JRM5001 - 01 April 2008 12:40 PM

Dadeets,

Please review this email string between Dr. Barnett and a 9/11 “Truther” about the WTC collapse.  You will see very clearly that he does not believe thermite was involved and that the Towers did in fact collapse as a result of being hit by the jets. 

I did as you suggested. Interesting.

That’s the longest exchange I’ve seen between someone with scientific credentials supporting the official story, and someone knowledgeable in 9/11 Truth.

I must say, Prof. Barnett reminds me of an educated person working daily in a science or engineering field, but still able hold an irrational God belief in his head at the same time. Nothing in the way of factual evidence seems to be able to break him away from his overall God belief…I mean, official-story belief.

> Yes, there was sulferization.  Must have been crushed gypsum wallboard.

> Yes, we took into account the testimony of over 100 firefighters (testifying to explosions). But, no, don’t see evidence of explosions.

> You say the power was down for 36 hours the weekend before 9/11. I hadn’t heard of that. But, 36 hours isn’t long enough to install explosives on 200 floors (i.e. two buildings).

But see--these further comments pertain to the forest. Prof. Barnett specializes in the trees.

Dadeets,

Dr. Barnett is one of the key people who gathered evidence at ground zero and helped write the “official” story.  Your analogy to religion makes no sense because a religious person has to have faith that God exists without any proof, Dr. Barnett has a phd in mechanical engineering and more than 20 years experience in the field.  He has held the actual evidence of the collapse in his hands, he has walked around the site, performed tests, and actually interviewed the survivors.  His conclusions are based on first hand observation and his extensive knowledge and education.  His conclusions are the essence of scientific inquiry, no faith required. 

I don’t understand what you are trying to prove in those three points.  Are you saying that gypsum does not sulfurize?  Hearing explosions from a collapsing building alone is not evidence of interior explosions.  The collapse of a 110 story building would be pretty loud, there would be explosion-like sounds as different parts of the building collapsed and broke apart.  There would be other evidence in the remains of the building and Dr. Barnett stated that he found no such evidence of an explosion.  Therefore it’s logical to conclude that the sounds the firemen heard were related to structural collapse, nit explosives.  Last, the interviewer is insinuating that the power outage (in only one tower by the way) and mysterious workers were related to the rigging of explosives.  Dr. Barnett responds that 36 hours is not enough to rig two 110 story buildings for demolition.  He simply refuted the truther’s assertion.  Do you have any evidence that two 110 story buildings can be effectively rigged for explosion in 36 hours?  If so, produce it here.  Please try to get evidence from someone who is an actual demolition expert, no one is really interested in hearing a professor of Middle Age Literature’s unfounded rantings on large building demolition. 

It’s interesting that you choose to make personal attacks on Dr. Barnett and ignore my point that Steven Jones misrepresented Dr. Barnett’s opinion.  You have also never addressed the fraudulent peer review of Dr. Jones’ paper or the fact that neither Dr. Jones nor David Ray Griffin and Jim Hoffman have any relevant credentials. 

The fact is that you and other “truthers” have accepted Dr. Jones’ opinions in spite of the obvious fraud in which he has engaged, in spite of the total lack of evidence to support his theories, and his lack of credentials to make his wild accusations.  It is fitting that one of your main academic proponents, David Ray Griffin, is a professor of religion and theology because you and other “truthers” are the ones engaging in irrational leaps of faith by following the teachings of the Right Reverend Steven Jones.  After he’s done preaching on 9/11 he can get back to his study of Jesus’ travels in South America.

JRM5001 - 02 April 2008 11:30 AM

Dadeets,

Dr. Barnett is one of the key people who gathered evidence at ground zero and helped write the “official” story.  Your analogy to religion makes no sense because a religious person has to have faith that God exists without any proof, Dr. Barnett has a phd in mechanical engineering and more than 20 years experience in the field.  He has held the actual evidence of the collapse in his hands, he has walked around the site, performed tests, and actually interviewed the survivors.  His conclusions are based on first hand observation and his extensive knowledge and education.  His conclusions are the essence of scientific inquiry, no faith required. 

The analogy to religion is in the sense that Dr. Barnett holds the belief that explosives (or demolition, or however you want to characterize it) had nothing to do with it, no matter what.  Religious people, to a varying degree, hold the belief their Holy scriptures are correct, no matter what.

Yes, Dr. Barnett has a PhD and is highly experienced in a field very pertinent to the question at hand. Yes, his conclusions are based on scientific inquiry in many pertinent areas. But, when the evidence contradicts with his fundamental belief, that explosives played no role, then he jumps away from evidence-based conclusions and, I guess, jumps over to another part of his brain in a similar way to scientists who are also religious, and defers to that fundamental belief which, in his case, tells him explosives weren’t involved.

