Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    [​IMG]

    AE911Truth is an organization founded by Richard Gage where people with some Architectural and Engineering background discuss the events of 9/11, and generally promote the idea that the destruction of the two towers and WTC Building 7 were controlled demolitions. They are a big budget organization, spending nearly half a million dollars a year (and with $85,000 just on Gage's salary). They have produced some glossy info-graphics to promote those theories. The above is for WTC7, which they like to focus on because people are not familiar with it, and they think it's the best way of convincing people that there was a controlled demolition.

    Now this is bunk. Each of the ten points on the left is either bunk, or it does not mean what they think it means. You can generally just look them all up, but I thought it would be useful to go through all ten here (and some of the other points in the image), and provide a concise single-stop debunking.

    1 Sudden Onset of destruction near base of structure

    False. The visible destruction starts at the TOP of the building, as the east mechanical penthouse sinks into the interior, and then proceeds down though the middle of the building. The collapse of the EXTERIOR of the building happens several seconds after this. AE911 present the collapse of the exterior as the "destruction", when the building was destroyed by the interior structure collapsing, and the the exterior was the LAST thing to collapse.

    [​IMG]



    2. Straight-Down, Symmetrical Collapse into Building Footprint

    False. The collapse was highly asymmetric inside. The east half of the interior collapsed gradually, and several seconds before the west half, and that was a few seconds before the exterior collapse. It did not collapse into the building footprint, it fell mostly to the North and South, and in fact badly damaged several nearby buildings, including massive damage to the building to the north.

    [​IMG]

    And the following shows the debris pile fallen across the North street (Barclay) between the two buildings:
    [​IMG]

    3. Patterned Removal of column supports.

    False. And nonsensical. If there was a "sudden onset" then all the columns would have been removed at once. This particular point is a little odd to include in a list of evidence, because they could not even see the columns collapsing. Their reasoning is "The overall building mass fell suddenly, uniformly, and nearly symmetrical through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – some 40,000 tons of structural steel. According to structural engineer Kamal Obeid, PE, this requires a precisely-timed, patterned removal of critical steel columns" Thus they are using their own conclusions as evidence. A circular argument.

    4. Free-Fall acceleration thru path of greatest resistance.

    False. As long as the resistance provided by the building is less than load of the falling structure, then the path of least resistance (measured as acceleration minus retarding force) is always straight down (as there is no other acceleration other than straight down). The initial interior collapse (ignored by AE911) was at far less than free-fall acceleration. The initial fall of the exterior was also at less than free fall, as was the last half. There were a few seconds at near free-fall during the exterior collapse. But that is to be expected from a very tall structure with very little lateral support. The exterior columns had buckled near the base, and once buckled would offer only a tiny fraction of their initial resistance. The building exterior crushed itself not unlike a soda can being crushed.

    5. Total Dismemberment of Structural Steel Frame.

    Largely. Which is what you would expect when a tall steel frame collapses. The connections between beams are not designed to withstand such loads, so they get ripped apart. You will notice that in all the photos of steel after the collapse the ends of the beams are simply ripped and twisted apart, or bolts are simply ripped out our snapped. This is evidence of a collapse. It's not evidence of beams being cut by explosives.

    AE911's image the they chose to use for their current fund-raising drive actually shows part of the exterior frame, not dismembered at all, and instead draped over the pile.
    [​IMG]

    6. Limited Damage to Adjacent Structures

    False: See #2. Also:
    [​IMG]

    7. Sounds of explosions heard by credible witnesses

    But not recorded on the audio of the video of the collapse. Or the audio of people very close to WTC7. Or even from a significant number of the thousands of people there. Controlled demolition charges are incredibly loud, as they are releasing a lot of energy. What people reported hearing was most likely things falling (including initially from the two towers), or just things blowing up in the fires. You would expect people to hear some bangs. If there was a controlled demolition then you would hear a series of closely spaced very loud bangs.

    Listent to what ACTUAL controlled demolition sounds like:



    In addition, the explosions reported were heard throughout the day. This is entirely at odds with AE911's notion of "sudden onset", or "a precisely-time, patterned removal of critical steel columns".

    8. Pyroclastic-like Clouds of pulverized concrete

    Does not even make any sense. Yes there was a huge clouds of dust when the building fell. This would be from concrete, but also the hundreds of tons of wallboard in the building, as well as smoke and ash from the fire. It is entirely expected. It looks exactly like the cloud of dust you get when building are collapsed either with or without explosives. Calling it "pyroclastic" makes no sense at all.

