WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Official story supporter's lethal paper, Round 3

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 1417 in this thread.

I haven't heard any other possibilities offered, by either side. Mine would atleast fit in with a lot of other evidence pointing to the use of thermite/thermate. Feel free to offer a different possibility if you have any.

I have never seen them discussed at all.

You seem to assume there's another credible possibility other then thermate. You've provided no evidence that this is the case, however.

Unknown does not equal thermite though.

It makes sense that it would be thermite, which is capable of doing that type of damage to a car. What does -not- make sense is the the type of 'explanation' given by the type of people you like linking to, who laughably think scraps of burning paper could do this:
http://www.streetlife.org/images/wtc/wrecked_car.jpg

I guess the default answer is always thermite

It's the only credible answer. One is sure to find fluff answers from official story supporters like paper though.

until a debunker comes up with one (which will be derided anyway).

Yes, fluff answers will definitely be derided, as they should be.

If steel was found that was twisted and softened and floors were seen bowing due to the heat then what role does thermite play?

As Tony Szamboti has made clear, the bowing was probably due to the thermite, not the fires. It looks like thermite played even more of a role than I'd previously known.

What about the softened steel? Astaneh compared it to licorice.

Sure, if you're thinking of the type of 'softening' that a few well placed missiles can accomplish . I think a more accurate description would be 'explosively bent' steel...

Your [insulted removed] comment here is a dodge. You have dodged it every time.

Alright, I've backed up this conversation 4 posts now and I still don't see where I have 'dodged' anything.

How do you account for the comments made by Astaneh? You know… the guy you try and quote when you think he supports your conspiracy...

I have never said that Astaneh believes that the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions. What you seem to fail to realize is that the fact that he doesn't support the controlled demolition theory makes it all the more interesting that he has reported seeing evidence of melted and even vaporized steel. He is even aware of the significance of this to some extent, when he commented on the collapsing of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge which fell but did -not- melt; as he put it in a Newshour interview when describing what happened to the bridge:
Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders [in the bridge], because there was no melting of girders [there]. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

[Astaneh] commented on seeing steel which had become very soft from the heat which he estimated around 2000F.

He also reported evidence of melted and even vaporized steel, which is -well- beyond 2000F. Explosives can manage this, but the jet initiated office fires can't.

I think a more accurate description would be 'explosively bent' steel...

What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about Astaneh’s comments.

I'm simply adding what I feel is a more apt description.

He found no evidence of explosives

I don't recall him ever looking for any. NIST freely admits it didn't.

...but found evidence of temperatures high enough to weaken the steel.

Oh definitely. High enough to melt and even vaporize it a well. I wonder what could get the steel to reach such high temperatures?

"If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that.

Oh, I fully agree; definitely looks like some of that steel was melted. I can only imagine how much steel of that nature was there before the investigation teams were allowed to take a good look.

That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm

There's no way in hell that you could get steel yellow hot or white hot at 2000 Fahrenheit without the help of something like thermate. The fact that Astaneh doesn't know that doesn't speak well of his knowledge in this regard.

Brian Kross, Chief Detector Engineer, elaborates on the melting point of steel:

What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

‘Explosively bent’? Explosions don’t just weaken steel. They shatter things with force.

While it's certainly true that much of steel was conveniently sliced up to bring the building down, if anything could manage to only bend instead of shatter when hit by explosive forces, it'd be something like steel. The concrete certainly had no chance, turning almost completely into a fine dust.

[psikeyhackr]

Calculations have been done as to the weight of the steel and the concrete in the towers. Perhaps this hasn't been done in terms of the distribution. However, it seems to me that all the greats of the 9/11 truth movement find that this information isn't necessary to determine that the WTC collapses couldn't have occurred the way they did if indeed they could have occurred at all without controlled demolitions.

.
You can find lots of places on the internet that say the towers contained 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. As far as I can tell that number comes from BEFORE 9/11. I don't recall seeing anyone besides me compute how many tons of concrete that comes to per tower, which is 280,000 tons per tower and that is assuming lightweight concrete. I have seen calculations based on 90,000 tons of concrete. But I also have not seen anyone explain how 90,000 is correct but that 425,000 is completely wrong.