For him to say the sulferization came from the gypsum wallboard should be viewed as speculation. What he should have said is, “we ought to do a study to see if there was enough gypsum wallboard to cause the amount of sulferization that was found.” But no, he concluded without scientific inquiry that gypsum wallboard explained all that was found. Which, it so happens, allowed him to also conclude--no explosives were involved.

JRM5001 - 02 April 2008 11:30 AM

Hearing explosions from a collapsing building alone is not evidence of interior explosions.  The collapse of a 110 story building would be pretty loud, there would be explosion-like sounds as different parts of the building collapsed and broke apart. 

It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is supportive evidence, particularly coming from over 100 first responders. Listen to their stories before writing them off. They are mostly from people in the ground floors, hearing the explosion-like sounds going around them very close by, not way up there.

The explanation that “there would be explosion-like sounds as different parts of the building collapsed and broke apart” is speculative. Maybe so. But, much more plausible would be if it were actually explosions going off in the area nearby these 100-plus first responders reported.

So, what we have here is something that is much more plausible, but it conflicts with the fundamental assumption of people like Dr. Barnett--that explosives played no role. Are we to set aside the testimony of 100-plus first responders in favor of a speculation that there is some other explanation that doesn’t involve pre-planted explosives? I would hope people that pride themselves in being critical thinkers would not succumb to the fundamental assumption of Dr. Barnett, and his like.

JRM5001 - 01 April 2008 11:43 AM

I expect someone who is going to complain about a document as inaccurate or incomplete to have at least read and understood that document and that is your problem

It is not my fault that you consider a document that someone wrote about a problem to be MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PROBLEM.  If YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND the problem then you go study some physics.

A skyscraper must suppoert its own weight and withstand the wind therefore the designers must figure out how much steel to put on every level.  To claim to analyze the collapse without that information is TOTAL NONSENSE.

You can have whatever idiotic expectations you like.  I am not going to hold my breath until you find the quantity of steel on levels 80, 81 and 82.  Didn’t that steel have to hold another 28 stories of the building?  Didn’t it stop the plane in less than ONE SECOND?  So how does a fire weaken that much steel in 56 MINUTES?  Your EXPECTATIONS for steel are pretty low.

I don’t have to trust authority on this issue.

I found this stuff in 20 minutes.  Imagine what I could find if I wanted to waste a few hours.

You contradict yourself there.  You IMAGINE that you can find some good information because you TRUST authority to have put it there.  I assumed I could find the total quantity of concrete in the towers when I started searching the reports over a year ago.  It did not cross my mind that it wouldn’t be there.  IT’S NOT THERE! At this point I could not tell you the quantity of concrete in the towers and be sure it was accurate to within 20%.  I have figures ranging from 90,000 tons per building to 425,000 cubic yards for both buildings.  Since there were two types of concrete with different densities and I have never seen how much of each type specified there is a wide range of possibilities.

I know, I know, there’s no chart of weight by floor.  Just because the information is not presented in a way you would prefer does not mean it was not considered.  Until you can prove that the NIST calculations are flawed, your arguments have no merit.

The way I prefer?  How about the way it had to be in order to construct the building.  Do you think they had all of the material delivered to the site and piled up waiting for assembly.  As much as possible it was delivered at the rate it was used.  They wouldn’t have had the space on site to store it.  Why don’t you watch the video of the construction?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4334991174539603857

The site creates logistics problems. City streets adjacent to the site are narrow and congested. There is little or no room at the site to store materials. Therefore, every piece of structural steel must arrive at the right place at exactly the right time. Currently, there are 12 receiving points on the job for the 600 tons of steel that are trucked to the site daily. Eight of these are under the booms of the four climbing cranes atop each tower. Four others are under the booms of mobile land rigs that roam the site as needed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm

The trouble is you are concentrating on winning a debate and maintaining what you already decided to BELIEVE instead of analyzing what it took to build and destroy the towers.

Besides, are we supposed to believe that because the NIST did not break down the weight distribution of the WTC to your satisfaction that the US government killed 3,000+ of it’s own people and engaged in the most insidious and treachorous consipracy in American history?

I don’t want anybody to BELIEVE anything.

BELIEF is the acceptance of something as TRUE without sufficient evidence.

BELIEF is stupid by definition!

How many Americans die on a NORMAL DAY? 

