Just over a week ago, I was at a local 9/11 Truth event to interview members of the movement on behalf of Skeptical Inquirer. After my talk with one of the speakers, I approached two guys up at the front of the church where the event was going to be held. I remembered that they filmed, but you know, that’s totally fine. It gives you a chance to see me nod and look deep. Here’s what they got:
A choice selection of the comments:
watch everyones eyes, look at the calculation in the bearded guys eyes… he is info collecting! for the think tanks to see how to better do it next time. to see what we think, and how “they” messed up in our eyes.
Of course I’m info collecting–I’m conducting an interview! Silly goose! Of course, I like being known only as “the bearded guy.” It’s not quite as cool as “the one-armed man,” but I’ll settle for what I can get!
Good work- although I would have liked to see more of the skeptic’s responses
That’s healthy, I think. I would have been happy to reciprocate with an interview, if we had thought about it or if I were at all worth interviewing. But they were very nice to sit down with me.
All our protesting and discussions only fuel the evil elite with how to fool us better the next time. They study us and our reactions. He askes “What would an investigation look like to YOU” so next time it LOOKS better!
Dude, you have no idea how utterly unconnected I am. I was asking what would satisfy a Truther that a fair investigation had been done. That’s all. Also, I have implanted a chip in your brain and know what you’re going to say, because I put your ideas there.
this is all a waste of time. this is just more Jewish diversions on how 9/11 was done. 911MissingLinks(.)com has already covered who did 911. Israeli Mossad and the Neocons (Jews) within the government pulled off 911
You suck.
apparently a beard and snarky conjecture cannot stand up to the truth
Um…That’s not even a thought. (See? THAT’S snark.)
when we are finally free – we will be coming for you NWO – i just want you to remember that
when the peaceful revolution has succeeded
i am going to enjoy locking you globalists scum bags in a concrete cage for the rest of your lives
we will map your very DNA using the systems you created to enslave us
The less said about the irony here, the better.
RJB
Skeptical Humanities 
A “choice” selection indeed — but probably not the way you meant that.
What kind of “skeptical inquirer” goes up to the rank and file of some grassroots organization, quote-mines for idiotic statements, and portrays them as representative of the best that the movement has to offer? Is it not obvious that that is the very essence of a strawman attack?
I still haven’t seen any answer from anyone about how the upper part of a modern skyscraper can come down in free fall, allegedly crushing the very steel that held it up for 14 years. An object in free fall cannot do work, because it’s gravitational potential energy is being converted 100% into kinetic energy, at a rate that precisely cancels the inertia of what is falling. NIST’s lead WTC investigator already admitted both parts of this question — that freefall occurred for more than 2 seconds, and (earlier) that it means there was nothing underneath slowing the building down. What neither he nor anyone else at NIST has ever explained is how this can happen without explosives.
Is there any way to make this question any clearer or more compelling?
Is there any way in which your evasion of this question could make your bias any clearer? When all your skepticism is applied to one side of the debate, that again is the very definition of bias.
Actually, I was restrained–there are all sorts of strange things in those comments. And I put up the one where someone was interested in dialog, a positive statement, in my book.
RJB
The fact you can hear the collapse demonstrates that not 100% of the energy was kinetic energy. Therefore, I reject your premise and need not discuss it further. You are already wrong.
Really Bob? I spoke with you for some time in East Atlanta, and again two days later on the Tech campus. You didn’t strike me as that ignorant.
Hi, Joe. I checked and my mom says I’m not ignorant. 🙂
It’s just that the very basis of discussion, a basic agreement on 1) what the “facts” are and 2) which are “relevant,” is not even possible when the two camps have their own premises.
I have begged members of the local Truth community to look at Ryan Mackey’s critique of Griffin’s hypothesis. Repeatedly. I have seen not a single one even attempt to so much as look at it. I…just can’t take someone that disinterested in the other side seriously. How could I, if they are not open to the fact that they could ever possibly be wrong?
I had a good time at the convention and post-convention wingding. I met some neat people who are very passionate, motivated and earnest. But it was at times a little distressing to see so many people who are clever in their daily lives clinging to the same 7 or 8 bits of ‘inexplicable’ data, referring it over and over–even phrased in the same way [belying a common source, like a communal chant, almost–repeated over and over: if I hear “into it’s own footprint one more time,” I’m going to scream :)].
I stepped outside of my area of confidence and stood up as the only person in the house who subscribed to a different theory. And it was a strangely emotionally affecting experience like none I had ever had before, to be the only outsider. I’ve felt “different,” but never that different. But I went there. And I still can’t get a single person in the Truth movement to read Ryan Mackey’s excellent, thorough, and comprehensive white paper on Giffin’s claims (and Richard told me on tape that there is no point on which he substantively disagrees with Griffin–and _even he said_ that he had heard of but had not read Mackey). Mackey’s paper is not peer-reviewed, but he _shows me his equations_ and the intelligent non-expert can follow them.
