Remembering Building 7

[BeNotDeceived]

Richard Gage is a moron.

Is he a moron because you can't handle the truth? And if someone like him is a moron, what does that make you?

[Res Ipsa]

So you believe a theory on the basis of the number of people who agree? Come on.

But if you want to do it by numbers, okay. There are well over 3 million engineers and architects in this country. 3,000 of that number is 1/10th of 1 percent, so far more than 99.9% of architects and engineers in this country did not sign.

Like I said, though, numbers like your 3,000 are irrelevant. I'm having a difficult time believing you've really researched this if that's your argument.

Yeah, my 7 years of research and conclusions based on scientific evidence, facts, eyewitness accounts and broken laws of physics rests upon the # of architects and engineers who have signed a document calling the destruction of 3 WTC skyscrapers a controlled demolition.

What education, training and or experience gives you the expertise to understand and evaluate scientific evidence, investigate and evaluate the entire set of available facts, evaluate the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and determined whether the consensus explanation for what happened to the buildings violates the laws of physics. Perhaps, most importantly, how much effort have you spent understanding and considering the rebuttals to evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it?

A good place to start. Describe, as accurately as you can without reference to any materials, what the consensus view is and the relevant evidence that the consensus view relies on and the conclusions it draws from that evidence? Can you do it in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?

[BeNotDeceived]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8sSDUN-esUI

[BeNotDeceived]

Yeah, my 7 years of research and conclusions based on scientific evidence, facts, eyewitness accounts and broken laws of physics rests upon the # of architects and engineers who have signed a document calling the destruction of 3 WTC skyscrapers a controlled demolition.

What education, training and or experience gives you the expertise to understand and evaluate scientific evidence, investigate and evaluate the entire set of available facts, evaluate the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and determined whether the consensus explanation for what happened to the buildings violates the laws of physics. Perhaps, most importantly, how much effort have you spent understanding and considering the rebuttals to evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it?

A good place to start. Describe, as accurately as you can without reference to any materials, what the consensus view is and the relevant evidence that the consensus view relies on and the conclusions it draws from that evidence? Can you do it in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand that molten steel should not be present in the basements of two 110 story buildings from an airplane hitting them, nor should there be billions of microscopic red/gray chips scattered throughout the dust from the incineration of the buildings which explode with 10X the force of C4 and RDX when ignited.

[Marcus]

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand that molten steel should not be present in the basements of two 110 story buildings from an airplane hitting them, nor should there be billions of microscopic red/gray chips scattered throughout the dust from the incineration of the buildings which explode with 10X the force of C4 and RDX when ignited.

This seems like prof. Jones' approach, yes?

Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[14]

Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[39] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work.

They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

[Gunnar]

There has never been a greater opportunity for "free speech" in this country than today. The internet allows every crackpot in the world to publicize their craziness to a world-wide audience. Take away the internet, and the 911 "truthers" would have been a tiny cult. Same with Q-Anon. Or perhaps there would have been no Q-Anon. To complain about eroding free speech is to make every day "opposite day."

Agreed.

It's clear that people aren't feeling like their speech is actually threatened. They aren't crying for "free-speech," they are crying for "consequence-free free-speech." They want to be able to say whatever they want without suffering any consequences.

I agree completely. To today's Trump inspired, hard right conservatives, the 1st Amendment seems to include freedom to tell any lie one can get away with in order to further one's own selfish interests and agenda, without being having to be subjected to fact checks or any adverse legal consequences for lying. I think it guarantees only the right to honestly express one's own opinions and the truth to the best of one's knowledge. It is deservedly the first listed amendment in the bill of rights, as it is clearly the most important one. The 2nd Amendment is clearly subordinate to the 1st Amendment and does not include or imply the right take up arms against or shoot anyone whose opinions and political ideology conflict with one's own, as some hard right conservatives (particularly Trump and his sycophants) often seem to imply, or even openly suggest in some cases.