About 5,000!  8,000 Americans died on 9/11/01.  When do you ever hear how many Americans die every day?  How many have died in the last SIX AND A HALF YEARS?  Do you really think that is the issue?  Where do I ever talk about the US government?  This is about physics and engineering and I consider that to be more important than the God Damned United States.  I don’t give a SHIT about a conspiracy.  I would have more respect for the conspirators than for nitwits that CAN’T UNDERSTAND PHYSICS!!!

You can’t build a skyscraper without figuring out how many TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE to put on every level and you can’t do a proper analysis of the collapse of one without that information either.

I’ll keep waiting for you to tell us the tons of steel on 80, 81 and 82.  I’m not asking for the concrete.

psik

This “Ignore” function is really useful ... before too long I’ll be the only one here

Kyu

Kyuuketsuki UK - 03 April 2008 01:34 AM

This “Ignore” function is really useful ... before too long I’ll be the only one here
Kyu

Hmm, yes, but then you can only choose to ignore somebody completely, or not at all. I noticed some members write nonsense in one thread, and in another thread they make more sense. Ah well, your choice. But in the thread where I proposed this solution to you, you are defintely right.

GdB

. I noticed some members write nonsense in one thread, and in another thread they make more sense

“The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.”

- AA Milne

JRM5001 - 02 April 2008 11:30 AM

Dr. Barnett responds that 36 hours is not enough to rig two 110 story buildings for demolition.  He simply refuted the truther’s assertion.  Do you have any evidence that two 110 story buildings can be effectively rigged for explosion in 36 hours?  If so, produce it here.

In this case, Dr. Barnett was speaking outside his area of expertise. He was not being scientific in his approach to the problem. If he were scientific, he would need to know how much of the rigging for explosion remained to be completed going into the 36-hour period. He would need to know how many workers were involved. He would need to know the approach taken in rigging the explosives. Possibly, if he consulted a demolition expert, they together could determine if 36 hours was enough time.

Dadeets,

If you look back at the emails from Dr. Barnett, you will see that he did consult with a demolitions expert:

“We did meet with and talk to the number one controlled demolition man in the world; Mark Loizeaux. I don’t know where you get the idea we didn’t do these things.”

http://www.aldeilis.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2038&Itemid=107

I take it that since your response was to challenge Dr. Barnett that you have no evidence that two 110 story buildings can be rigged in 36 hours.  Therefore it is you that is assuming that there were explosions rather than Dr., Barnett who examined the scene and in his words found no evidence of an explosion or explosions. 

You have to stop listening to the rantings of these 9/11 for Truth websites, they are a font of inaccuracies. 

Are you ever going to respond to my challenges re: Dr. Jones, Dr. Griffin and Dr. Hoffman?  I have stated that those who form the intellectual basis of your position do not have the educational and professional backgrounds to reach the conclusions they did with any authority and that they have engaged in academic fraud to fool people into following them.  I would think you would want to at least answer these charges.  You have persistently ignored the challenge.  I suspect it’s because what I said about them is true and there is no response.  Perhaps you have seen the handprints in South America and are convinced by Dr. Jones’ theory that Jesus did go to South America.

JRM5001 - 03 April 2008 01:17 PM

If you look back at the emails from Dr. Barnett, you will see that he did consult with a demolitions expert:

Opinions of Mark Loizeaux should be viewed with considerable caution. Seems like there could be a conflict of interest in here somewhere:

Check out this url, where the following statement is made

http://www.rense.com/general17/eyewitnessreportspersist.htm

“The contractor who is reported to have been the first on the WTC collapse scene to cart away the rubble that remains is a company that specializes in the scientific demolition of large buildings, Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Baltimore, headed by Mark Loizeaux.”

And here is a whole assessment of the various claims about CDI and Mark Loizeaux and the Loizeaux family.

http://www.implosionworld.com/natgeo.htm

With all of this commentary, I would certainly want to check with a building demolition expert more independent from the situation than Mark Loizeaux and CDI apparently are.

Speaking about debunking, I just want to point out that the terrorists do what they do in retaliation to the loss of lives their families and communities suffer and not because they believe that by blowing the world trade center they are going to heaven and nail 72 virgins!!! that’s the stupidest and the most ignorant thing one can believe on the part of generally educated society. For reasonably educated terrorists, does one think they give a rat’s a… about that? if they want girls all they have to do is go to holland (in Amsterdam for example, they got prostitutes on display at different shops) or better, ... go down the street . ...Just thought I’ll throw that in.