I once taught a critical thinking class astrology and offered to do birth charts for all of my students (I don’t believe in astrology). So I asked for students who wanted me to do one to sign in and include their birthday and city of birth (for no real reason) down. I printed up the charts, put them in envelopes, labeling them and distributing them by birth dates. I told them to read them, put them back in the envelopes and write across the seal a number from 1 to 10 about how accurate my of them horoscope was. Almost without exception, every student found that it described them very, very well. An average of at least 8 of 10. Then I had them reopen their envelopes and compare them to each other. THEY WERE ALL EXACTLY THE SAME HOROSCOPE. When I wrote the one single horoscope, I put in words about how they are probably a little smarter than most people, that they are high achievers, that excel at..oh, everything.
The point of this exercise is that you can pay anyone a compliment and they will always, always accept them. You can usually get people to PAY for them. (You can also always sell hope–ask any quack health salesman.)
For all the self-congratulation (totally irrelevant to the science of the collapses) that went on at the rally, and there was a lot of it, it takes nothing to preach to the choir, where you are unlikely to be challenged. A lot of what I heard at that conference was praise and saying how brave everyone there was, and so on. People will respond emotionally to that favorably _whether or not it’s true_.
Do what I did, step outside your comfort zone and just for a day not immerse yourself in the self-congratulating echo chamber.
Just give Mackey a try.
RJB
Bob,
Sorry you haven’t heard from me in a while, but you overwhelmed me with so many words! I don’t have time for so many words, so I’ll just try to make my points briefly.
No offense intended, but what seemed ignorant to me was your conclusion that because you can hear the collapse it “demonstrates that not 100% of the energy was kinetic energy.”, so therefore you completely reject the writers premise, and “need not discuss it further.” REALLY Bob? Please. I’m no physicist, but if kinetic energy is the energy of motion, and as NIST admitted, for at least 2 seconds the entire building experienced free-fall acceleration, that would seem to demonstrate that for at least those 2 seconds, 100% of the energy was kinetic. In any case, what if only 98% was kinetic energy? I guess you’re right. Reject the entire premise and don’t discuss it any further. (I’d call that burying your head in the sand – sort of ignorant.)
I don’t know how you presume that “Repeatedly. I have seen not a single one even attempt to so much as look at” Mackey’s writings. Do you have some magical power that enables you to know what people are reading and looking up on their home computers (NSA)? ….never mind – I won’t go there…
So, I did download the 313 page Mackey report you referred to. I read some of it, in particular the part relevant to the subject of WTC7 – in particular his claim that the events surrounding WTC7 had happened in the past. (By the way, the first sentence of the paragraph referring to steel buildings collapsing due to fire reads – “While there may be no examples of high-rise office buildings completely collapsing due to fire…”) For all his research he only comes up with 3 examples. The first is the McCormick Place Exhibition Hall fire in 1967, which he describes as “one such example, which collapsed in 1967 only 30 minutes after a small fire was accidentally started.” The newspapers of the time described the fire as “The 1960 exposition hall was destroyed in a spectacular 1967 fire, despite being thought fireproof by virtue of its steel and concrete construction. At the time of the fire, the building contained highly combustible exhibits, several hydrants were shut off, and there were no sprinklers on the main floor where the fire started. Thus the fire spread quickly and destructively, taking the life of a security guard.”
You can check out pictures of the scene, post fire here:
You will notice that the building did NOT completely collapse at all, nor did ANY of the outer supporting walls collapse. Sort of like comparing apples and rocks, (it doesn’t even fall into the the category of oranges) don’t you think Bob??
His second example is of the Mumbai High North Oil Platform fire.
There are several problems with comparing these two incidents as well. The least of which being that this was AN OIL PLATFORM, and therefore had an endless supply of fuel to feed the fire, as well as the fact that it was AN OIL PLATFORM, and therefore had no fire protection on the steel, as well as the fact that is was AN OIL PLATFORM, and was 7 stories tall, and was therefore not constructed with nearly the same grade or thickness of steel that was used in the construction of
WTC7. AND, by the way – the oil platform was also STRUCK BY A SHIP – which we all know did not happen with WTC7.
You can view a picture of the fire here:
As you can plainly see, the fire here does not begin to compare with the fire in WTC7.
Mr. Mackey’s third example is of a highway overpass. Really?
So, based on your theory that if one statement is not 100% true, I guess I should dismiss the other 312 pages of Mackey’s writing, isn’t that correct Bob?
Anyway, I’ve already broke my promise about not spending a lot of time or writing a lot of words.
As for your experience at the “rally” over the weekend and your generalization that it was seemingly a bunch of weak-minded people mindlessly repeating lines that had been somehow programmed into their heads (think “WMD”, “Bin Laden did 9/11” “Sadam was involved in 9/11”, etc., etc.).
I’ll tell you that with the exception of a few friends that were in from NY and CA, I had never met most of those people until that day myself, so I wasn’t running around “self-congratulatorily” patting anyone on the back. I will say this Bob – if you get a group of teachers together at
a teacher’s conference (or “rally” as you put it), I would expect the topic of conversation to be mostly be about teaching and the issues that teachers have in common on a daily basis.
