Friday, March 21, 2008

Graeme MacQueen at the 9/11 Denier Evening

For other parts of this series, go here, here, here, here, and here.

The last speaker of the evening was Graeme MacQueen, who was introduced as a retired professor of Religious Studies at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. His specialties include Buddhist studies. Like the other speakers, MacQueen has no professional background to discuss the physics and engineering aspects of the World Trade towers' collapse, but that didn't stop him from pontificating on the subject.

He started by thanking Adnan Zuberi and Adam Parrott for organizing the evening. (As an aside, I note that when I asked a member of the UW Debate Club who Adam Parrott was, he had no idea. I find it strange that an organizer of the evening's events would be unknown to members of the club that sponsored the presentation. Both Parrott and Zuberi are listed on this page as "grassroots organizers" for the misnamed "9/11 Truth" movement.)

He started by saying, "I have two modest aims: why a reasonable person might have serious doubts about the official explanation about why the two World Trade Centre towers came down the way they did... why a reasonable person might want to explore another theory: controlled demolition." This indeed, sounds very modest. But soon the veneer of reasonableness was stripped away, as he described the generally-accepted model of the Towers' collapse and then said, "A rather obvious fraud, in my view." This kind of behavior is typical of the "9/11 Truth" movement. Their claims are outlandish and unsupported; yet if you do not agree, you are in league with fraud. By using the word "fraud", MacQueen denigrates the dozens of structural engineers, fire engineers, and civil engineers who have looked into the buildings' collapse and have paintstakingly devised the generally-accepted theory. There is no legitimate reason to believe that all these researchers have engaged in fraudulent activity, and it is a gross calumny to say so.

Much of MacQueen's argument was devoted to the principle that since, if you looked at the video of the World Trade towers' collapse, you would describe what happened as an "explosion", therefore there must have been an explosion that caused the collapse. He consistently denigrated the idea that to understand exactly what happened, you would need to understand anything substantial about physics, civil engineering, or building construction: "You don't need a Ph. D. to look at these photographs".

He plotted the position of the top of one tower through time, and was astonished to discover that the resulting graph formed a parabola similar to free fall. (I imagine professors of religious studies don't have much time to study equations based on gravity.) This "grade-school physics" exercise, he claims, is enough to rebut the thousands of hours of study by civil engineers on the World Trade Center collapse, and the report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

The only alternative to the NIST theory, according to MacQueen, is controlled demolition, brought about by explosives, incendiaries, or both, through a covert operation.

"Controlled demolition" of the WTC, of course, is one of the favorite assertions of 9/11 deniers. But they offer no plausible rationale why anyone would want to carry out both a plane attack and a controlled demolition. Why not just the demolition? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to plant bombs in the WTC and then blame those on terrorists? After all, terrorists already bombed the WTC back in 1993. 9/11 deniers consistently fail to address this.

Further, if the government carried out the plane attack, why would they bother with setting bombs, too? The destruction wrought by the planes alone seriously damaged the buildings, and repairs would have cost hundreds of millions, if not more. Why wouldn't that be enough as a pretext for war, if that were the government's plan? 9/11 deniers have no answer.

Furthermore, seismic data offer no support at all for the contention that there was an explosion before the collapse of the buildings. How do 9/11 deniers explain this? Silence.

During his presentation, MacQueen referred several times to the Journal of 9/11 Studies for support for his claims. The editors of this "journal" are Kevin Ryan, Frank Legge, and Steven Jones -- three men heavily involved in the "9/11 Truth" movement. No one taking issue with "9/11 Truth" claims is involved. This is not a scholarly journal in any sense of the word; it is a propaganda outfit for deniers.

The latter part of MacQueen's presentation was devoted to his analysis of the testimony of firefighters. He said, "I decided to read it and look for evidence of explosions". Sounds to me like looking for evidence to support one's preconceptions (although later he backtracked and said he also looked for evidence against the idea of explosions). MacQueen seems to think that one can get at the truth of whether or not there were bombs planted in the building by analyzing the testimony of people who were there.

The problem is that the WTC collapse involved fire, structural damage, and probably small explosions as pockets of fire encountered volatile chemicals. Furthermore, we lack the vocabulary to describe what happens when a building collapses from the top down; it is not a phenomenon we encounter very often. Lacking such a vocabulary, anyone might have called what happened an "explosion" without meaning that a bomb was involved.

