9/11 Truther Debates Official Story Believer/Architect

Hope I'm not intruding by offering my own rebuttal to the debate but I can't help but notice that Paul presumes much from what the government account states without understanding the general laws of physics that make the scenario impossible as the government claims:

SO-CALLED?" FACTS ARE FACTS.
Not if they are presumptions based on insufficient observation. They could not see inside the damaged areas to determine how much damage was actually done to the support columns. You presume “acres of floor space on fire” yet much evidence that you and NIST ignore supports otherwise, and to date, nothing released by NIST or the government proves conclusively that there was enough heat to support the collapse theory of the building. Its all assumptions based on weight of the planes, the impact speed, and the subsequent fireball. So what you sir refer to are truly “theories”, while we sir, derive our conclusions from the known facts, many that NIST and the government choose to ignore. This is evident in some of the arguments below.

IF YOU AND FOUR BUDDIES ARE CARRYING A LONG, HEAVY LOG, AND YOU SUDDENLY LET GO, THE WEIGHT YOUR FRIENDS ARE CARRYING WILL SUDDENLY INCREASE.
You presume that your friends would drop the log. If each was capable of supporting 200 lbs on their own, and the log weighs 500 lbs, then no, they would not drop it if one person let go. The buildings were designed to handle the impact of a similar aircraft, the 707. Safety factors inherent in the design of anything are double the risk factor meaning the building theoretically should have handled twice the impact force exhibited that day at the weakest point, the base of the building. Meaning the taller you go, the more the risk diminishes. If the terrorists were so smart in pulling off such an elaborate plan blindsiding the most advanced military ever present on this planet, how could they be so stupid as to not know enough to hit the buildings as low as possible which would increase the possibility of dropping the towers and killing many more Americans? Why do I think the planes hit high up? To ensure difficulty in identifying that the planes were not easily identifiable as commercial mockups, and/or, to ensure being successful in dropping the building from the top down. Damaging it at the bottom would have left to much skepticism as to why they didn't topple sideways instead of straight down. You don't think that the culprits really wanted to gamble with destroying parts of Wall Street do you? Unlike the terrorists who would most likely have considered this as a bonus.

THAT IS WHAT HEAT DOES TO STEEL. AGAIN, YOU COULD MAKE A CASE THAT THE HEAT INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO WEAKEN THE STEEL ENOUGH TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. BUT YOU CAN NOT FACTUALLY STATE THAT THE STEEL DID LOT LOSE STRENGTH.
Here again you presume to accept the governments account based on their own scientific evaluation. If you study the NIST report and understand it, you will see that they fail to prove by experimentation how the heat weakened enough to cause the collapse. They continually blame the dislodging of the fireproofing material as the culprit but give no conclusive experimental evidence to prove it. If it can be proved, why has no one been able to claim Jimmy Walters $1 million dollar challenge? Prove it yourself and you can be rich, if you can't then you must conclude that it either can not be proven, or you are not qualified to prove or disprove either theory.

IF EXPLOSIVES INDEED WERE USED, THE VILLAN WHO DETONATED THEM COULD HAVE DONE SO AT ANY TIME OF HIS CHOOSING. WHY WOULD HE AROUSE SUSPICION BY MAKING ONE TOWER FALL MUCH SOONER THAN THE OTHER…?
For one, they never expected firemen to reach the impact zone and broadcast on the radio that they reached it and the fire was minimal needing only 2 hoses to knock it down. This supports the evidence that the fires were not nearly hot enough to weaken the steel as you presume (based again on the governments account/evidence). Secondly, this also proves that the NIST is falsified since they make bogus claims on page 79 of their report that firefighters loaded with equipment would take 1.4 to 2 minutes to climb each floor which would make it impossible for them to reach higher than the 40th floor given the time frame before collapse. This is just plain stupid, throw a 50 lb pack on your back and see if it takes you this long to climb a flight of stairs, even if you pace yourself. Fireman train like this year round so that they can physically handle such a challenge when it arises. I’m sure most firefighters could easily dispute this bogus claim. The end result? They had to blow the 2nd tower first since the firemen reached the 80th floor of that tower and broadcasted that the fire was truly minimal. It came down within a couple of minutes after their last transmission.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT A "SO-CALLED" FACT, IT'S A FACT: STEEL DOES INDEED LOOSE ITS STRENGTH AS ITS TEMPERATURE INCREASES. YOUR NOTE AT 2b BELOW AKNOWLEDGES THIS FACT. YOU CAN - AND DO - ARGUE THAT THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE TOWERS, BUT THE HEATED STEEL CERTAINLY WAS WEAKENED.
Again, prove it and you could be a millionaire. NIST states it and shows the end results, but doesn’t prove it by displaying the experimentation. They say they did, but they won’t share that experimentation with anyone.