Most all of the people that were there DO “step outside their comfort zone” everyday Bob. To criticize them for commiserating on issues that we all face in our effort to spread the truth seems to be a bit immature to me. The fact is the purpose of the “rally” was for you Bob.
It was a gathering of people who wanted to open your eyes to some facts you may not have been aware of, and to break you out of that “comfort zone” you and many others seem to be in.
As for your astrology class, and your horoscope exercise. You’re bringing human emotion into the conversation, which really has nothing to do with what we were talking about. What it does
demonstrate to me however, is how easy it is to get a group of people to see what you want them to see.
As citizens we have a constitutional obligation to question our government. Most people don’t do it because it’s outside their “comfort zone”. They would rather believe their government would NEVER be involved in any kind of a covert operation that might lead to American citizens deaths (hear Gulf of Tonkin, War in Iraq, etc. etc. etc.).
So let’s stick to the issues. WTC7. Free-fall acceleration. Nano-thermite residue. That’s a start.
Bob, when will you allow yourself to understand what is the reality as opposed to what a lying govt. has told you? http://www.NYCCAN.org
Bob this is ridiculous. What you are doing is engaging in semantical hair splitting and avoiding the reality of what free fall accelerations through the path of greatest resistance actually means. It means that all of the core columns would have to be severed within one/tenth of a second of one another in order for a global collapse of Building 7 to occur. Fire’s are incapable of producing this in the real world. They don’t even match up with reality in closed black box computer models that NIST fabricated to avoid the smoking gun evidence that demands a new investigation.
Watch the video yourself at rememberbuilding7.org
It’s obvious you choose to be wilfully ignorant of the facts and continue to engage in ad hominem, red herring, and straw man attacks rather than the evidence. I would reconsider your aiding and abetting the criminals responsible for these heinous crimes with your deplorable unskepticism.
Also you never responded to my email with any response whatsoever to the numerous facts I laid out to you, which refute entirely , many of your erroneous statements regarding the scattered and asymmetrical fires that dotted building 7 on 9/11. Versus your reliance on supposedly eye witness responses whose accounts are entirely unverified by any photo or video evidence whatsoever.
Even though Building 5 was engulfed with flames for many hours across a majority of it’s floors and received much greater damage from falling debris as it was located much closer to the twin towers, it managed to maintain its structural integrity and actually had be demolished later. Why would Building 7 miraculously fall through itself because of small scattered office fires.
Real skeptics would like to know.
Here is a video you should see if you are going to persist in pseudoskepticism.
I challenge you to refute any of the claims featured therein.
@Bob- Lol. Didn’t you see his comment? NIST (authors of the “official” explanation have acknowledged freefall. The foundations of your arguements are non existent. NIST acknowledged freefall Bob, of course only after the scientists in the Truth Movement forced their hand. You think this video got done interesting comments? Just wait until one of us publishes our video taped debate on the Georgia Tech Campus. That will be one for the History Books. I just hope that when all this is said and done that you don’t spend the rest of your life behind bars for criminal cover-up of pre-meditated mass murder. Thanks for coming out to our event!!!
Sincerely,
Daniel Edd Bland III
3rd ACR, Iraq Service April-Nov 2003
2 planes. 3 buildings. The math isn’t that difficult. I thought you worked at Tech. And oh, the 2 planes didn’t even cause thecollaoses of the Towers. Remember, they remained standing after the crashes. So it must have been the roaring fires that made them collapse , but even fires roaring from hell itself wouldn’t weaken those massive steel columns.
If I were to sit and count all the IMpossibilities that occurred that day, It would take hours.
Bob- You are misstating the facts and you know it. You know as well as anyone that NIST (authors of the “official” explanation) was finally forced to acknowledge that Building 7 did indeed collapse at “freefall” speed for a portion of it’s visible collapse at the behest of the early scientists in the 9/– Truth Movement. This video is peanuts compared to the debate footage we have with you at Georgia Tech. Given that you are paid by a state institution and the “Skeptical Inquirer” (lol) to defend the “official” 9/– conspiracy theory, I can only hope the people want use this evidence against you in a case of criminal cover-up of the pre-meditated mass murder of September 11, 2001.
Thank you for helping us bring attention to the single mist important important issue of our generation.
Sincerely,
Daniel Edd Bland III
3rd ACR, Iraq April-Nov 2003
Bob- If you are gonna censor my comments, I’ll just post it on my blog and go hand out business cards all over the English area on the Georgia Tech Campus. You can not stop the TRUTH!!!
DBIII
Bob your interaction with 9/11 “Truther’s” mirrors my own. The same no-nothing, conspiracy thinking woo. I too was accussed of being part of the conspiracy to cover-up the truth. The result is I have nothing to say to these people except derision. Your quotes are priceless. The old Jewish conspiracy meme is still going after 1,000 years since little St. William died. Its nice to know an oldy and bady is still around spreading its poison.
same here Pacal they are like a Palin girl. Just one sided and blinders on.
pascal, why is Bob still keeping 9/11 family members posts ‘in moderation’ while allowing for you to argumentum ad hominem? http://www.RememberBuilding7.org
Funny, the neocons they rail against also are against tabloid entertainment, refocusing on the families, etc. These are easy, easy targets for talking points rather than answers. I don’t see any “schoolling” here. Just a Q&A session that goes nowhere.
fund, did you know that 70% of family members questions were never answered during the political sham known as the 9/11 commission investigation?
