9/11 Troofers are Idiots
By Christopher MooreIt sure didn’t take long for the emails to start pouring in after I made this comment:
I also get about 1-2 emails a week from people who have developed a “new paradigm” in physics or believe their 5 second video of the collapse of the Twin Towers is proof that the US government planted explosives that caused the collapse, so I’ve seen all manner of the irrational.
Here is a good example from my inbox:
Here’s where we’re at:
The 9/11 Truth movement has a scientific explanation of what happened to WTC 7 >>> Controlled Demolition. We also have evidence, several videos of its collapse, all of which contain several features of controlled demolition. No Debunker has made the claim that controlled demolition would not scientifically explain the collapse of WTC 7. No Debunker has come up with an alternative scientific theory to explain the features on the WTC 7 collapse videos, including the global free fall speed of collapse. We also should not allow political theories to pollute science. It been 6 years since 9/11. 6 years of unrefuted scientific evidence is long enough to declare with certainty that, yes, indeed, this was a controlled demolition.
At some point, we need to move along, folks.
I will attempt an answer after the jump, though I can assure you that this will only increase the amount of email I get from these folks.
The 9/11 Truth movement has a scientific explanation of what happened to WTC 7
Yes, controlled demolition could be used as the foundation of a collapse model. However, the data does not fit your model for WTC 7 and your model is a complete violation of Occam’s razor.
We also have evidence, several videos of its collapse, all of which contain several features of controlled demolition
The videos are not evidence of controlled demolition. The videos are evidence that buildings fell down. You can analyze the videos and fit the data to a controlled demolition model or another model. The data from the videos does not fit a controlled demolition model. Controlled demolition claimants do a poor job of analyzing the video. They show only up to the point that the perimeter columns hit the ground and conveniently leave out the remaining 40 stories of building. They do the same with WTC 7 videos.
No Debunker has made the claim that controlled demolition would not scientifically explain the collapse of WTC 7.
Controlled demolition COULD scientifically explain the collapse. However, it does not.
No Debunker has come up with an alternative scientific theory to explain the features on the WTC 7 collapse videos, including the global free fall speed of collapse.
Let’s see. The bottom half of the south side of WTC 7 had a gaping hole and raging fires. Numerous civil engineers on the site before the fall reported that the building’s structural integrity had been severely compromised and would inevitably fall. Because of these reports, the firefighters were “pulled” from the area. The building fell down starting on the south side and collapsing over towards the south (not in its “footprint”: one of many 9/11 Troofer lies). Free fall collapse is another lie similar to the same assertion for the Twin Towers. It took at least 18 seconds for WTC 7 to fall completely.
We also should not allow political theories to pollute science.
Agreed.
It been 6 years since 9/11.
Agreed.
6 years of unrefuted scientific evidence is long enough to declare with certainty that, yes, indeed, this was a controlled demolition.
Your evidence does not exist.
At some point, we need to move along, folks.
Agreed. Accept reality and move on.
I get email constantly about “peer-reviewed” research that “proves” that the towers were brought down via controlled demolition. Most of the time, these folks bring up cold-fusionist and 9/11 Troofer Steven Jones, who at one point was a professor of physics at BYU. To be fair to Dr. Jones, even though he coined the term “cold fusion” and his seminal work on the subject was flatly rejected by Nature and every other respected journal in physics, some of his more minor work in the area is actually pretty interesting. He also didn’t receive anything near the thrashing given to Pons and Fleischmann, since he had the good sense not to present bogus data to the national media before beginning the peer-review process. He saved that level of idiocy for 2001.
The articles supposedly “proving” the culprit was controlled demolition appear in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. Let’s see, what is the impact-factor on the “Journal of 9/11 Studies”? Oh. You don’t know what “impact-factor” means? How many indexes carry the “Journal of 9/11 Studies”? Oh. You don’t know what a journal index is? It used to bother me that the average Troofer pretends to have carefully researched and weighed the evidence and come to a conclusion. However, they haven’t because they don’t know how to conduct research. The rank-and-file ditto-head idiots that listen to and believe Alex Jones don’t bother me that much. I do have a problem with people like Steven Jones. He SHOULD know better.
So … where is the evidence to support my side?
Peer-reviewed, primary sources that suggest the towers collapsed due to excessive heating and that progressive collapse models are consistent with observed data:
“Behaviour of lightweight composite trusses in fire – A case study,” STEEL AND COMPOSITE STRUCTURES 7 (2): 105-118 APR 2007
“Mechanics of progressive collapse: Learning from world trade center and building demolitions,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 133 (3): 308-319 MAR 2007
“Finite element code for impact collapse problems of framed structures,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN ENGINEERING 69 (12): 2538-2563 MAR 19 2007
“Impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft into the World Trade Center,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (10): 1066-1072 OCT 2005
“Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses,” FIRE AND MATERIALS 29 (4): 181-194 JUL-AUG 2005
“Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers structural frame in multiple floor fires,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 131 (6): 654-657 JUN 2005
“Structural responses of world trade center under aircraft attacks,” JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING-ASCE 131 (1): 6-15 JAN 2005
“Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS-ASCE 130 (10): 1177-1187 OCT 2004
“How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 38 (6): 501-533 OCT 2003
“A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers,” FIRE SAFETY JOURNAL 37 (7): 707-716 OCT 2002
Here is a great secondary source that discusses progressive collapse and how studies of the WTC collapse have contributed to stricter building codes:
“Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards,” JOURNAL OF PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTED FACILITIES 20 (4): 418-425 NOV 2006
Why does Alex Jones or Steven Jones not cite these studies or even attempt to address them?
I refer you to debunking911.com for more.
No Comments »
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