Calculations don't mean SHIT unless you are SURE your data is trustworthy. So these GREATS are somewhat unimpressive to me if they are not bitching about inadequately trustworthy data from the NIST. Gregory Urich has the most DETAILED but that is all I can say for it. For a building designed in the 60s and completed in '73 one would think everyone on both sides of the issue could get the distribution of steel and concrete agreed upon. But people on both sides want to say it is unnecessary or unimportant.

WHAT!!!

I could see refusing to BELIEVE anything anybody says until they get that straight.

psik

[scott3x]

Calculations have been done as to the weight of the steel and the concrete in the towers. Perhaps this hasn't been done in terms of the distribution. However, it seems to me that all the greats of the 9/11 truth movement find that this information isn't necessary to determine that the WTC collapses couldn't have occurred the way they did if indeed they could have occurred at all without controlled demolitions.

You can find lots of places on the internet that say the towers contained 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. As far as I can tell that number comes from BEFORE 9/11. I don't recall seeing anyone besides me compute how many tons of concrete that comes to per tower, which is 280,000 tons per tower and that is assuming lightweight concrete. I have seen calculations based on 90,000 tons of concrete. But I also have not seen anyone explain how 90,000 is correct but that 425,000 is completely wrong.

Here you go :-)...
http://crookedshepherds.wordpress.co...ated/#comments

Calculations don't mean SHIT unless you are SURE your data is trustworthy. So these GREATS are somewhat unimpressive to me if they are not bitching about inadequately trustworthy data from the NIST.

Jerry Russell actually relied on a FEMA report for the data in his calculations...

Gregory Urich has the most DETAILED but that is all I can say for it.

In terms of the actual quantity of the concrete, I think that the most detailed and accurate calculations are Jerry Russell's.

For a building designed in the 60s and completed in '73 one would think everyone on both sides of the issue could get the distribution of steel and concrete agreed upon. But people on both sides want to say it is unnecessary or unimportant.

WHAT!!!

I could see refusing to BELIEVE anything anybody says until they get that straight.

psikey, I must admit that I still don't really see why it's so important to know the distribution, when many within the truth movement feel they have enough data already to determine that the buildings couldn't have fallen down without the help of explosives. The quantities of the materials has actually shown up on the radar screens of some noted people of the truth movement, however, with Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page being the most prominent. So I did my best to find out how those calculations were found for what I believe is the most accurate information on the quantity of concrete per tower.

[psikeyhackr]

psikey, I must admit that I still don't really see why it's so important to know the distribution, when many within the truth movement feel they have enough data already to determine that the buildings couldn't have fallen down without the help of explosives.

.
I noticed some probablies and presumablies in that link you provided. If they can't provide steel and concrete on every level then I don't regard it as sufficiently precise. Why is 200,000 tons of steel so often associated with that 425,000 cu. yd. yet the steel was all in the towers but they want to say the concrete was not? And why isn't the concrete in the basements specified? There had to be a lot down there.

Now you can doubt my word if you want but I spent two weeks thinking about the planes hitting the towers and concluded there was no way anyone was going to get me to BELIEVE that it was possible for normal airliners to bring those towers down. Distribution of mass in steel and concrete were major factors in that reasoning. But I was guesstimating. I was shocked when I couldn't find the quantity of concrete in the NCSTAR1 report. I must have searched a dozen different ways 3 times each.

But Believing, Suspecting and KNOWING are three different things. I want it PROVEN that the planes could do it by anyone that claims that. And I think my suggestion of the simulation with the 60 foot gap could PROVE that the planes could not do it. I don't see why asking for the tons of steel and concrete on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing is asking a lot. Don't we have enough computing power? If anything this seems just another basis for showing the incompetence of the NIST.

Like I have said before, the energy that went into the oscillation must be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the plane in order to compute the structural damage by the impact. There are at least FOUR different reasons for wanting this info. I got Frank Greening on JREF to stop talking to me last May over getting the mass distribution wrong.