I’ve been studying the crimes of 9/11 for over 2 years now. Muslim terrorists DID NOT cause all THREE buildings to fall that day. You can clearly see the explosions in these 2 videos of WTC1. Be sure to watch them with full screen.
I have been trying my best to alert America since I discovered the lies of 9/11. If you still believe the official story I’d be glad to debate you or answer any questions that you may have.
A forensic financial investigation reveals the perpetrators of 911 using SEC web posts, Federal Reserve Working Papers and banking records. I still wonder why I’m the only one that spent the time to do this.
Part 1: http://www.box.net/shared/4vbu1tkq32
Part 2: http://www.box.net/shared/yghazdjnmd
A physics and chemistry analysis of the USGS Scanning Electron Microscopy analysis of dust samples reveals how they did it.
http://www.box.net/shared/hf1eev4jvv
Dan, the real problem here is that people have chosen, or been guided, to debate the wrong issues. There isn’t one single assertion that can be argued in my books. Not one. You can’t argue against factual data. Of course nothing in my books is discussed in the mainstream truth debate.
Just think, some day* I will be able to look back and say, “Oh, yes, Skeptical Humanities. I was one of the early followers, and quite enjoyed the literature and history discussions. Then someone who will remain nameless had to go to a truther conference, and the whole thing collapsed under a wave of loons.”
* Probably sometime next month, at this rate.
ken, can you explain the free fall of the Salomon Brothers bldg. better than what the govt. had attempted?
*Ahem* (Looks around for the perp.)
RJB
*Ahem* your refusal to approve a victims’ family member comments speaks volumes Bob … http://www.RememberBuilding7.org
Hey Ken,
I’m another one of your “loons” that went to that conference. Do you know about the molten iron flowing out of the south Tower and seen by many eyewitnesses for months after 9/11. See it here:
and here:
I’d love to hear your explanation for all this. If you have none, I’d be glad to share mine.
I totally agree……..the truthers are getting out of control they should be hanged and quartered. Or just kicked out of this country. Send them to Pakistan. eh?
Arnold,
Explain the molten metal. Explain the free fall acceleration of Building 7 through it’s own foundation. Explain the explosions in the lobby and basements of the Towers?
thanks this is my new favorite news page.
You guys rock.
arnold, are you being serious, or are you attempting humor as opposed to being an adult and acknowledging the facts of the case?
Bob do you enjoy shooting fish in a barrel? Sadism might seem fun at first but how long do you put yourself through that brain wringer until it becomes masochism?
http://www.genadycherepanov.com/911.asp Skip down to bottom for quick explanation of fracture theory
I think the truth was glossed over in the beginning, any real science kind of gave way to breathless panting. But now ten years after, we’re still not talking science. 9/11 has left the mainstream conversation, and the remaining people interested are on the fringe (and how!), and generally interested in promoting themselves and THEIR truth rather than the truth.
So i’m in agreement on the fracture theory. Not because i understand large-scale mechanics or anything, but this is the only guy i’ve seen take a generally scientific approach to the whole problem.
My second favorite “theory” comes from my father, a 35 year Miami firefighter and USAR man at Ground Zero: “Joe, when you build something that tall you’re stretching every material to a limit that it didn’t even have 75 years ago. Not to mention, when you do get that penthouse 100 stories up the totem pole, what happens when there’s a fire on the ground floor? I have a solution – don’t build the frickin things”.
My favorite parallel to draw in the 9/11 case is to earthquakes. The first class i ever took in college was Geology 1000, or “rocks for jocks”. We learned about earthquakes and their destructive effect on cities, namely on high rise buildings.
Interestingly, the destruction of most buildings in major quakes cannot be attributed to the ground movement – as violent as it can get, it just doesn’t explain how so many buildings designed to withstand quakes can fall. The answer, we find, lies in which buildings.
The majority of destruction will always occur among buildings of a certain height, a range in between which is said to occur the resonance effect. Much like the right note at the right volume can shatter a glass, the earthquake’s vibrations hit buildings of a certain height and resonate up and down the structure, causing much more damage than they should.
In the case of 9/11, while we may not have earthquake damage, we do have a huge, overstressed building hit at just the right point to set off a cascade of effects. While you might ask “How could anyone get away with building something so big it’s a risk to itself?”, you could ask the same thing about the Titanic, with the basic answer being “Money gets public officials to sign off on some strange ass shit”. Not that this eliminates the conspiracy element altogether, but my gut (and my Gillette Moccam 3 Razor) tell me that it’s more likely some greasy bureaucrats from NY allowed shoddy building practices and told people, than it is that a bunch of sauced up dilettantes on the Hill blew up a building and told no one.