To illustrate this, consider the 1945 crash of a military plane into the Empire State Building. Witnesses described the sounds of gunshots (but were in fact the sound of elevator cables snapping). By the MacQueen principle of witness reliability, if witnesses heard gunshots, then there must have been gunshots inside the Empire State Building.

In summary, I heard a discussion of building collapse by a man not professionally qualified to do so, a foolish reliance on the use of the word "explosion" to imply the existence of a bomb, and a lack of any explanation why both a plane crash and a bomb would be used by the government to bring down the World Trade towers.

29 comments:

Matt said...

MacQueen tried to have the audience rely upon common sense to accept his narrative. His narrative is also a very simple one which only looks at the surface pictures. If I were to apply his logic to the sun, I would assume by common sense and only looking at the sun that the sun does indeed orbit the earth. Mr. MacQueen, many things in this world, especially very complex events, need more than common sense to deal with what are often may be counter intuitive phenomenon.
Also, why was he using witness account to look for evidence of explosions? Were there not sound recordings of the collapse? My guess they are as valid as the seismic recordings you referred to. Thus he resorts to one of the best observational tools of all, the subjective often compromised human experience.

Anonymous said...

Do you have any reservations about making posts like this?

Unlike your posts on religion, 9/11 is a topic where there is little debate among reasonable people.

9/11 deniers have problems. Attacking them in a public forum might be construed as a bit cruel.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

"Attacking them in a public forum might be construed as a bit cruel."

They have made their remarks in public, and I think they should be held accountable for them.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Matt:

MacQueen claimed that mechanical recordings support his claims. He said that videos showed "rapid focused ejections in advance of the collapse front".

Arthur Scheuerman said...

Reports of Controlled Demolition, Molten Steel, Thermite, El


Many people interpreted the loud sounds and debris being projected out sideways during the Tower collapses as an indication that explosives were used to demolish the buildings. Most of these 'explosive' sounds, heard during the collapses were heard after the collapses began. In order for an explosion to cause a collapse it would have to occur before the collapse. The exterior walls can be seen bending and buckling inward in the videos of both Towers long before any sounds or ground vibrations occurred. In Tower 2, the exterior columns in the east wall were photographed bowing inward up to 10 inches, 18 minutes after the plane's impact. That's 38 minutes before the global collapse began. To be technical, you could say that Tower 2's collapse began slowly, with possibly some noise or impact sounds from falling floors, about 38 minutes earlier than the official collapse time. The explosive sounds and expanding dust clouds occurred just after the east wall buckled inward and started the collapse, and not before the buckling, as would have happened with controlled demolition. When the south wall of Tower 1 was photographed it was bowing inward up to 55 inches on floors 95 to 101, about six minutes before these columns were seen buckling inward. In the North Tower "thunder" sounds were heard when floors collapsed on the south side 12 to 14 seconds before the top of the building was seen to tilt southward and begin falling as a unit starting the global collapse. Since each section of floor on the long-span side weighed about 500 tons, I would explore these 'explosive' sounds in Tower 1 as evidence of a floor or floors detaching and impacting the floors below on the south side which most probably accelerated south wall failure. I believe all the supposed 'explosive' sounds can be explained by the impacts made by the collapsing buildings after the columns were pulled in and buckled by the bowing and sagging floors and when the floors themselves began impacting the floors below. The boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetitive 'explosive' sounds reported by firefighters running as Tower 2 was coming down were most likely caused by the sequential collision of impacting floors. The great quantity of air on each floor being compressed in a fraction of a second by great weight and momentum would propel air, smoke, and any concrete dust and debris outward at great velocity.