To me you seem to concentrate more on who to believe instead of understanding what could and could not happen for yourself. How can the people in the REAL Science forums be scientific if they don't demand exact data. Didn't some probe crash on Mars because the data was wrong? Everyone claiming to be scientific should understand and be sticklers for exact data. It should make things easier for LAYMEN to understand. In my opinion this entire business should have been settled within a year, but obviously it hasn't been so I don't see the problem with DEMANDING accurate steel and concrete info.

psik

[shaman_]

Greats of the 9/11 truth movement and Ryan Mackey



You can howl at the moon that experts on 9/11 like David Griffin and Steven Jones are 'crackpots'. It won't change what they really are. David Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. You seem to forget the 'philosophy' bit- as wikipedia states

Oh philosophy!!? Well that changes everything. He must be an expert on fires, demolition and building construction. NIST should have called him in straight away to investigate the collapse! We should get him and the other philosophers to build some skyscrapers.

Your 'experts' are a theologian, a cold fusion physicist and the waterboy whose only claim to fame is getting fired from the company who tested the assemblies.

I'm describing Steven Jones the way I see him. How you see him is your affair.

You are explaining to me who Steven Jones is and that he has written a lot of material regarding 911. Considering the discussions we have had going over several months and nearly a couple of hundred pages, that is a very strange thing to do. I would not be surprised if you had some sort of mental illness. If you told me that you did I wouldn’t ridicule you for it.

Whatever shaman. I'm the one who realized that one of his alleged refutations was nothing more then fluff and did nothing to refute what he was allegedly rebuffing.

No you read that the people you put faith in were critical of him (as a response to his attacks on them) so you refuse to comprehend anything he says.

They rebutted him handily. After taking a look at some of his materials, it seems clear to me that his comebacks were simply more fluff.

I doubt you even understood the article. You just saw that there was a article attacking him so anytime he is mentioned you feel that you don’t need to respond therefore you have your out.

I debunked one of his 'comebacks' and all you could say was that I used the material he was rebutting.

Lol. No you did what you regularly do because you can’t actually defend your 911 faith, you just spam the same articles over and over.

Posting the article he was attacking is not debunking Scott. Can you not understand this?

I was able to do so because his supposed 'comeback' was nothing but fluff that was destroyed by the very material he was allegedly rebutting.

You are a fanatic who says some very stupid things….

[shaman_]

Official story supporter's lethal paper, Round 3

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 1417 in this thread.



You seem to assume there's another credible possibility other then thermate.

Argument from ignorance.

You've provided no evidence that this is the case, however.

I have done no investigation into it whatsoever. Neither have you but to you just know that it must be thermite. The answer is always the ever changing thermite, well that and explosives. You have a conclusion and try to fit the evidence into this conclusion.

It makes sense that it would be thermite, which is capable of doing that type of damage to a car.

Show me an example of thermite doing something like this. I thought it cut steel columns like butter.

What does -not- make sense is the the type of 'explanation' given by the type of people you like linking to, who laughably think scraps of burning paper could do this:

I did not say it was burning paper. Why don’t you grow some testies and take it up with them?

It's the only credible answer.

Based on your clearly poorly educated, ill informed religious-like belief.

One is sure to find fluff answers from official story supporters like paper though.

Yes, fluff answers will definitely be derided, as they should be.

You are a fanatic who is incapable of nothing more than spam and derision. Amazingly you cry and report people who insult your comments.

Alright, I've backed up this conversation 4 posts now and I still don't see where I have 'dodged' anything.

I asked you about softened steel and you made a ridiculous comment about explosively bent steel. We are talking about steel which was softened and not affected by explosions.

I have never said that Astaneh believes that the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions. What you seem to fail to realize is that the fact that he doesn't support the controlled demolition theory makes it all the more interesting that he has reported seeing evidence of melted

He made it clear in another article that he was referring to very soft steel, not molten. You are cherry picking in a desperate attempt to maintain the conspiracy…

and even vaporized steel.

You are pathetic. You know that those are the words of the reporter and not Astaneh. .

He is even aware of the significance of this to some extent, when he commented on the collapsing of the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge which fell but did -not- melt; as he put it in a Newshour interview when describing what happened to the bridge:
Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders [in the bridge], because there was no melting of girders [there]. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

If they were still recognisable as girders then they were not liquid metal then were they? He has made it clear the fires alone were responsible. You are not bound by reality so you just ignore the parts of it you don’t like I guess.

He also reported evidence of melted and even vaporized steel, which is -well- beyond 2000F.

No. He didn’t. You are deluded.

Explosives can manage this, but the jet initiated office fires can't.

Here we go again. Explosives break things with force, they don’t just heat up steel.

I'm simply adding what I feel is a more apt description.