    The following shows a "pyroclastic" cloud from a much small building collapsed with NO explosives.
    [​IMG]

    9. Pools of molten steel/iron seen by witnesses.

    We don't know what they saw. Very few people claimed they saw anything like this. No photos were taken. Nobody found large solidified pools of metal. Probably they just saw some regions of underground fire in the days after the collapse. But unfortunately all we have a few anecdotal accounts. People also sometimes use the word "molten" to mean "very hot", rather than "liquid".

    10. Evidence of thermite incendiaries in steel samples.

    False. They found nothing that you would not expect to be there. The most touted "evidence" is iron microspheres, which are formed both in fires, and in violent scraping of steel. The collapses of the WTC towers (the dust from which covered WTC7) was guaranteed to produce these spheres. In fact investigators used iron microsphere as a "signature" when examining the extent of the spread of the WTC dust. In addition, thermite is made from iron oxide and aluminum - vast amounts of were would be found in the towers, so obviously would also be found in the dust.

    Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 3 of 7 -Thermate, thermite and glowing aluminium
    Debunking 9/11 conspiracy theorists part 2 of 7 - Nano-thermite found in the WTC dust
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2014
    • Like Like x 13
    • Winner Winner x 4
    • Agree Agree x 3
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Corrections and suggestions appreciated.
     
  3. BombDr

    BombDr Senior Member

    I don't think I can better your analysis Mick, but here is my take.

    This I find annoying as A&E claim to have a plethora of experts on tap, and they produce anti-science nonsense like this in a 'see-how-many-sciency-words-I-can-put-in-one-sentence' kind of way. It is simply lazy analysis:

    1. Gravity, and it starts at the top.
    2. Gravity
    3. Just failure, not 'patterned removal'
    4. Gravity, and they can't spell 'through'
    5. Wrong. Collapse maybe, with the help of our friend 'Gravity'
    6. I suppose this is right, in the same way that if my car hits a tree, there will be limited damage to neighbouring trees
    7. Really? Which credible witnesses? And why did the gazillions of cameras, radios and people on phones saying 'save me' to 911 dispachers not record it?
    8. Pyroclastic means volcanic, so not sure where all the Phd's of A&E are going with this. It actually look like dust to be, from tonnes of concrete being smashed apart by its structural integrity failing, but what do I know?
    9. Pools of molten steel? Or aluminium alloy from a plane perhaps? Any of these witnesses metalurgists?
    10. Wrong again. Evidence of some chemicals that could be used as thermite, but also has many other applications.

    Then through the flow chart: No evidence of explosives, of any kind. Now I am sure the usual suspects will scream 'NIST didn't test, NIST didn't test', but NIST were not the only people there. The NYPD found no evidence of demolitions, nor did the FBI, nor did the FDNY and so far no-one from any of these organisations have come forward with "I had some unfired detonators in an evidence baggy, when the Men in Black came in and asked me to look into their silver pen."

    Which Whistleblowers? Name one...
    "Overwhelming evidence of explosives", except actual evidence of explosives. Also truthers, define your version of 'overwhealming'.
    "Proof of controlled demolition beyond a reasonable doubt" Again, it seems A&E may have a few builders, but certainly no lawyers.

    This sheet is a lazy piece of PR, rather than an erudite and objective examination of evidence.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 20, 2013
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Black Sheep

    Black Sheep New Member

    You call that Debunking evidence??? Please… you don't come with ANY scientific proof or research to back up your claims!

    The video "Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak (full)" which you can find on youtube destroys every single thing you're saying here… please watch it and try to resond to it by SCIENCE not arrogant talk which could be made by a 12 year old…



    All 10 points you point out are totally explained in this video and you're totally lying about certain things like putting all on Gravity which is completely absurd, the possibility of the molten steel being aluminium (that is a BIG lie watch this:
    and compare to the color of the molten steel at 9/11… if you see the same color go see a optician) or claiming that because it doesn't sound like a controlled demolition it's not one… you call that science?? I call that crap.

    Please, show me how these experts are wrong, BY SCIENCE!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2014
    • Funny Funny x 6
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
    • Disagree Disagree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Please review the posting guidelines:

    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/

    If you want something in particular debunked, then pick a single claim of evidence, and start a new thread. Do not post a long list unless you are debunking each item on the list.
     