The massacres they suffer back there but never get spoken about in the US IS their motivation. And one wonders why is that. Their goverments are corrupt, the heads of their states usually handle the countries they “lead” as more of farms than anything else. No ones gives carrot about these peoples’ painful ordeal, so what would one do if they were in their shoes??!!! take matters into their own hands.  Yeah, many innocent people died on 9/11 and so have 1000’s died on the other side. Are those any less of lives than those that were lost during 9/11? no.  One should have the gut and courage to step over the other side and do some honest investigating and interviewing, and it won’t take them much to find out that terrorists motivation is ANYTHING but getting to nail 72 virgins in heaven.

dougsmith - 13 December 2007 09:28 AM

There’s also a human tendency (biological?) to assume that effects are equal in importance to their causes. So if an effect is very far-reaching, it must have equally detailed and deep causes. E.g, it can’t have been that one lone fool killed JFK. JFK’s death was so important that there just MUST have been a massive conspiracy behind it.

JFK spoke about disoving CIA, it’s documented.

… it can’t have just been that a small group of terrorist lunatics killed thousands of people and changed the world for the worse! There MUST have been a massive conspiracy behind it.

well, wether bush has anything to do with 9/11 attack or not is irrelevant because now he is offficially a ruthless killer, 4000 soldiers have lost their lives and he is still at it. He identified who he is, it is settled. only 3000 lost their lives on 9/11, he is responsible about the mega loss of 4000 soldiers lives. And by the way, most of them are in their 20’s if not even late teens.

The collapse of a 110 story building would be pretty loud, there would be explosion-like sounds as different parts of the building collapsed and broke apart.

But you ignore any reports of explosion like sounds long before the collapse because that doesn’t suit what you want to believe.  But you come up with excuses to ignore what you want.

http://www.sott.net/signs/forum/viewtopic.php?id=4488

And in SIX YEARS you don’t ask about the distribution of steel and concrete in the building even though it is IMPOSSIBLE to construct a building that tall without figuring all of that out ahead of time.

psik

Dadeets,

I give up, I can’t shake your faith in the conspiracy.  I have tried to show how thin the ice upon which the 9/11 Truth rests but you simply won’t acknowledge my arguments and when that happens, I am arguing with a a wall and that is a waste of time.  You have ignored for the 6th time my challenge of Steven Jones, et al in spite of my obvious attempts to goad an answer out of you.  There’s a fundamental difference between my expert, Dr. Barnett, and your expert Dr. Jones.  Dr. Barnett is an engineer with over 20 years of experience He actually went to ground zero and examined the remains of the WTC.  He conducted tests and reported his findings.  If you don’t believe his report, you must think he’s either lying or that he didn’t do due dilligence because he accepted the conventional explanation which is in and of itself a form of fraud.  This means hundreds or even a thousand or more of investigating experts and clean up officials are now participating actively or passively in a cover up of a controlled demolition. 

On top of that, add the people necessary to plan and execute the flight of planes and demolition of the Towers, factor in the people who created the mythical terrorists and their backgrouds faking their training at US flying schools and other details.  Add the people who researched all the passengers who would be on those flights on 9/11 (quite a feat to figure out months in advance who would be flying that day) so they could be researched enough for convincing fake phone calls to be made that fooled close loved ones like spouses and parents.  Do you ever wonder how it is possible for so many thousands of people to have either participated in the attack or the coverup to keep quiet about this cabal?  So now you have to have a large group of people maintaining the secrecy.  That is a lot of people to keep quiet, the black helicopters must be working overtime.

Your experts are a collection of academics who have no real expertise, and I have shown at least two cases of misrepresentation by Dr. Jones designed to mislead the public as to his position.  First, he misrepresented his paper as peer reviewed when it really was not and then he misquoted Dr. Barnett.  Also, don’t forget about Dr. Jones’bizarre paper alleging that Jesus visited the Incans based on handprints. 

All you can come up with is to attack the character of people like Dr. Barnett by making erroneous statements and then when your error is exposed, you respond with vague accusations about the expert he spoke with, Mark Lozieux.  You can’t make a legitimate argument about a lack of credentials so you rely on vague allegations of bias.  You really should try something other than ad hominem attacks when debating. 

Last thought, if the government was trying to blow up the Towers, what were they hoping to accomplish?  The conquest of Afghanistan?  A war on al Qeada?  The invasion of Iraq?  As for the latter two, Bush could have gone after Bin Laden for his previous acts of terror such as the bombing of the USS Cole.  The invasion of Iraq could also have been pulled off without the Towers as well.  Afghanistan has no value.  To have pulled off such an elaborate and risky plan is so stupid when if Bush were so inclined he could have created some sort of low risk Gulf of Tonkin incident over Saddam or Bin Laden.  If you really think about it, a plot on the Towers would be incredibly stupid and risky when the same results could have been accomplished elsewhere much more easily.

JRM