Initial Collapse Cause

It is clear from the computer studies that the heat from the fires caused differential expansion of the steel parts in the long span, floor trusses with the resulting thermal bowing in some floors directly exerting pull-in forces on the exterior columns or this thermal bowing could have detached a floor which would have impacted the floor below destroying composite action by separating the concrete slab from the trusses and inducing strong tensile (suspension) forces in the double weighted floor. In other floors thermal expansion of the floor against the columns compressed the trusses which along with shear forces within the trusses buckled the diagonal struts collapsing the trusses which went into suspension (catenary action) and helped pull-in and eventually buckle the exterior column walls. Differential thermal expansion of the concrete and steel has also been shown to disconnect the knuckles from the concrete slab causing loss of composite behavior in the floors. All these adverse floor truss effects were caused by steel expansion which begins immediately as the steel is heated. Bowing and buckling can happen at low temperatures (400 C to 500 C) even before the steel would have weakened excessively from higher temperatures. Thermal contraction caused by cooling of the trusses after the fire burns out can cause strong pull-in forces on the exterior columns. Once the exterior column buckling spread,- possibly assisted by the spandrels,- along an entire wall on one face the towers began to tilt and the buckling spread around the towers exterior and into the core and with all the columns buckled the leaning top sections of the tower began to fall straight down. Although the North tower antenna appeared from some northern angles to have fallen straight down it actually tilted to the south because the south wall buckled first and the cantilevered top building section pulled the core over to the south. The South Tower's top tilted to the east because its east wall buckled first. With the tower top tilting all the columns were out of alignment. Once the core columns got out of plumb, there would have been little resistance to their buckling at the weak splices. With the incredible weight of the top of the buildings gaining momentum, like a heavy wedge or sledge all it had to do was break the welded, and single bolt connections holding the floors to the columns. This coupled with the fact that the falling top sections momentum increases as the square of the number of floors impacted as the floors were detached and added to the weight of the descending top. There would have been little resistance to slow the top section's acceleration to the ground. Because this acceleration due to gravity increased the speed and momentum of the collapsing floors and building top, the impacts would have been increasingly violent as shown on the seismic graphs; increasing amplitude until maximum when the mass of accumulated floors hit bedrock seven stories into the cellar.

In order for a column to support the loads they have to be plumb and in line with the columns above and below. If they get out of alignment by 10 to 20 degrees they buckle and can no longer support the weight. The buildings collapsed because the floors first caved in from restrained thermal expansion and from thermal bowing or delamination of the slab and bar joists affecting floor truss stability. The sagging floor trusses pulled in the 59 columns in one exterior wall and they eventually buckled. Once the buildings started to tip over from loss of column support on one side, the tremendous excess eccentric weight began buckling all the columns across the building. Once the tilted building's tops began descending they hit the floors or columns at eccentric angles which easily detached the floors and buckled the columns. In order for the lower building section to offer any meaningful resistance to the falling building top the columns would have had to hit each other exactly in line and in plumb and this was impossible with the top of the building leaning causing eccentric angles of impact. The fact is that columns have to be axially (in line and centered) aligned to support the weight of the building above. Once the top building section began tilting the columns on the side that originally buckled did not line up at all. These columns would have been hitting the floors and would have easily detached or buckled them. After the south wall buckled in Tower 2 the adjacent perimeter wall columns buckled from overloads and the columns on the opposite west side of the building, which acted as a hinge would still be bearing on each other but at an eccentric angle which means they also would have also eventually buckled as the top tilted. These columns along with some of the core columns as they buckled are probably what kicked the bottom of the top building section to the west as reported by NIST. With all the columns across the building buckled the top section began descending at an angle to the building section below. None of the columns would have been axially lined up. As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated into the cellars.

There have been some engineering analyses about the impacting floors slowing down the collapse so that the time to collapse should have been much longer than 'free fall' times of an object dropped from the towers tops. Since the Tower's outer wall columns, especially in Tower 1, pealed out like a banana, they may have been able to break the connections to the floors ahead of the floors being impacted? In other words, with the weight of the wall columns pealing outward from the vertical along with the added horizontal forces of impacting floors projecting debris outwards onto these columns; these columns, while leaning out, might have been able to break the wall-to-floor connections ahead of the level of impacting floors? If this is possible than I believe that the connection failures could could have traveled down the sides of the buildings at a speed faster than free fall times. This might explain the rapid collapses especially in Tower 1. The wall-to-floor connection failures could have traveled down the building sides faster than 'free fall' times and in effect started the floors falling before they were impacted by the accumulating mass of impacted floors above. The heavy exterior wall columns in the 1500 foot high builddings while pealing off could project the column sections outwards a great distance. This distance (500 feet) was proposed as only being made possible by explosive forces. I disagree. If a wall is strong enough and doesen't break up as it falls it can fall out flat to a distance equal to its height. The Tower walls however did break at the splices as they fell.

Much has been made of the fact that NIST only analyzed the events up to the point where the Towers were poised to collapse before runaway collapse began and failed to pursue the remaining collapse. This was largely because after collapse began the chaotic impacts of the floors, walls and columns colliding could not possibly be analyzed accurately with even the strongest computers. As it was, it was a severe strain on computer capabilities to analyze the mechanism of collapse up to the point of runaway disintegration.

