip to China.. We wouldn't want any evidence around! Oh and we won't mention how concrete turns to dust befire hitting thr ground... OFFICIAL STORY IS FOR MOONBATS!!!

Junior, we already have Gaffney making an ass of himself with simplistic troofer nonsense, he doesn't need an assistant.

[DenverBrit]

Originally Posted by myMind

My god that man is an idiot.

And he's the troofers structural engineering expert.

You should see their demolition expert, stumpy.