  6. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    err yeah, right back atcha.
    Don't just tell us to watch videos, construct an argument we can read, it makes things much easier to follow and is more precise.
     
  7. Melbury's Brick

    Melbury's Brick Active Member


    The AE911Truth horse falls at the first hurdle. Building 7 collapses from the top, not the bottom. No science required....Just reasonable eyesight and a sound mind. Even the average 12 year old would be equipped to understand that.
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 8
    • Like Like x 2
  8. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Member

    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    The heavily damaged building to the north is the Fitterman Building which was later torn down. It might have been possible to repair it but for a number of reasons it was left too long to do so, and suffered continuing damage which left it unrepairable.

    It is one of the inconvenient facts that AE911T never speaks of. There was also damage to the Verizon building next door. How much damage was done to WTC 5 (or is it 6?) accross the street to the south, is hard to determine in photos since that structure had already been destroyed by the fall of WTC 1. Sure it was partially still standing but was completely and utterly unrepairable.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    So you assert that the collapse was "asymmetric inside" at point 2 and then object that AE911 can't see inside the building at point 3? You can't debunk anything with hypocrisy like that: it's pure cognitive dissonance.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 7
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The asymmetric collapse is what matches the visual evidence, as explained. The east side falls first, then the west. It's not an assertion, it's an observation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    You can't see inside the building any better than AE911 can. That's what makes your observation bunk.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 6
  13. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    It's based on observations of the outside.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    That's what AE911 says.
     
  15. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Richard Gage (founder) also says this:

     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  16. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    So what? Find a YouTube video of a model of the towers that does reproduce their total collapse and start a new thread with that if you think it proves something.
     
  17. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    I merely responded to the comment "That's what AE911 says" with an example (off-topic perhaps, but relevant to the credibility in general of the founder of AE911T)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Your views on Gate's credibility with respect to that video might be worth posting elsewhere if you can point to a model of the towers that reproduces their total collapse; however, you will find this impossible and so it is your own credibility as well as the relevance of your remarks here that is questionable.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  19. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    I don't understand, what is there about weedwhacker's credibility that is in question? It's opinions on the internet.
    How does 'credibility' even come into it?
    Credibility is an issue when someone is supposed to be trusted to know what they're talking about yet demonstrates they don't.
    Credibility isn't really an issue here, no-one's seeking to convince via reputation rather than facts.
    It sounds like you think he's someone pretending to be what he's not, which is just silly.

    Anyway, can you tell us more about how a symmetrical patterened internal collapse is more plausible than an asymmetrical one when the observable outside collapse is itself asymmetrical? What law does it violate to assume an asymmetrical internal collapse if that is what is observed outside?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    More especially when
    • the building was asymmetric
    • the damage was asymmetric, and
    • the fires were asymmetric
    @CubeRadio "if you can point to a model of the towers that reproduces their total collapse" is off-topic. Just tell us why you see symmetry in the collapse of WTC7's interior. Not its fascia. Its interior.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  21. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    The observation that there are no models in existence that reproduce the total collapse of the towers was made in response to what was noted to be an off topic remark, but it remains a fact; the observation that neither Mick nor AE911 can see inside the building was made to note the obvious and hypocritical contradiction in his responses to points 2 and 3 at the start of this thread.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  22. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    In fact, there are models of the collapses. Also, there are many, many people (such as AE911T) who post in multiple places on the Web that such models do not exist. Why not search for such models, rather than attempting to defend an organization and mindset that is demonstably wrong?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  23. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    Why not simply post links to some of the models you think most accurately reproduce the total collapse of the towers (preferably in a new thread) instead of weakly claiming they exist with nothing to back your claim up?
     
  24. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Frankly, I'd rather suggest that would be a task for you, as it was you who challenged the OP of this thread in the first place. Again the title:

    "Debunked: AE911Truth's WTC7 Explosive Demolition Hypothesis"

    The OP efficiently and thoroughly accomplished this. Which also leads to the questioning of the "AE911Truth"s overall credibility on this subject, to include ALL of their other assertions. If they could be wrong about WTC7, then perhaps their other claims should be critically analyzed more thoroughly too.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  25. Redwood

    Redwood Active Member

    AE911T and other Truthers have had years to prepare a model for explosive demolition, but have done nothing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  26. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    If I claim there are no models that reproduce the towers' total collapse and you claim otherwise but fail to produce any evidence, you are strengthening my position; I am of course not seeking a model of explosive demolition any more than I am seeking to divert attention from the laughable logic of the op at points 2 and 3.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  27. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  28. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Well, if it's "laughable", it must be easy to explain.