The compression of air in the elevator and air-conditioning shafts by the collapsing upper building section and floors, would project air, smoke, and dust down these shafts and out of the air intake or discharge openings on the lower mechanical equipment floors in the exterior walls. This accounts for the plumes of smoke seen projecting outwards from the buildings well below the collapsing floors. There were quite extensive vertical HVAC shafts built into the building. These shafts are connected to air conditioning exhaust and intake ducts open to the exterior on the mechanical floors. Collapse of these shafts would force the dust and smoke out these HVAC exhaust and intake openings in the side of the building. The lightweight aluminum cladding's breaking free from the buckling columns also would have been propelled outward a great distance by this expanding cloud of air and dust. This would account for huge dust clouds and pieces of aluminum seen projected outwards from the upper sections of the collapsing buildings. The light reflected off these aluminum pieces at the north wall of Tower 2 would be interpreted as flashes from explosive 'squibs'. The flashes below the buckling east wall may have been from the aluminum cladding breaking free from the lower columns as they expanded after being unloaded of axial weight by the buckling of the wall above and their expansion breaking the connections to the cladding. Also explosives leave characteristic tears and fractures in steel, and such indications were not found anywhere in the debris pile.

After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity of the fire until the steel is glowing red hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer. These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen. Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation was erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut.

Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. There were also quantities of lead, tin, and silver used in the computer circuit boards. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn't last the hours or days at which times the molten metal was observed.

About the concrete destruction into dust; F.R. Greening did a paper called Energy Transfer in the WTC Collapse in which he says "the energy required to crush concrete to 100 μm particles is 1.9 × 1011 J, which is well within the crushing capacity of the available energy. Hence it is theoretically possible for the WTC collapse events to have crushed more than 90 % of the floor concrete to particles well within the observed particle size range." http://nistreview.org/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf I would also investigate the possibility that the concrete was sub par due to freezing during curing or too much air or water having been added during construction.

Do you think the architect or engineers who built the Towers would want to admit the deficiencies in design, fireproofing and other construction weaknesses after their buildings collapsed? Do you think they will get any other jobs after 5 of their buildings collapsed from fire? (Building 5 had a serious interior multiple floor collapse.) Do you know that the Port Authority of NY, NJ didn't have to follow any building codes? The reason the columns broke at the splices was that they had serious weaknesses due to lack of reinforcing plates or even welds on the exterior column, bolted splices. The long span truss floors were never tested at their design length. I would think the builders would be looking for any excuse to divert attention from themselves even the wild idea that explosives were involved. Why do you think it took so long to get the plans for the buildings while the building engineers had them all along? About the eye witnesses; there are many reasons that loud sounds can be produced at a fire. There can be smoke explosions particularly in fires that have a flammable liquid involved. There were fuel explosions in the elevator shafts. Most of the people in tower 1 did not know that tower 2 had collapsed but they all heard the noises and even felt the rush of air up the stairs. There could have been floor detachments impacting the floors below and producing loud sounds before any general collapse began. Most of the people in tower 2 did not know tower 1 had been struck by a plane but they heard the explosion and felt the impact. Explosives produce loud distinctive pressure waves that can leave people deaf of blow out eardrums. This kind of sharp pearcing sound was not heard. The windows broken out and marble wall panels detached on the interior of the first floor lobby were probably because of torque forces experienced on the lower floor columns from the plane impacts many floors above. The reports of "explosions" in the cellars were also probably from such column or floor displacements or from jet fuel ignitions in the elevator shafts. If you stick a stick into the ground and hit it with another stick most of the deformation will be in the ground around the bottom of the stick. There were reports of split walls and ceiling collapses on many floors after the planes hit. The one elevator shaft that extended into the cellars had a fuel explosion from the jet fuel spilling down the shaft.

In conclusion I think all the reports of controlled demolition can be explained by sounds or sights produced by the plane impacts and jet fuel and air explosions; the sounds of the Towers collapse, - remember most of the people in Tower 1 did not know Tower 2 had collapsed and attributed the sounds of that collapse to be happening in the building they were in. When the interior of building 7 collapsed it would have produced explosive sounds before the exterior walls began collapsing.

Arthur Scheuerman, Retired Battalion Chief, FDNY

Jeffrey Shallit said...

It's an honor to have your comments, Mr. Scheuerman.

Eamon Knight said...

Jeff brings up what is possibly the most universally telling point against the 911 denialists: the baroque nature of their proposed scenarios. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Bushies wanted to pull a Reichstag fire (which I don't believe, though I wouldn't put it past that bunch either), it seems the easiest, most fool-proof and least detectable way would be to covertly encourage and fund a bunch of wannabe terrorists (of whom there is no shortage) to do the deed (either by bomb or hijacking). The notion that one could wire a large building for controlled demo, with none of the occupants noticing this crew doing odd-looking renovations is almost as silly as the holographic-airplane theory.