So, there it is. Two large buildings destroyed by incredibly powerful forces that needed a very complex sequence of events to happen just a certain way, all fairly describable by science. Care to read up on the field, gain a new perspective on the world, perhaps even fact check me, vet this obscure scientist I mention?
Eidt: nevermind, the scientist is a Russian/Ruskie/Communist. New Conspiracy Theory! Bwaaahaaa
Amazing how there are still people who believe the govt.’s conspiracy theory concerning the murder of my Uncle. ken, pascal, fund, arnold: cognitive dissonance is not an endearing quality. Surely, everyone is in agreement that there has never been an honest investigation by our govt., while there has been a comprehensive and fact-driven world-wide investigation by the courageous and the persistent from a range of disciplines. And surely everyone can be inspired by what victims’ family members have accomplished by standing up against the lies, omissions, distortions, and contradictions of our complicit corporate media and corrupt govt. Bob, please reference the evidence as it stands that can be found here: http://rememberbuilding7.org/free-fall-collapse/ and here: http://rememberbuilding7.org/destruction-of-evidence/ and here: http://rememberbuilding7.org/explosive-residues/ and keep going through the rest of the site in order to learn the facts of the case.
Joe,
Do you understand that Building 7 wasn’t hit by a plane. The plane crashes DID NOT directly cause any of the 3 collapses because the Towers remained standing after the crashes. One of the Towers had fires that lasted only about an hour. Do you honestly think an hour of fire can weaken any steel much less the massive steel columns that supported two of the largest buildings on earth.
Again Building 7 WAS NOT HIT by a plane.
Again your mother did NOT HAVE SEX with that man, it was the apparition of God later on in her dreams that miraculously conceived you.
And yes an hour of fire of that size is plenty hot to do the deed, especialy when that steel is under massive compression, which causes heat.
joe, are you being serious, or are you making stuff up based on what you have been told?
I quote Mackey, which nobody here seems willing to click on and read:
“Dr. Griffin begins the section by asking the following: “How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since completely collapsed due to fires?” [22] He then paraphrases the NIST Report, noting that (as NIST correctly states) there are no previous incidents of structures suffering a comparable aircraft impact followed by fires. While Dr. Griffin agrees with this sentiment, he observes that this alone is not sufficient to explain how the collapses took place.
“While there may be no examples of high-rise office buildings completely collapsing due to fire, it bears pointing out that there have been many steel-frame structure collapses due solely to fires. The McCormick Place exhibition hall is one such example, which collapsed in 1967 only 30 minutes after a small fire was accidentally started [23]. Another prominent example is the Mumbai High North Oil Platform [24], constructed of steel and seven stories high, which completely collapsed after burning for two hours following a shipping accident that ruptured oil lines. A third example, occurring after Dr. Griffin’s manuscript was finalized, is the collapse of the Interstate 580 overpass in the MacArthur Maze [25] near San Francisco. This overpass, supported only by steel beams, suffered no impact but collapsed due to the heat of an 8,600 gallon gasoline fire, burning in the open below, after nineteen minutes.
“Because of incidents like these, the risk of collapse due to fire is well understood by the construction industry. Richard Schulte in the International Code Council editorial column Fire Protection made the argument, prior to the NIST investigation, that the fires in the World Trade Center were vastly beyond any reasonable design criterion:
“Does the fact that both of the World Trade Center towers collapsed on the morning of September 11 validate the concept of “balanced” fire protection and does the World Trade Center towers collapse indicate that additional fire protection should be required in 100 story high rise buildings? The answer to both of these questions might be affirmative if the fires in the World Trade Center towers were typical fires which occur in high rise buildings, but the fires in the World Trade Center towers were anything but typical. The key question which must be answered in this debate is not whether the high rise building provisions contained in our model building codes are adequate, but what are our expectations regarding the structural stability of high rise buildings? It appears that the witnesses before the Congressional Committee have assumed that there is a consensus that buildings should remain stable, regardless of the magnitude of damage done to the building by terrorists (or the cost to construct such buildings). [26]
“While Mr. Schulte’s remarks about “expectations” were directed at the architectural community, Congress, and the American public, one could make a similar charge at Dr. Griffin. He has, thus far, given no scientific reason why the WTC Towers should not have collapsed; he has merely observed that the collapse was rare. This comes as no surprise, since the damage inflicted upon them was also rare, and large skyscraper fires in general are extremely unusual. Under ordinary circumstances, we expect skyscraper fires to be handled differently from fires in other structures (such as oil platforms) because skyscrapers are occupied, leading to rapid detection of fires and an inherently safer working environment; and because skyscraper fires are usually fought, constraining the fires and protecting the structure. The WTC fires could not be fought due to their sheer size and the damage to infrastructure (such as standpipes and elevators) caused by the aircraft impact. In every way the event was unusual.”
You might also look at the progressive collapse of the Ronan Point in Britain.http://failedarchitecture.tumblr.com/post/4632894296/the-downfall-of-british-modernist-architecture
(Remember, having established that steel can weaken, now we have the mechanism that the thing collapses by, which does not depend on the building material.)
