Late night de-de-debunking anyone? Or, learning is fun!

An unregistered user with the moniker "Pirate" posted this comment on another thread:

... my neo-con friend sent me this....

Someone needs to address their points.... they have an explanation for everything....

They do indeed. Seriously, they even cover "multiple wargames." Rather, they link to someone else's explanation. Pirate's document is only in PDF format (really fun to work with and copy links for reference). I don't have the time to pick over the whole thing, especially when Pirate's post smells like waste-of-time or promote-my-site bait (notice how Pirate didn't bother to address even one thing from the paper he linked to?), so I scanned the document a bit and when I got to the "World Trade Center is able to withstand a 707 impact" claim I decided to check it out in more detail.

On page 4 of FST-D1.pdf the "debunker", Mark Iradian, refutes the claim that the towers were built to withstand the impact of a 707 by stating that they were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 flying at approach speed, not 500 mph. To establish this point Iradian cites Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer of the WTC. Fair enough. Good point, actually. I had not heard that. My knowledge base is more complete now than it was ten minutes ago, still teeming with evidence of controlled demolition, of course.

Anyway, not familiar with that name, I went to look up Mr. Robertson. I found the October 2001 newsletter for the Structural Engineers of Utah, pages 1 and 3 of which contain a write-up of a speech given by Leslie Robertson and are referenced by Steven Jones in his paper as a source for the presence of molten steel 21 days after the attack. Cool. Now I know who Leslie E. Robertson is. And now I have a definitive source in case someone tells me there was no molten steel at the WTC site.

So what do I see next? The next "stupid theory" Iradian addresses, on page 5, is "Fires weren't hot enough to melt the steel." He says, "This is a straw man argument. The only people who talked about melting steel were theorists and not the people behind the 9/11 commission or scientists." Wrong. See previous paragraph.

Okay, I've had enough of this nonsense, at least for tonight. If anyone else wants to jump in a take on a point or two of his, feel free. That includes you, Pirate. It may seem like a waste of time, but I've already already learned one new thing and don't intend to stop there. I just don't want to have to do the whole thing myself.

comical for the most part..

A feeble attempt ...still no explanation how a lightpole ripped from the ground supposedly crashes through a cab windshield and pulls itself back out without leaving a single scratch on the hood. Niether does it address the fact that the phone number listed on the cab door is now disconnected...among about a thousand other flaws and ommissions. like I said, feeble efforts to try and offer explanations to the original storyline rather than address any pertainant information.

Thanks BCS...

I appreciate your comments.... no I'm not trying to promote a site... I just want the truth to come out... as I said in my subject line... I believe 911 was an inside job.... I think we need to listen to all the explanations and get to the truth... a friend sent me the link to me because he knows I believe the conspiracy to be real.... I sent the link in an email to Steven Jones as well.... my hope in posting the link is to have scientists and engineers refute their explanations and/or highlight any inconsistencies.... Thanks again for your post... I hope academics will view it and be able to tell us why his explanations are false.

Fair enough. I'm glad you

Fair enough. I'm glad you posted again. I would suggest sending your neo-con friend a link to 9/11: Press for Truth

A thought...

If they can kill a President (JFK) and get away with it... they can take over the world and get away with it....
"They" being the "Military Industrial Complex".... Who are they?... Governments aren't in power...
Corporations are in power and the "Corportists" have infiltrated government and control it at every level.
New World Order = Globalization = Global Corporate Slavery and mass consumerism

debunking the debunker

First I would like to start out that engineers and well qualified people have written good paper on the topic. He claims that Dr Jones is the closest we have and infact that is not the case.

The laws of conservation of energy and momentum can not be ignored. Any hypothesis must satisfy those laws and the NIST explanation does not. Any energy used in pulverizing Concrete in the fall can not be used to increase the velocity of the falling mass. The NIST assumption of 30% of the potential energy was used in pulverizing the concrete yield a fall time of at least 14 seconds. Consider all the concrete in the building was pulverized and the maximum potential energy of the falling floors is something like 500 times sort in terms of energy needed to pulverize the concrete. MIT also did a study of the impact and determined that there3 was not near enough energy available to knock off all that fire proofing. Further the NISTs own metallurgical analysis showed tat the temperatures of the steel on the fire floor were far far below what was needed to weaken the steel. Gordon Ross did a momentum analysis and it shows at best the fall being arrested at most after 2 floors. These models were put together with assumptions favoring the collapse model. The physics says the “global Collapse” theory is garbage on it’s face. The NIST just stops with things started to collapse and refuses to look at what happens after the start of the collapse

The 47 core columns and the outer steel structure just done decide to move out of the way because they might get hurt. The papers and references can be found at and and here is a short email I wrote regarding the NIST responses.

