Saturday, 1 March 2008

UPDATE: Architects and Engineers For 911 Truth- More than 280* Building Experts say 911 was an Inside Job
More than Two Hundred and Eighty building experts now say that the attacks on the World Trade Centre Towers (and Building 7) were an inside job.

The reason for such a position is clear: there is overwhelming forensic evidence that demonstrates explosives MUST have been used on the buildings.

The official lies about 911 cannot be allowed to stand. Exposing the truth is necessary to stop any further staged attacks that could be used as an excuse to clamp down on civil liberties or as an excuse for a new War verses Iran. We live in dangerous times and we need experts like these to help fight against the lies. The analysis provided by these Architects and Engineers MUST be used by honourable Law Enforcement, Judicial and Military persons in actions against the real suspects. Don't let them get away with murder.


Unknown said...

I've posted a couple of other reponses to your previous posts, but I just have to say Steve, when all is said and done Occam's Razor fits very well here.

Nothing at all that I've seen in any 9/11 conspiracy theory leads me to believe for a second that the towers were brought down by explosives, nothing at all.

Showing some glowing things here and there with no idea of ALL the things that were inside those huge buildings, all the various electronics, UPS systems, computer systems, cooling etc. etc. etc.

There has been NO piece of evidence yet that has made me even go... 'wait a sec'.

Not one.

Terrorists flew planes into the towers, the nearby buildings were damaged from the taller ones and they all fell down.

Occam's Razor.

Unknown said...

And this in regards to the 'molten steel': (Actually, I like all of his rational explanations for all of the theories)

I mean really... all the conspiracy theorists have to go on is anecdotal 'evidence', and no hard facts at all.

Every time I look at one of the claims it's very, very easy to find the far more logical and rational counter argument for what actually happened.

SpookyOne said...

You should realise that Occam's Razor is only valid when it accounts for all the evidence. A simple explanation that doesn't fit the facts is no explanation at all. This is precisely the position you have taken.

You imply that you adhere to scientific principles but from what you have said, and the things you refer to, it is clear that this is not the case. You have been hooked on the pseudo scientific arguments, and unsubstantiated opinion put out by the debunkers. Please reconsider your position.

Your assertion that "showing some glowing things here and there with no idea of ALL the things that were inside those buildings" is an intellectual cop out.

We can actually determine what materials glow at what colours at what temperatures. Those "glowing things" in the rubble - the metal being dug up -can only be from a finite number of materials. Through the process of deduction we can determine that the large yellow orange lumps we saw can only be semi molten iron/steel at a temperature of 800-1000 degrees celcius. Other metals that constituted the building at such colours would have been in a liquid state.

We know for a fact, from independent analysis (and even from the official NIST report), that fires in the WTC builings were weak and did not reach above 650 degrees celcius- much too low to cause such catastrophic melting. Hence superhot steel constitutes a red flag in terms of the validity of the official account.

Thus far the two videos you cite in your case against the explosive demolition evidence (here & at skookyweather 21st Feb) have both been intellectually bankrupt. The falsehoods they contain are easily deconstructed when one is aware of the all important details (and the relevant scientifc facts).

If you think those videos represent a hard rebuttal to the "conspiracy claims" you are sorely mistaken. None of the evidence or arguments cited stand up to scrutiny.

In the video here "debunking" the evidence of Molten Steel we can observe a number logical fallacies and outright distortions of fact (lies). The video is a complete sham.

1. It opens with the claim that explosive incendaries, like thermate, could not have been used to maintain long lasting hot fires (keeping the steel molten) because the reaction would have been exhausted in a short amount of time. Regardless of this assertion, we nevertheless witnessed sustained amounts of incredible heat generated in the rubble pile, hot enough to melt steel or iron beams. Such severe 800+ degree celcius temperatures were not achieved in the initial fires high in the towers and one could not expect the rubble pile thereafter to take on such ridiculously hot furnace-like temperatures.

2. The video's claim that the NASA photos were consistent with fires of "greater than 800 F" deceptively implies that NASA did not consider their photos to show temperatures much exceeding this figure. In fact NASA only considered the orange pixels in their Infra red pics to be of temperatures greater than 800 F, the yellow pixels, however, were determined to represent temperatures exceeding 1300 F- which is over 700 degrees C. Hotter than for the initial builing fires as determined by NIST.