[BeNotDeceived]

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand that molten steel should not be present in the basements of two 110 story buildings from an airplane hitting them, nor should there be billions of microscopic red/gray chips scattered throughout the dust from the incineration of the buildings which explode with 10X the force of C4 and RDX when ignited.

This seems like prof. Jones' approach, yes?

Jones has published several papers suggesting that the World Trade Center was demolished with explosives, but his 2005 paper, "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" was his first paper on the topic and was considered controversial both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[14]

Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[39] shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work.

They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts on whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."[40]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Marcus, Dr. Jones was sent a container of the dust from the destruction of the twin towers from someone living in Manhattan after hearing about his research and hypothesis which was analyzed under electron microscopes at BYU where he discovered the red/gray chips of unexploded nano-thermate... there's no theory, conjecture or guess work to his findings and conclusions, only hard evidence.

[Doctor Steuss]

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand that molten steel should not be present in the basements of two 110 story buildings from an airplane hitting them...

Why wouldn't we expect this from a 100 ton projectile, traveling at 460mph, filled with tens of thousands of liters of combustible liquid? I've personally seen portions of a railroad rail that had melted from "rail-burnt" that was caused by nothing more than friction of the locomotive.

Heck a normal house fire (which has comparatively laughable insulative capability and fuel potential) can have flashover that reaches well above 3000 F.

[Marcus]

This seems like prof. Jones' approach, yes?

Marcus, Dr. Jones was sent a container of the dust from the destruction of the twin towers from someone living in Manhattan after hearing about his research and hypothesis which was analyzed under electron microscopes at BYU where he discovered the red/gray chips of unexploded nano-thermate... there's no theory, conjecture or guess work to his findings and conclusions, only hard evidence.

"someone living in Manhattan" sent him "a container of dust." okay, then. I stopped there, but is this the paper you're referring to?

"Soon after Mr. Jones posted his paper online, the physics department at Brigham Young moved to distance itself from his work. The department released a statement saying that it was 'not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review.'"
http://www.chronicle.com/article/Profes ... noia-/9095

[Res Ipsa]

What education, training and or experience gives you the expertise to understand and evaluate scientific evidence, investigate and evaluate the entire set of available facts, evaluate the reliability of eyewitness accounts, and determined whether the consensus explanation for what happened to the buildings violates the laws of physics. Perhaps, most importantly, how much effort have you spent understanding and considering the rebuttals to evidence you cite and the conclusions you draw from it?

A good place to start. Describe, as accurately as you can without reference to any materials, what the consensus view is and the relevant evidence that the consensus view relies on and the conclusions it draws from that evidence? Can you do it in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?

I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to understand that molten steel should not be present in the basements of two 110 story buildings from an airplane hitting them, nor should there be billions of microscopic red/gray chips scattered throughout the dust from the incineration of the buildings which explode with 10X the force of C4 and RDX when ignited.

Ahh, yet more whack a mole.

So, I'm going to approach this as how I think a good, rational skeptic should. That means I'm going to do my best to ignore what I think I remember about the incident. Who found molten steel in the basement of the two buildings? Where and when was it found? Who identified the material as steel and how? How did you determine that what was found should not have been where it was found at the time it was found? Have any of these conclusions been disputed? By whom? What is their explanation for the presence of whatever was allegedly found in the basement?

Who found billions of microscopic red/gray chips? Were they evenly distributed throughout the dust? If not, where were they found? Did anyone analyze the source of the chips? If so, what was the source of the chips? Exactly what explodes with 10X the force of C4 and RDX when ignited? How did you determine that? Under what conditions? Exactly what was ignited? When was it ignited? What were the conditions at the time it was ignited? Has anyone disputed your conclusion that the chips should not have been where they were found? What is their theory of why the chips were found where they were found?

Most importantly, can you explain the consensus view of these two issues in an accurate and non-pejorative manner?