STEEL DOES INDEED CONDUCT HEAT VERY WELL. AND YES, RESIDUAL HEAT WOULD HAVE SPREAD TO PARTS OF THE STRUCTURE FAR FROM THE FIRE. BUT, THE STEEL COMPONENTS CLOSEST TO THE FIRE WOULD HAVE BEEN FAR HOTTER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HEAT WOULD NOT BE EVENLY SPREAD. IF YOU HOLD THE FLAME OF A BLOW-TORCH AGAINST A CONTINUOUS RAIL OF A RAIL ROAD TRACK FOR AN HOUR, THE STEEL WOULD BE EXTREMELY HOT AT THE POINT OF CONTACT. IT WOULD ALSO BE TOO HOT TO TOUCH WITHIN MANY FEET OF THIS POINT.
You make a bogus comparison here, the directed heat of a blow torch flame is about 6000 degrees. This does not compare to the temperature of an open flame or the sustained temperatures recorded in the fires on that day. Speak relevantly, if you expect anyone to agree with you. No open flame would ever get hot enough to truly weaken a train track, nor a steel tube 36x18x4” thick. Any metal smith or welder could tell you that.

THE FIREPROOFING WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CRASHES. THE EXPOSED STEEL HEATED UP MORE QUICKLY, AND THE HEAT TRAVELED TO PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE WHERE THE FIREPROOFING WAS INTACT. THE FIREPROOFING THEN TRAPPED THE HEAT IN THE STEEL, DOING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO, CAUSING THE STEEL TO BE WEAKENED MORE THAN WOULD HAVE BEEN THE CASE HAD THE FIREPROOFING BEEN INTACT.
This is just another bogus excuse by NIST. Which is it? The fireproofing was intact and contained the heat in the steel allowing a critical weakening point? Or the fireproofing was dislodged allowing the fire to cause the steel to reach a critical weakening point? It can’t be both so they merely contradict each other.

I AGREE, THE HEAT - BY ITSELF - WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO BRING DOWN THE BUILDINGS. OTHER DAMAGE WOULD HAVE BEEN NECESSARY. YOU INSIST THIS DAMAGE WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES; I MAINTAIN THAT THE MASSIVE DAMAGE DONE BY THE PLANES WAS ALSO TO BLAME.
Again prove it and you’ll be rich. But I’ll give benefit of the doubt for tower 1 and 2, but explain tower 7 and FEMA’s own statement “to date the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 remains unknown”, along with both NIST’s and the 9/11 “Independent” Commissions avoidance of the subject all together.

I CANNOT SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THIS QUOTE, AS I AM NOT AN EXPERT ON ASTM'S PROCEDURES. IF YOU ARE, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME. IF YOU ARE NOT, YOU ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO JUDGE THE CREDIBILITY OF MR. RYAN'S STATEMENT
Mr Ryans statement is a fact concerning ASTM E119, you need only confirm the standard to concur with him, it’s not necessary to be an expert in the field. Is he a whistleblower or is he just trying to defend the reputation of Underwriter’s Laboratory? You don’t need to threaten someone’s life to control them. Just threaten their jobs and pensions and consideration for ones own family well-being is enough to quite down many who have or can confirm incriminating evidence. Those in professional positions who speak out vocally are threatened with losing their jobs or are fired as in the case of some Boeing engineers, NIST engineers, and a few college professors. There are whistleblower laws in place to protect them, yet the government has since mandated that government and federal employees are excluded from that protection. Why, what are they hiding? And there are many professionals who are still speaking out, yet it is you who focus on just one, not us.

YES. THE STEEL WAS WEAKENED BY SUCH FIRES. AND THE STEEL WAS OVERLOADED BY THE DAMAGE FROM THE AIRPLANES.
You are just parroting the same thing and still not offering any valid proof.