Tyro said...

One thing stands out to me as something really inappropriate, I wonder if you have any comment. You quote MacQueen as saying "You don't need a Ph. D. to look at these photographs".

This just rings with anti-intellectualism, a tacit acknowledgement that the experts reach very different conclusions but he's not going to give that any credit. Instead, the analysis boils down to some sort of derisive sneer towards the eggheads and a "we good old boys know what's really going on."

Am I reading too much into this? If not, did you see this with the other presenters? How can you explain this anti-intellectualism arising out of University professors of all people?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

My guess is that it's a pre-emptive move against those who would say, as I do, that a man with a religious studies degree has no more business talking from a position of authority about the WTC collapse than I do talking about the fine points of Buddhist theology.

Tyro said...

And you would be right.

I wonder how these people feel about people walking off the street and talking about their field of study. Would they be so cavalier about dismissing subject knowledge then? If they're so adamant that a PhD isn't necessary to discuss important issues, then perhaps the University should let them go and hire someone that understands the value of an education.


Hmm... Professor of Religious Studies? Maybe MacQueen is right and you don't need a PhD... :)

Jim Lippard said...

Eamon: Regarding the baroque nature of the conspiracy claims, Matt Taibbi's hypothetical dialogue among alleged Bush administration conspirators serves to make that point very well.

sdemetri said...

Arthur Scheuerman is certainly entitled to his opinion, but other participants of the Oral Histories have very different stories than his recitation of what has become the "collective memory," erroneously, of the nature of the explosions they spoke about. I have read a couple of Bazant's papers, and while notable for the mathmatical treatment, they are entirely theoretical, and ignor a wealth of visual evidence as if it is insignificant. Such an internal contradiction can hardly be tolerated. One even concludes that little can be learned as to whether his theoretical treatment can be applied properly because of dust obscuring the view.

The official explanations are rife with internal contradictions that cannot be explained under the official conspiracy theory. Name calling, vitriol, and effusive hand waving don't make those contradictions go away.

psikeyhackr said...

Let’s just face a few simple facts.

Skyscrapers MUST hold themselves up. They must also sway in the wind. The people who design skyscrapers MUST figure out how much steel and how much concrete they are going to put on every level before they even dig the hole for the foundation.

After EIGHT YEARS why don’t we have a table specifying the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of WTCs 1&2? The NIST report does not even specify the TOTAL for the concrete. The total for the steel is in three places. So even if the planes did it that 10,000 page report is CRAP!

Conspiracies are irrelevant. The Truth Movement should be marching on all of the engineering schools in the country.

Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?

That is the trouble with computer simulations. If they are good, they are very good. But if they have a defect either accidental or deliberate they can be REALLY STUPID once you figure out the flaws.

The distributions of steel and concrete are going to affect the sway of a skyscraper whether it is from the wind or an airliner.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How much does one complete floor assembly weigh?

You know those square donut floor slabs? They were 205 ft square with a rectangular hole for the core. There was a steel rebar mesh embedded in the concrete which was poured onto corrugated steel pans which were supported by 35 and 60 foot trusses. There has been talk about those things pancaking on each other for years.

But has anyone ever said what the whole thing weighed? Why haven't we seen that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS? The concrete alone is easy to compute, about 601 tons. But the concrete could not be separated from the entire assembly, the upper knuckles of the trusses were embedded into the concrete. So what did the whole thing weigh and why haven't the EXPERTS been mentioning that A LOT in EIGHT YEARS?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So why hasn't Richard Gage and his buddies produced a table with the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE that were on every level of the WTC? How much computing power do they have now, compared to the early 1960s when the buildings were designed? I asked Gage about that in May of 2008 at Chicago Circle Campus and he got a surprised look on his face and gave me this LAME excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. Gravity hasn't changed since the 1960s. They should be able to come up with some reasonable numbers.

yamfood said...

I don't care about any of these so-called explanations of what happened that day, with all due respect to Mr. Scheuerman. His excellent treatise does not explain what happened to building #7 and I for one consider that building's spectacular and incredible collapse to be enough evidence for a serious investigation to be undertaken. There is no way a simple fire among the furniture caused that building to fall down perfectly into its own footprint at free-fall speed. Explain that and I'll eat my hat.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

The answer is simple:

It didn't fall at "free-fall" speed, despite all the claims of truthers.