Also in the same "factoid" the video claims that the building fires had reached 1000 degrees celcius (1800 F). This is untrue and is not supported by ANY evidence- even the NIST report concedes this point. The initial fires did not surpass the 600-650 degrees C mark.

3. The video makes the darn right stupid claim that because the photographed yellow orange metal wasn't totally liquid (ie. in a pool), it cannot be considered molten metal- implying that it was not very hot. The metal, logically presumed to be steel, is nevertheless at a very high temperature, reasonably close to its melting point. And such high temperatures are not trivial things.

4. The very next false claim is that the hot steel seen in the pictures is consistent with "uncontroversial" temperatures of 1000-1341 F (700 degrees C)-implying that this is to be expected because the initial fires were so hot (the fires were not so hot !). Anyway, steel that takes on an orange colour IS consistent with these "lower" temperatures, but we have pictures of the steel appearing yellow/orange- indicating temperatures upwards towards 1000 degrees C- much hotter than could be achieved conventionally (a clear sign of foul play).

5.The video also shows one photo Steven Jones has used as evidence of molten metal that clearly consists of a high powered lamp. One debunked photo, however, does not diminish the significance of all the others- or the analysis. To claim otherwise is a sure sign of desperation.

6. The final error I will address (as it is getting late) is the videos attempt to claim the molten metal is probably aluminum (which softens & melts at lower temps). However, Aluminium at such a yellow orange colour is completely LIQUID thus ruling it out- and revealing the author of the video as either very ignorant, very mistaken or a con artist.

As you can see the video you have presented here is a work of misinformation. It is not science but a deception.

Don't forget that things are not what they seem and that difficult truths are often the hardest to spot. Most people miss them.

My hope is that we can all overcome the wall of misinformation so we can act to prevent the next false flag attack- undoubtly blamed on "Arab terrorists."

I personally would prefer to avoid such damaging confrontations.

Unknown said...

I'll just use another's great list of debunks:

And, from that list my main issue with all these collection of 'scholars' and people who have the 'knowledge':

# None of the conspiracy "scholars" have passed a peer reviewed paper in a respected scientific journal saying the collapse of the towers was impossible.
# Many peer reviewed papers have been passed in respected scientific journals saying the towers collapsed from impact and fire alone.
# The few scholars who say they are structural engineers and are conspiracy theorists are not working in the field.
# Dr. Fetzer wrote books on JFK and moon landing conspiracies.

SpookyOne said...

Spoco, no offense, but you don't have a clear understanding of the details or issues. Half baked answers, as seen in the link you provided, that avoid the observable data and proper context do not constitute an adequate rebuttal to the demolition evidence.

Taking issue with your summary points:

1. I'm sure you appreciate there is a great deal of politics involved in printing "controversial" papers in peer reviewed journals no matter how good the evidence (there are many past examples of this kind of negative reaction to "new" issues).

Of key importance is that the science backing the demolition hypothesis is sound. If the peer reviewed journals were truly fair they would publish and allow an open debate in the matter. Why has this not happened ?

2. As for peer reviewed papers backing the official story, perhaps you refer to the oft cited work of Dr Frank Greening ?
He's quoted extensively at that debunking link you provide. However, his modelling is junk. It's proveable B.S.

3. There ARE too Structural Engineers, currently employed that do question the official 911 story. Check out this list, which includes a lot of other Engineering types:

4. Jim Fetzer has been ditched as a leader in the 911 truth campaign. Why do you think there was a breakaway from his initial group by the leading academics involved in the debate ? Fetzer's been pushing unsupported hypotheticals for a while now and everyone knows about it. He is acting like a quack.

LASTLY: In reference to the link you sent. One quick demolition of their arguments.
They claim to be comparing apples with apples in terms of other fires destroying "steel framed" buildings (whilst 911 truth is comparing apples with oranges?). However, the writer here commits exactly the same crime he claims to avoid. The fires he references, as comparisons to the 911 WTC fires, were all much larger and hotter, in relation to those buildings' overall size. The buildings are also poor, if not ridiculous, comparisons.

The key example he proves is the McCormick Place fire in Chicago. This fire engulfed the entire structure and it only partially collapsed- the roof caved in. There is a photo of it in this article. You don't need to to read the text, just have a look at the photo.

As stated previously, no high rise steel framed building has previously collapsed due to fires.

You have to stop taking all these debunking claims at face value.