ALL THE IMPLODED BUILDINGS YOU REFER TO WERE IMPLODED FROM THE BOTTOM UP. THE WTC TOWERS FAILED FROM THE TOP DOWN. AS FOR YOUR CORRECT OBSERVATION ABOUT NO OTHER STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS HAVING FAILED FROM FIRES, ALL OF THESE TOWERS HAD ALL THEIR STEEL STRUCTURAL MEMBERS INTACT. ALSO, WTC 1, 2 & 7 HAD UNUSUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. MOST OTHER STEEL-FRAME TOWERS HAVE THEIR LOADS DISTRIBUTED ON A REGULAR GRID OF COLUMNS, WHEN VIEWED IN PLAN
If you ask a demolition company to explain this, the answer is obvious. You need to take out the core column, which is evident by the destruction in the sub levels and in the lobbies. And if you tried to demolish it from the ground up, it would be obvious to bystanders, and you risk such tall buildings falling over instead of straight down.

ALSO, WTC 1, 2 & 7 HAD UNUSUAL STRUCTURAL DESIGNS. MOST OTHER STEEL-FRAME TOWERS HAVE THEIR LOADS DISTRIBUTED ON A REGULAR GRID OF COLUMNS, WHEN VIEWED IN PLAN.
I’ll use your prior logic on this one. Are you a structural engineer, a building designer or inspector? No? Then you are not qualified to analyze the structural strengths and differences of one design over another.

THE TWIN TOWERS, HOWEVER, HAD THEIR FLOORS SUPPORTED BY THE CORE COLUMNS AND THE EXTERIOR WALLS. THE FAILURE OF THE FLOORS IN THE VICINITY OF THE IMPACTS PULLED THE EXTERIOR WALLS INWARD. THIS BOWING OF THE NON-SEVERED COLUMNS CAN BE OBSERVED IN MANY PHOTOGRAPHS. EVENTUALLY, THE DEFORMATION OF THESE COLUMNS WAS TOO SEVERE TO KEEP HOLDING THE WEIGHT THEY WERE DESIGNED TO CARRY.
You seem like an intelligent person, but you continually repeat mostly what you’ve read from the governments accounts without understanding really what you are saying. Offer some proof or concede that you are not qualified to offer validation to the NIST results.
A REGULAR GRID OF INTERNAL COLUMNS MIGHT HAVE PREVENTED THIS FAILURE. AS FOR WTC 7: THE UPPER LEVELS OF THIS TOWER HAD A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN OF A COLUMN GRID. HOWEVER, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT OVER A CON-ED SUBSTATION. SO AS NOT TO DISTURB THIS EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, WTC7 WAS BUILT WITH THE STRUCTURE IN ITS LOWER LEVELS SPANNING THE SUBSTATION. THIS UNUSUAL DESIGN MEANT THAT THE FAILURE OF ONE STRUCTURAL MEMBER COULD LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE.
Ok, then what destroyed these columns in the basement, an explosion 80 stories and 1000 feet above?

THE BOMBING OF THE ALFRED P. MURAH BUILDING IN OKLAHOMA CITY ON 4/19/1995 HAD A STRUCTURAL FAILURE NOT UNLIKE THIS: THE TRUCK BOMB WAS PLACED NEAR ONE REINFORCED
CONCRETE COLUMN WHICH CARRIED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE BUILDING'S WEIGHT. THE SUDDEN DISTRUCTION OF THIS COLUMN BROUGHT DOWN A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE BUILDING. IF IT WAS 47 STORIES TALL, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WOULD HAVE LIKELY COLLAPSED
Yet didn’t although it blasted out half the building and still presume it would have had it been a little taller. Stop guessing at things you don’t really understand.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE LOWER PORTION OF THE TOWER WAS SEVERELY DAMAGED. SEE THIS LINK FOR ANALYSIS AND PHOTOS:
How? If you look at the architectural design of the building, no elevator shaft or stairwell was continuous from top to bottom for the sole purpose of preventing fires in lower floors from racing up shafts thru to the top of the building. So the governments claim that an explosion down the center of the building destroyed the lobby is false like everything else they are saying.