RJB
You folks aren’t using your brain. Let me help you a little. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Do you understand this characteristic? When steel is heated at one spot, such as was happening in the crash impact zone, that heat would have been transferred away from that source to areas of lower temperatures. For example when you heat up one of those old cast iron skillets the heat will transfer to the handle and you’ll get burned without a pot holder. Now imagine how long and well connected all that steel was. Now I know you must agree with this.
So now Joe explain your “massive compression statement ” please.
From Mackey, which everyone here still needs to read.
How Did the Fires Help Induce Collapse?
“In the lede to this section, Dr. Griffin makes the argument that, since steel conducts heat, the fire would have to be exceptionally large, hot, and long-lasting, enough to heat a considerable fraction of the entire structure:
Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. If heat is applied to one portion of a steel beam, that portion will not be quickly heated up to the temperature of the flame, because the heat will quickly be diffused throughout the beam. Also, if that beam is connected to another one, the heat will be dispersed to that second beam. And if those two beams are interconnected with hundreds of other beams, the heat will be diffused throughout the entire network of beams. [39]
“Steel is actually not a particularly good conductor of heat [40]. Mild carbon steels, such
as the A36 alloy that dominated the Towers’ load-bearing structure, conduct roughly 50
Watts per meter-degree Kelvin [41], or about an eighth that of copper, which is a good
heat conductor. Furthermore, the specific heat of steel is about a third higher than
copper, meaning the steel not only transmits less heat, but it takes more heat to reach any given temperature. Combined, this makes copper about twelve times as susceptible to sympathetic heating as mild steel. As an unrelated point of interest, most alloys of steel, such as 304 Stainless, are even worse conductors – stainless steel transmits a third as much heat as mild steel or about 1/25th as much as copper.
Besides steel being at best a mediocre heat conductor, there is also the matter of great distances for this heat to be conducted. Suppose we consider a fire on six floors of the WTC towers, and we make the argument that the nearest six floors must also be heated, effectively cutting the fire’s efficiency in half. This means the heat flows through up to three floors’ worth of steel, or about eighteen meters, in both directions. The further we go from the source, the less heat is conducted, and eighteen meters is a considerable distance. At eighteen meters, we expect 1/18th as much heat flow through any given column compared to the heat flow one meter away from the fire. To transmit to the entire structure, we are dealing with over 300 meters of steel – this means a rise in temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius at the impact point, if we were to let the structure reach thermal equilibrium, results in less than 4 degrees Celsius increase at ground level, and given the physical properties of structural steel it would take roughly a week of continuous burning at the impact floors for this to happen. Clearly we should not expect the entire structure to be heated significantly, but that is exactly what Dr. Griffin claims.
“In contrast, any blacksmith will readily confirm that steel can be partly heated to a working temperature, while keeping the remainder cool enough to handle, using perfectly
21 ordinary fires. This is particularly true of slender objects like sword blades, horseshoes, and structural columns, because the slender profile of such objects presents a narrow conduction path, restricting heat flow. A similar effect can be recreated in the home, where cast-iron cooking pots can be heated to broiling temperature, yet still held without gloves via cast-iron handles only 20 or 30 cm long. To summarize, steel is not such a good conductor after all, and heat does not conduct quickly in any material when the distance is large compared to the cross-section.”
This is why having science on your side helps you make better arguments. Read Mackey.
RJB
Ok Bob. I just gave you an example of how heat is conducted through steel. Were you not listening. I tell you what. Since you think steel doesn’t conduct heat we’ll let you hold one end of a steel rod about 3 feet long and I’ll heat up the other end and we’ll see how long you can hold on to it. Bob, I remember telling you that I thought you were intelligent that night. I’m beginning to have second thoughts.
I’ll take that bet, but your sense of scale is way off! Put the end of a sixty foot long structural steel beam in a burning barrel and tell me how long it will take for the other end of it to heat up. Try it with the burning barrel at the top of the beam and not the bottom, and it would take even longer. The distance between red-hot and cool is very short in steel, which is why you can forge with it.
Jeez people. Because you are loading your comments with links and video, you tripped the spam filter. Calm down.
Eve and I were talking just the other day–before all this happened–and we decided that we would never EVER delete a non-spam comment.
Dang Bob! Ur lookin’ good!
Kind of you to say. Most people are too put off by the sheer force of my raw manliness.
RJB
From Mackey:
Steel is actually not a particularly good conductor of heat [40]. Mild carbon steels, such as the A36 alloy that dominated the Towers’ load-bearing structure, conduct roughly 50 Watts per meter-degree Kelvin [41], or about an eighth that of copper, which is a good heat conductor. Furthermore, the specific heat of steel is about a third higher than copper, meaning the steel not only transmits less heat, but it takes more heat to reach any given temperature. Combined, this makes copper about twelve times as susceptible to sympathetic heating as mild steel. As an unrelated point of interest, most alloys of steel, such as 304 Stainless, are even worse conductors – stainless steel transmits a third as much heat as mild steel or about 1/25th as much as copper.