Read this.

But truthers aren't interested in the obvious and well-supported explanation. They are just interested in whacko conspiracies.

Anonymous said...

NIST acknowledges free fall of building 7.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA

I know this is a blog but please do your homework on the matter before spreading false information and attacking people that question the official story.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

NIST acknowledges free fall of building 7.

Why do you lie so shamelessly?

Anonymous said...

What do you fear so horribly that it makes you lose all reason and cause you to deny what is blindingly conspicuous?

The horrific events of 9/11 were perpetrated by rogue elements within our government. Period.

Do you believe Oswald acted alone? That the Gulf of Tonkin incident was real? That no conspiracies ever happened. . . Ever?

Your childlike responses to G. MacQueen bespeaks your terror. Or,do you have another agenda ?

Anonymous said...

It DID NOT fall at free-fall speed!

It DID fall at free-fall speed!

What a buffoon.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Or,do you have another agenda ?

That's the thing about conspiracy nuts - they see conspiracies everywhere.

And yes, the best available evidence suggests Oswald acted alone. Read Case Closed for a sober analysis, not the ravings of conspiracy nuts.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I read Case Closed and found more cherry picking there than on a cherry farm. What a silly waste. If we're going to suggest books to each other, I suggest you read, Joan Mellon's tome, "A Farewell To Justice," which ends all debate.

Speaking of ending the debate, I will end this one by saying that no one has successfully refuted the symmetrical, free-fall collapse of WTC 7. And they won't. Free-fall, as admitted by NIST themselves, if all 84 support columns failed simultaneously AND AT THE SAME HEIGHT.

You are your frightened sheeple need to wake up. Good Lord.

Peace.

And calling someone a conspiracy nut, although a tried and true method for distraction and demeaning the argument does not PROVE ANYTHING.

What is truly nuts it to claim the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11 to fit your safety net.


Anonymous said...

And I suppose you are a Bugliese fan?

Bugliese. . . who said at a lecture about his book defending the Warren Commission, "We begin with the evidence that Oswald acted alone and throw our everything else. . .because we know that Oswald acted alone."

He said that! And he agrees with YOU!

Hee-heee, heeeeeee!!!

Jeffrey Shallit said...

And I suppose you are a Bugliese fan?

No, I'm a Posner fan, as I said. I'm sorry you have reading comprehension problems.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

You are your frightened sheeple need to wake up

Anyone who uses the word 'sheeple' seriously is just too pathetic to engage with.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Sorry, I forgot to add: it's Joan Mellen, not "Mellon" and her book has been described as "a hocus pocus act".

Anonymous said...

So now you feel the need to attack me personally, something about reading comprehension. . . a clever tactic, again used by those desperately trying to avoid the real issues. Demean who is speaking rather that what is said. Not very clever and rather transparent. I would LOVE to debate you on any of these issues in any public forum.

Speaking of reading. . .

did you READ the book, Mr. Shallit?

No. Because you trusted, who, exactly? Who made that statement?
"It has been described. . ." what nonsense. You know it, and I know it.

Between the two of us, I've actually READ the book, and Posner, and a multitude of others.

But again, this is just a tactic of evasion, a distraction to veer the conversation away from the impossibility of denying that the collapse of WTC 7 was due to anything other than explosives. 84 support columns cannot fail simultaneously at the same height, due to fires. Come to the light, already.

SHEEPLE.

Gonna start crying now, wittuw Jeffrey??? Oh, Mommy! He said, sheeple, I don't like that! Baaaaaaaaaaaah!

Please.

So, no conspiracies have every occurred, right Jeff? Ever.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Gonna start crying now, wittuw Jeffrey?

No, I'm having too much fun laughing at you.

I wonder, in this little fantasy world of yours, whether you ever wonder why you can't convince anyone that matters, like the House, the Senate, or the President? Why no one, except pathetic losers, are still pursuing the "9-11 was an inside job" fraud? Why do you think that is?

Jeffrey Shallit said...

It has been described. . ." what nonsense. You know it, and I know it.

Silly rabbit. The review that I linked to pointed out numerous factual errors in Mellen's book. You just ignored them. Big surprise.

But again, this is just a tactic of evasion

I agree entirely. You brought Mellen's book up, not me. So I agree, you are a pathetic evader.

Booth Wilkes said...

Maybe there was a second shooter: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/28/jfk-second-shooter-documentary_n_3667317.html
An accidental shooter.