    So why don't you explain exactly why Mick's points 2 & 3 are "laughable"?

    I am not being rhetorical here.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 2
  29. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    The internal collapse is quite reasonably assumed to be assymetric given that the first indications of internal damage are, in order, the line of window breakage about 1/3 of the way from east to west, on the north side of the building(lines up well with the location of col 79), the tilt and fall of the East Penthouse first, THEN the tilt and fall of the screen wall and western rooftop structure and development of the 'kink' in the north facade.

    The east third and western two thirds sections have most floors tilting down towards the so called 'kink'. At this point the building is obviously doomed. Look at the roofline. Its no longer straight and neither are the lines of windows of any visible floor. There is obviously a complete lack of structural stability at the line of the 'kink'.

    As for models of the collapse that reflect observed reality. NIST ran TWO FEAs, one had column 79 fail but with an otherwise pristine building.
    The other was run with observed south side damage, including the loss of a dozen or more storeys of the SW coner. In both cases the structure progressed to global collapse. In the fisrt run the building twists a great deal more than in the second run. Its the second run, which has as initial conditions, what was observed from the outside, the loss of structure on the south side, DOES sufficiently resemble the observed collapse.

    OTOH, despite the years since the creation of AE911T, this group, supposedly with the expertise to do so, has not managed to come up with an alternative collapse scenario that includes explosives and/or incindiary devices, which matches the observed collapse.
    IMHO, its time to make mud pies or get out of the sandbox for AE911T. Enough sniping at NIST and vauge claims of the use of explosives and/or therm?te. Show how this could be done and how this would BETTER match the observations.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  30. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    IMHO its a specious, sarcastic and wholly self serving, politically motivated expression.
    How I really feel is not the topic here though.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  31. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    The op's weak-minded logic with respect to points 2&3 was easily exposed in my first posts on this thread; the collective failure of the forum here to provide any links to models that reproduce the total collapse of the towers is all the evidence I need to maintain my position that no such models exist.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 2
  32. Soulfly

    Soulfly Banned Banned

    Great opinion but, this site is about bringing evidence, which you have not done.
    I suggest reading the posting guidelines.
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
    And the politeness policy.
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/politeness-policy.1224/
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  33. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    No it wasn't, you repeating it's weak-minded, cognitive dissonance, or hypocritical doesn't explain why it is so.

    What error in logic or physics is there in inferring an asymmetric internal collapse from an observed outside asymmetrical collapse?
    Conversely, what's in any way rational about imagining a co-ordinated symmetrical internal collapse if the outside collapse observed is asymmetrical?

     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  34. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    No it wasn't at all. Accusing someone of hypocrisy isn't "evidence".

    Is not the topic of this thread.

    When are you going to engage in proper discussion?

    Oh, and by the way, "it's pure cognitive dissonance" is not what cognitive dissonance is either (look it up).

    So far you have only been abusive.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  35. Cube Radio

    Cube Radio Member

    I was not responsible for introducing the subject of models of the towers to this thread, but my position that no models exist that reproduce their total collapse continues to be undebunked by the mighty intellects here; the forum's manifest collective failure to produce evidence to the contrary (while pathetically claiming such evidence exists) serves only to illustrate my point.
     
  36. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    What does the lack of modelling of the twin towers collapse prove? Why do you think it's needed? Can nothing about the collapse be asserted without it?
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  37. WeedWhacker

    WeedWhacker Senior Member

    Apparently it was in reference to my post, showing the credibility gap exhibited by Richard Gage (AE911T founder), and using his Towers video as example.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  38. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah but he keeps going on about it as if it proves something and refusing to actually address his issue with the thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  39. Jazzy

    Jazzy Closed Account

    Then it cannot be beyond your wit to answer the questions I have put you. This second time:
    • Tell us why you see symmetry in the collapse of WTC7's interior. Not its fascia. Its interior.
    • Why don't you explain exactly why Mick's points 2 & 3 are "laughable"?
    • When are you going to engage in proper discussion? (The answer to this is when you respond appropriately to questions put to you).
    Nobody knows what your point is. How could they? You haven't made one.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  40. jaydeehess

    jaydeehess Senior Member

    Post #29
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.