I don't recall him ever looking for any.

He inspected the steel for clues as to the cause of the collapse He found evidence of high temperatures but no evidence for explosives.

NIST freely admits it didn't.

Not one person in the thousands involved found anything suspicious.

Oh definitely. High enough to melt and even vaporize it a well. I wonder what could get the steel to reach such high temperatures?

Magical explosives?

Oh, I fully agree; definitely looks like some of that steel was melted.

Read the quote again. He is not talking about liquid but very soft steel. No doubt you will somehow avoid comprehending this.

I can only imagine how much steel of that nature was there before the investigation teams were allowed to take a good look.

There's no way in hell that you could get steel yellow hot or white hot at 2000 Fahrenheit without the help of something like thermate.

According to my Cardington report, the steel in the office test did get that hot, so you are once again wrong.

The fact that Astaneh doesn't know that doesn't speak well of his knowledge in this regard.

Brian Kross, Chief Detector Engineer, elaborates on the melting point of steel:

What's the melting point of steel?

That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy.

Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).

While it's certainly true that much of steel was conveniently sliced up to bring the building down, if anything could manage to only bend instead of shatter when hit by explosive forces, it'd be something like steel. The concrete certainly had no chance, turning almost completely into a fine dust.

… and you are wrong again. Look at the picture. http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/pho...ginal/6033.jpg

Is the concrete “almost completely” a fine dust?

That is exactly what you would expect after a total collapse.

[psikeyhackr]

According to my Cardington report, the steel in the office test did get that hot, so you are once again wrong.

.
But it didn't collapse and it wasn't strong enough to be 16 to 30 stories tall and it was enclosed in a hangar.

So what do you think you really demonstrated by making that statement?

psik

[John99]

Psikey,

Why is it so hard to accept that the catastrophic damage and then the extreme heat combined with the aforementioned damage occuring at the top or fairly uppermost portion would cause failure at that point and fuel seepage (10,000 gallons and burning) to lower areas contained inside this tube like structure would induce a furnace like effect. Then the weight of the upper floors coming down directly above lower floors would shatter the load bearing capabilities of the joists and contact points of the floors below thus causing them to break and collapse.

Is this rocket science or magic or just obvious?

It should go without saying the design (TOWERS) whereas the length far exceeds the width would enable this to occur but the design in and of itself and without such an occurance was a good design.

To be honest this is a problem with the design of sky scrappers and ideally the width of the buildings would be more in proportion to the length but then no airplanes...no collapse.

[nietzschefan]

Warning, Eyeballs required....
http://www.libertyforlife.com/images/911/wtc7an.gif

[John99]

Nice strawman and evasion tactic.

No plane had to hit that building and if you research this you would see why. There was a program which was done independently that makes it very clear and i cant remember the name of it but it explains it and dispels any doubt. Plus this has gone over so many times in these now boring thread that to go over it again is getting monotonous.

Do large buildings fail in earthquakes? Can they fall after burning for hours? Of course they can and do.

That building was burning for hours after the event and severe damage from the towers collapsing in the perimeter of that building makes it entirely possible and obvious.

Of course the fact is that there was absolutely no reason to take it down and none has ever been given. Suffice it to say doing so would served no purpose and zero motive doesnt seem to mean anything to "toofers".

[John99]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ke-Trapped.php

The school's rapid collapse left them little chance. Engineers said walls and support columns gave way almost instantly, causing the slab on which each upper floor was build to smash flat onto the one below, an effect sometimes known as "pancaking."

[scott3x]

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...ke-Trapped.php

No earthquakes hit WTC 7 either, unlike your example there that got a whopping 7.9 one :-p.

[scott3x]

psikey, I must admit that I still don't really see why it's so important to know the distribution, when many within the truth movement feel they have enough data already to determine that the buildings couldn't have fallen down without the help of explosives. The quantities of the materials has actually shown up on the radar screens of some noted people of the truth movement, however, with Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page being the most prominent. So I did my best to find out how those calculations were found for what I believe is the most accurate information on the quantity of concrete per tower.

I noticed some probablies and presumablies in that link you provided. If they can't provide steel and concrete on every level then I don't regard it as sufficiently precise.