Besides steel being at best a mediocre heat conductor, there is also the matter of great
distances for this heat to be conducted. Suppose we consider a fire on six floors of the WTC towers, and we make the argument that the nearest six floors must also be heated, effectively cutting the fire’s efficiency in half. This means the heat flows through up to three floors’ worth of steel, or about eighteen meters, in both directions. The further we
go from the source, the less heat is conducted, and eighteen meters is a considerable distance. At eighteen meters, we expect 1/18th as much heat flow through any given column compared to the heat flow one meter away from the fire. To transmit to the entire structure, we are dealing with over 300 meters of steel – this means a rise in temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius at the impact point, if we were to let the structure reach thermal
equilibrium, results in less than 4 degrees Celsius increase at ground level, and given the physical properties of structural steel it would take roughly a week of continuous burning at the impact floors for this to happen. Clearly we should not expect the entire structure to be heated significantly, but that is exactly what Dr. Griffin claims.
In contrast, any blacksmith will readily confirm that steel can be partly heated to a
working temperature, while keeping the remainder cool enough to handle, using perfectly 21
ordinary fires. This is particularly true of slender objects like sword blades, horseshoes,
and structural columns, because the slender profile of such objects presents a narrow
conduction path, restricting heat flow. A similar effect can be recreated in the home,
where cast-iron cooking pots can be heated to broiling temperature, yet still held without
gloves via cast-iron handles only 20 or 30 cm long. To summarize, steel is not such a good conductor after all, and heat does not conduct quickly in any material when the distance is large compared to the cross-section.
My bad, I didn’t notice Bob had already beat me to this quote.
Here’s one for you to debate. The official story says that the 15 floors of mass above impact zone of WTC crushed the 95 floors of mass below all the way down to the street. snicker, snicker. Yet when you watch the collapse of that building you can clearly see those 15 floors falling apart while if you train your eyes on the lower structure just below the impact zone it stays intact!!! Then it starts to explode. I can show you the videos that demonstrate all of this.
Is steel a good conductor of heat?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_steel_a_good_conductor_of_heat_and_electricity
It was ordinary office fires up against that steel no jet fuel just ordinary fires and there really isn’t much to burn in those offices because they have to meet fire codes. The jet fuel was mostly burned up on impact thus the GIGANTIC fireball that you’ve all seen (just like in the movies from HOLLYWOOD). Now how much of that fuel do you think was left after that explosion? Debunkers also blame the explosions in the lobby and basement on the jet fuel. So do you bright folks think the jet fuel could cause the GIGANTIC fireball on impact, also TRAVEL down the elevator shaft 95 floors exit exactly at the lobby and still have enough explosive force to blast out all the lobby windows and then be able to weaken massive steel columns too????????
Bob, invite all your willingly uninformed friends who have posted here to a live debate with this one condition: there has to be critical thought and logical reasoning involved, which is going to be thought for fund, pascal, ken, ‘summer fun’, joe and arnold. I am amazed that there are still those who believe what they are told by a corrupt govt. and a complicit corporate media as opposed to what a wealth of informed, obligated, the world over have researched and cited as fact. The evidence is there for all to acknowledge if they really care, instead of what you and your friends are told Bob, which is misrepresentation and uncorroborated tidbits at best. Learn the facts, and stop defending the professionals who have been lying to you throughout you and your students’ entire life. Your friends are making a great case for the failure of the American education system. http://911speakout.org/
Bob, there is nobility in the instinct to teach, but please understand, it is useless. I found this out almost twenty years ago (back when this was all done through Usenet) on the talk.origins group with the creationists, but the pattern repeats everywhere.
Teaching can help with the ignorant, since all they lack is knowledge. It can even help with the stupid, since they too can learn. But it cannot help with the committed, since they will not accept anything that contradicts their beliefs, no matter how often or how simply presented.
What’s the point in planting bombs in the lobby and bombs to “explode” the top section of the building, when the collapse obviously starts at the point of impact? How could bombs or incendiaries possibly survive the impact and fire caused by the airplane? Wouldn’t the seismograph data easily show the concussion from these explosions? It doesn’t, by the way.
Also, you imply that the strength of the building underneath is enough to stop the whole structure above from moving. Once that section collapses at all gravity multiples the effect of the weight above, and total collapse is inevitable. The resistance from air and the floor trusses would slow this by 10% or so each second, but since gravity is multiplying the force (not to mention the ever increasing mass of the falling building materials), all that mass below makes little difference. Remember, the tower is mostly empty floor space, it’s not a solid block of steel. It’s like Bruce Lee punching through a board, breaking through it doesn’t slow his hand down in any noticeable way, and unlike the WTC collapse, the mass of Bruce’s hand does not increase with time.
Could you please explain exactly what you think happened to the World Trade Center?
[…] The person that interviewed Bob and co has responded to the interview here: https://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/06/01/hey-maw-im-famous/ […]
Did anyone start reading Mackey? I merely ask. Post if you did.
RJB
I haven’t read Griffin either. You really don’t have to read a book to understand this. All of you should understand that the jet fuel was spent in the giant fireball and if that explosion didn’t ignite all the fuel then the remainder was sent flying outward in all directions with that explosion. So the jet fuel is out of the picture and you’re left with ordinary carbon based fires that have no affect on steel at all. So the Towers should have remained standing. What say you?