He implies that the diesel underneath the building melted all the steel at the bottom and that simply would not be true. For the diesel fuel to do it it has to have oxygen present and to burn hot there has to be lots of it. A big pile of cement dust and steel debris is not and ideal environment for that tot happen. IT might ignite as you uncover it when oxygen becomes more plentiful for the diesel to burn. But burn for that long under a pile of debris, I don’t think so.

He has pictures of the fires but those are not that hot. The jet fuel burned off in a matter of minutes and after that you have a conventional fire. The black smoke indicates an oxygen starved fire. Further the NIST report clearly shows the temperature of the steel was no where near what it needed to be. How in the final report the temperatures got up to well above the analysis says they were is a mystery.

Now what is hot to a human calling 911 is much different that what matters to structural steel. Boiling water will burn us but make no difference to steel.

Moving along; WTC7 had damage and had fires. However looking at the collapse it is clear that it was symmetrical and it had the classic crimp in the middle and falls from the bottom. Asymmetrical damage does not produce symmetrical collapses. If that was the case why is demolition such and art form to bring down building in nice neat piles?

There are a few perspectives that one can take to make the case for controlled demolition. 1. Energy conservation. 2. Momentum conservation. 3. Fall time.

He says that the collisions would have pulverized the concrete and this is false there is no where near the potential energy needed to do that. Energy can only be spent once. Since the fall time was so close to free fall most of the energy from the potential energy was spent converting to kinetic energy. IF you spend it on pulverizing concrete then the fall must take longer and considerably so since the energy required to do that is significant. (More than there is available from the potential energy) So the question remains where did this huge amount of energy come from if not from the stored potential energy?

In a short paper I illustrate for the lay person the principal of conservation of momentum and why the mass of the lower floors matters. Even if you assume that the lower floor and those core columns provided no resistance that the mass of the floors would have significantly slowed the collapse. and the latter article assumes a simple model that BTW heavily favors the government collapse theory. As you can see from the charts in a progressive collapse you get fall times of like 90 seconds. The NIST is even backing away from the pancake theory. The pancake theory is plain bunk because of the 47 inner core columns. Also UL tested models of the floors under that kind heat like 2000 degrees and only got a 3 in deflection in the floor.

The “debunking paper” points to a steel building that is a different design and not built to the standards required of the WTC. Heck the Hartford civic center roof collapsed under the weight of snow but why compare that to the WTC. It was also shown that the construction was flawed as well as the design. In the case of WTC it was very well over designed and well exceeded the specifications and code.

This doesn’t mean that a building can fail. They can and they do. However when a structure fails lets say due to earthquake, not all of the structure goes into “global Collapse” The NIST thinks that by just saying those words makes the assertion true.

What we witnessed with 9/11 was unique and the observed facts point to demolition. HE also does not deal with the explosion William Rodriguez witnessed that happened before the first impact. It was caught on the seismograph as well and was shortly before the known impact of the first plane. There were a total of 36 surviving witnesses to that. So called debunkers say the fuel went down the shaft and then exploded. Just one problem the elevator shafts in that building did not run the entire length. They were designed specifically that way to avoid the chimney effect. So any fuel 90 floors above would not have a path to the basement.. Also jet fuel produces a low velocity explosion. The ones they witnessed were high velocity.

Now for thermite; FEMAs report section 8 of appendix c says the sever sulfidication and oxidation of the steel was a highly unusual event for a fire and they are correct. There was near enough sulfur in the right form in the gypsum or the fuel to cause this corrosion. This is a clear marker of thermate a close cousin of thermite. Yes thermite is an incendiary and not and explosive per se. super themate can explode because it is put in such a fine powders that this becomes possible. How ever one could have a combination of both thermate and some other high explosive, to make sure the job gets done and to make the illusion complete. Other residues should be tested for. It might never be revealed because so much evidence was destroyed in the after math (illegally) of 9/11.

One comment here. One of the reasons there are so many questions about so many aspects of 9/11 from the 93 crash to the pentagon to the WTC. The government has not been forth coming with answers. For instance with the pentagon they could release all the security videos un edited and un altered. They could make available evidence to third party examination and review. But the government has not done these things and we the people are supposed to be their bosses. After we paid for the investigation and if we are right we paid for the massacre on that day.

This person does not address any of the engineering issues in detail. Neither does NIST for tat matter. They assert but the present no competent analysis to support their position.

Sean.... good work... Thanks!

Sean.... thank you for looking at the material and responding... I will pass this information on.... --Rob