I think your main problem is that no one else seems to think it has to be any more precise. I mean, yeah you can argue that you're the only person who realizes how important it is to have more accurate information regarding this issue, but I think it's a bit of a lonely path. In any case, this type of issue is beyond me, you'd have better luck with Tony I think.

Why is 200,000 tons of steel so often associated with that 425,000 cu. yd. yet the steel was all in the towers but they want to say the concrete was not? And why isn't the concrete in the basements specified? There had to be a lot down there.

No idea on either count :-p.

Now you can doubt my word if you want but I spent two weeks thinking about the planes hitting the towers and concluded there was no way anyone was going to get me to BELIEVE that it was possible for normal airliners to bring those towers down.

It took me longer then 2 weeks. However, many people have come to the conclusion that you have in this regard.

Distribution of mass in steel and concrete were major factors in that reasoning. But I was guesstimating. I was shocked when I couldn't find the quantity of concrete in the NCSTAR1 report. I must have searched a dozen different ways 3 times each.

psikey, I can believe that the people who had control over what was published in NCSTAR1 didn't want certain details to be known. However, the fact that no one besides you that I know of in the truth movement seems to be overly concerned about the distribution of mass in the towers is, in my view, a sign that almost everyone doesn't seem to think this issue is important.

But Believing, Suspecting and KNOWING are three different things. I want it PROVEN that the planes could do it by anyone that claims that.

Good luck with that, laugh . I think proving that the planes -couldn't- do it can and probably already has been done. However, since engineering and physics aren't really my thing, I can only provide a lot of evidence to support this theory.

And I think my suggestion of the simulation with the 60 foot gap could PROVE that the planes could not do it. I don't see why asking for the tons of steel and concrete on every level of buildings designed before the Moon landing is asking a lot.

Everyone else seems to think it's not that important though. I'm convinced that -you- think it's important, but that even though that I, like you, don't believe that the towers could have come down via planes and jet fuel, I don't see why the distribution thing is so important. But if Tony or Steven Jones or the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth did, I'd still take much more heed. However, none of them seem to think it's all that important either. Personally, I'd think that all of this would be pretty damning if I were in your shoes.

Don't we have enough computing power? If anything this seems just another basis for showing the incompetence of the NIST.

If we left things at NIST, we could both go on happily about its incompetence or perhaps criminal negligence. But I have stronger faith in the other groups and people I mentioned and this is where I think your strongest problem lies.

Like I have said before, the energy that went into the oscillation must be subtracted from the kinetic energy of the plane in order to compute the structural damage by the impact. There are at least FOUR different reasons for wanting this info. I got Frank Greening on JREF to stop talking to me last May over getting the mass distribution wrong.

He got it wrong, I take it?

To me you seem to concentrate more on who to believe instead of understanding what could and could not happen for yourself.

Fine. But psikey, surely you realize how incredibly weak your case is when no one but you seems to think it's important? I swear, if I had a point on this issue wherein no one but I thought it was important, I'd have serious doubts about it myself.

How can the people in the REAL Science forums be scientific if they don't demand exact data.

Demand it from whom? Only recently has one of the Truth Movement's notables, physicist Steven Jones, even had the chance to have one of his questions answered by the official investigation. Criticized by the mainstream press as just a bunch of maladjusted individuals, we're in no position to be demanding anything. We take what we can get and are expected to be grateful for the privilege of getting even that. This forum is a perfect example; threads can be closed on a moderators whim and most here seem to think we're just beating a dead horse.

Didn't some probe crash on Mars because the data was wrong? Everyone claiming to be scientific should understand and be sticklers for exact data. It should make things easier for LAYMEN to understand.

Perhaps. But like I said, your position is really hurt in my view precisely because no one else seems to think the distribution of mass is all that important.

In my opinion this entire business should have been settled within a year, but obviously it hasn't been so I don't see the problem with DEMANDING accurate steel and concrete info.

Demands have more weight when a sizeable amount of people think an issue is important...

[scott3x]

Truth Movement Notables, Round 2

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 1725 in this thread.

You can howl at the moon that experts on 9/11 like David Griffin and Steven Jones are 'crackpots'. It won't change what they really are. David Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology. You seem to forget the 'philosophy' bit- as wikipedia states:
Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

Oh philosophy!!? Well that changes everything.

No, but it means he's good at reasoned argument. Something which I really think you could use a hand with.

He must be an expert on fires, demolition and building construction.