Dan – Can you provide a model for how much of the jet fuel was spent in the explosion? “It looks like all of it” is a bit vague.
So in your mind why don’t you tell me what happened to the jet fuel. It is up to you to prove that there was sufficient jet fuel to weaken the steel because without the jet fuel your case is hopeless. Do you envision that the jet fuel puddled all over one floor?
Here’s the fireball. How much of the fuel do you think was burned on impact?
It looks like a lot of fuel in that fireball, but could you please explain how much of the roughly 20k gallons of fuel on the plane was consumed. Since some/most of it would remain in a liquid form after impact, especially with little space inside the building to disburse in, most of it wouldn’t catch fire immediately. A lit match is extinguished if you throw it in a bucket of gas, it’s the fumes that are dangerous.
Once again, please provide a model for how much of that fuel would have been consumed in the fireball. The burden of proof is on you. “It looks like all of it to me” is not proof of anything.
I’ve got a little game I want all of you to play. The video below is of the North Tower collapsing. You can advance the video to about the 28th to 29th sec mark. The antenna starts falling first around the 31st sec mark. But what I want you to do is this. Take something that is horizontal like the edge of a piece of paper, envelope ,pencil and place it on your computer screen so that it is even with the top of the structure. Now advance the video but focus on that floor at the lowest point of fire and destruction. You’ll be able to see that the lower part of the structure remains intact as the upper structure is destroyed. this is very important because the official story says that those 15 floors of mass above were able to act as a pile driver and crush the other 95 floors but this video proves that those upper floors were being destroyed while the lower structure remained intact.
I can clearly hear that helicopter throughout the film, so where is the deafening sound of the thousands of pounds of explosives that you claim initiated the collapse? Again, how would bombs and incendiaries in that part of the building survive the impact and fires that followed? Wouldn’t the helicopter be sprayed with debris, and hit by a concussive shock wave?
Also, are you saying that since the debris broke up as it fell that its mass would change?
These are my unanswered questions about 9/11, please answer them before calling me and everyone else who questions your theories a shill for the government.
What I’m trying to say is “nothing happened to the lower structure as the upper structure feel”. Didn’t you see it.
And I don’t even know what a shill is. Why don’t you tell me.
My bad Dan, I’ve been reading too many youtube comments today, and heard the word shill one too many times.
I really do want to understand what you mean here. Do you mean that explosives went off in the top of the building before the impact area collapsed?
Summer….did you play the game? Tell me what you saw?
Dan, I obliged your request. I think I see what you are saying… The lowest point of the fire is BELOW the impact zone, however. Also, do you think that the mass of the upper floors (65 million pounds of rubble, with more added with each floor) no longer counts because it is coming apart? It doesn’t have to remain completely intact to destroy everything in its way.
Please explain how this is proof of explosives in the building. Also, since the whole section of the building is obviously on fire, how could explosives be expected to survive there or in the impact zones below?
That ain’t what I was saying. So since you can’t understand what I’m talking about maybe we should just forget it.
Another victory for 9/11 Truth!
Bob I just don’t know how you manage to be patient with all this 9/11 woo. Sad to say I think this is the largest number of comments you’ve ever had on a posting.
As you must have noticed from my own postings I have no patience at all for this.
By the way thanks for the link.
I have no patience for you people either. Mote and more and more people are understanding everyday. Why you people don’t get it is a mystery
I for one am extremely happy I don’t “get” conspiracy woo.
Are there any neutral people here.
🙂
plane wreckage at the pentagon. No plane wreckage at shanksville and no plane wreckage anywhere come to think about it.
Paschal. Do you realize that Building 7 fell through it’s own foundation as fast as a bowling ball through air. Waiting for your explanation.
DB
It’s Pacal not Paschal. As for the rest. Keep fantasizing.
So you don’t have an explanation bout Building 7????? Don’t worry no one else does either. Except the folks that know what really happened.
The bearded guy (skeptic mag?) can kiss my ass!
Kinky!
I’ll give all of you one more chance. How could Building 7 have fallen through it’s own foundation as fast as a bowling ball through air?
Building 7 can be explained like a game of Zenga.
In Zenga, A players take turns removing support pieces from the base of a tower. Eventually, when the support system fails -> the tower collapses.
Back to real life. The fires were on floor 6. Steel does not melt until about 1200 degrees Celsius. However, it does loose structural integretity at degrees far below. So instead of removing pieces like in the Zenga game, support columns were weakened. The moment that Normal Force can not sustain the force of gravity of the floors in building 7, it collapses in freefall.
Other WTC buildings were pulled, a method of demolition not involving explosives. WTC building 7 could have been pulled. Why on earth would they mix explosives with fire, when an easier method of removing the building was present?
If you want to be ignorant and be a proud conspiracy theorist, go ahead. Your assumptions are appalling. Your logic could not be any more irrational. Your wasting your time. So continue believing this lie you think is the truth. You will be branded an idiot.