I believe he's certainly become something of an expert in relation to many issues concerning 9/11. I personally haven't read too much from any of his books, but from the bit that I have and from what I've heard of his books, they seem to be very good.

NIST should have called him in straight away to investigate the collapse!

I never said he was an expert shortly after 9/11. He himself acknowledges that at first he too believed the official story. It was only after doing some reading that he began to question it.

Your 'experts' are a theologian...

Who is also a philosopher and highly acclaimed author of many books on 9/11.

a cold fusion physicist

Who has also wrote several peer reviewed papers' on 9/11, such as Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? and Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method as well as the joint refereed paper, Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction, with other truth movement notables such as Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan (your 'waterboy', who happens to be a chemist and has written several papers on 9/11 himself), James R. Gourley and our very own Anthony (Tony) F. Szamboti.

I'm describing Steven Jones the way I see him. How you see him is your affair.

You are explaining to me who Steven Jones is and that he has written a lot of material regarding 911. Considering the discussions we have had going over several months and nearly a couple of hundred pages, that is a very strange thing to do.

Why? Just because you don't see him the way I do?

[scott3x]

Ryan Mackey, Round 2

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 1725 in this thread.

Whatever shaman. I'm the one who realized that one of his alleged refutations was nothing more then fluff and did nothing to refute what he was allegedly rebuffing.

No you read that the people you put faith in were critical of him (as a response to his attacks on them) so you refuse to comprehend anything he says.

Sigh. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here for now.

They rebutted him handily. After taking a look at some of his materials, it seems clear to me that his comebacks were simply more fluff.

I doubt you even understood the article.

Personally, when it comes to the point I rebutted, I think it's actually the other way around; as in, you didn't understand how his alleged rebuttal was nothing of the sort and all I needed to do was refer to the material he was allegedly rebutting to set things straight; but it's one things to set things straight and another for you to actually understand Mackey's mistake.

I debunked one of his 'comebacks' and all you could say was that I used the material he was rebutting.

Lol. No you did what you regularly do because you can’t actually defend your 911 faith, you just spam the same articles over and over.

When I repeat an article, it's only because you didn't learn what I was trying to show you the time(s) before.

Posting the article he was attacking is not debunking Scott. Can you not understand this?

I've already given you an analogy, but apparently you still don't understand. Once again:
TMN (Truth Movement Notable):
1+1=2

Mackey's "rebuttal":
No, 1+1=55

My rebuttal to Mackey's "rebuttal":
Sorry, but like TMN said, "1+1=2"

You see, it doesn't take much effort to rebut things of this nature .

I was able to do so because his supposed 'comeback' was nothing but fluff that was destroyed by the very material he was allegedly rebutting.

You are a fanatic who says some very [insult removed]

Insulting me doesn't change the truth shaman.

[Stryder]

FYI, This thread is now no longer tagged as Woo-Woo, but instead bears the tag Pseudoscience. This label is so since this is in fact not a real science, considering it's absent of any true Forensics methods and contains just regurgitated accounts and formula's that are third party in origin.

[scott3x]

FYI, This thread is now no longer tagged as Woo-Woo, but instead bears the tag Pseudoscience. This label is so since this is in fact not a real science, considering it's absent of any true Forensics methods and contains just regurgitated accounts and formula's that are third party in origin.

I wouldn't agree with that. Not only do I believe that people on all sides have reasoned many things out for themselves but Tony Szamboti, one of the posters and a mechanical engineer, has written peer reviewed articles on the WTC collapses. However, I much prefer the label 'pseudoscience' to 'woo woo', thanks.

[psikeyhackr]

FYI, This thread is now no longer tagged as Woo-Woo, but instead bears the tag Pseudoscience. This label is so since this is in fact not a real science, considering it's absent of any true Forensics methods and contains just regurgitated accounts and formula's that are third party in origin.

.
What the hell is Woo-Woo?

[John99]

No earthquakes hit WTC 7 either, unlike your example there that got a whopping 7.9 one :-p.

You were not standing at the base of the towers when they came down, if you were you wouldn't be here to say that. That is beside the point as it was to show that building can and do collapse hours after and event takes place.

[scott3x]

.
What the hell is Woo-Woo?

I didn't know before I came to sciforums either :-p. Basically it's a 'nice' way of saying someone who's out of touch with reality