It's been out for a year already.

this is not news, bit sad when they have to start repeating themselves like this.

Hardly just started. They have never stopped repeating the same junk science again and again. Go to any of the truthers (yeah right!) sites and you find the same scientifically impossible garbage copied and pasted over and over, even including the same chemical names wrongly spelled. And they wonder why all us "sheeple" laugh at them.

nothing to see here

take the word of those brief commentators above and do nothing

they know

you do not need to engage with any other opinion or potential fact, just accept your ignorance and believe

debate is not necessary

after all, you do not want to risk being labled a 'conspiraloon', or worse, a 'lizard lover'

move along now

Please could you watch the following: -  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC44L0-2zL8 and then give me a scientific explaination of how it is junk science or scientifically impossible? I think it is scientifically impossible for a building to give no resistance whatsoever in what NIST have said is a 'progressive collapse' from 'thermal expansion' due to 'normal office fires'.

If you are to believe the official story of the collapse of WTC7 you have to stop believing in the following: -

The law of conservation of momentum
The law of (increasing) entropy
The path of least resistance
The effectiveness of fireproofing
The ability of hardened steel to tolerate relatively low temperatures for approximately 20 minutes in any area (the approximate time a fire would burn with normal office combustibles)

Just what kind of scientist are you?

I did literally nod off a few times doing so because the guy's voice is just so boring. You guys really need to learn a few lessons in presenting things in an interesting form. Sounds exactly the same as the conspiraloon voice over used for the mad chemtrails video. Is it the same guy? The gist of what he's saying (in that awful soporific drawl) seems to be that the building falls too fast given that there must be some resistance to it falling. This gives 3 explanations:
1) The building had rockets attached forcing it downwards.
2) There were powerful winches pulling it into the ground.
3) The frame rate of the video is not real time.

Now 1 and 2 aren't very likely unless you're prepared to believe the most nutty load of crap which sadly many truthers are. For 3, the most damning evidence comes when Mr Drawl casually says "and a copy of a video I downloaded from the internet". So what site did it come from. Who shot the video? Did that person compress or alter the timescale in any way? Since he calibrated the vertical distance from the horizontal width of the building (a figure he just plucks from the air), is the aspect ratio true to life? If this was being presented as legal evidence it would be totally inadmissable without a sworn statement from the person who shot it to say it has not been altered in any way. Hardly likely considering the ferocious levels of digital compression that downloaded videos have applied to them. If you're challenging evidence then you have to start off with accurate evidence yourself.

You mention the effectiveness of fireproofing. Well consider this, fireproofing is ultimately not effective, it merely delays how long the applied heat takes to penetrate that which has been fireproofed. In just the same way that a thermos flask doesn't prevent your tea getting cold, it merely delays how long it takes to become colder.

Construction steel isn't "hardened steel", it's normally a carbon steel with a somewhat higher Youngs modulus than ordinary mild steel but nothing like true hardened steel such as tool steel. It would cost astronomical amounts of money to fabricate a building from hardened steel and it would be impossibly brittle. Like all you scientific illiterates, you really should study a little metallurgy so you know what you're writing about. I notice this ignorance about steel in so much of the text produced by truthers. They know so little about the real world that they seem to think that steel maintains all its strength until it suddenly liquifies. If you had ever watched a blacksmith working a metal horseshoe, you would realise that steel gradually becomes softer and softer as the temperature is raised. At mid red heat, steel is surprisingly plastic and is easily deformed with tongs and moderate hammer blows. In fact the most likely reason for the failure of the steel frame of the buildings is differential thermal expansion which can exert enormous forces. Easily enough to snap the connecting plates and bolts.

Where on earth does this 20 minutes duration for the fire come from? I thought this building burned unchecked for about 6 hours because the firemen were "pulled" from defending it because the earlier collapses had wrecked all the water mains in the area and it was a lost cause fighting fires with a failed water supply? I also thought that the building contained a large tank of generator diesel. 6 hours or 20 mins, you seem to pluck whatever figure suits you out of the air.

"Just what kind of scientist are you? "
I'm one who happens to live and work in the real world. Subjects relevant here are metallurgy and I have also taken it upon myself to study the procedures required to demolish buildings with explosives. Extraordinary amounts of preparation are needed before the plunger is pressed which can actually make explosive demolition a slower process than using more traditional methods of demolition. This is where all your crazy theories of controlled demolition completely and utterly fall apart. It takes literally months of totally unrestricted access to weaken and wire such buildings for explosive demolition. During this time tens of kilometres of thick cable have to be unwound from huge cable drums then crudely and hurriedly snaked along corridors, down stairwells and threaded through big ugly holes punched through all interior walls. The idea of doing such complex and lengthy work surreptitiously while the buildings were occupied by thousands of other workers and never once being discovered trundling these large cable drums along corridors is absurd. The idea of having to do all this cabling neatly and carefully, threading and blending the cables in with existing cable trays is absurd. The idea that during those weeks and months none of the regular plumbers, electricians, and network installation engineers ever noticed sticks of explosive taped to the steel beams supporting the cable trays is absurd.

You are making such idiots of yourselves and wasting your lives by pursuing these scientifically impossible controlled demolition claims that it's embarrassing for all of us. Many many people recognise that the 9/11 attacks were such a heaven sent opportunity for the neocons to invade and grab more oil that it's likely they knew some sort of attack was being planned and simply allowed it to proceed. But you are barking up the wrong tree entirely with the explosives thing. This allows the neocons to label everyone who doubts any part of the official explanation as nutters. This guarantees that few sorted persons are ever going to tarnish their reputation by doing a proper investigation.

More science, from a scientist:

 http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

Let’s have a look at your post and see how objective and scientific it is. You start with an attack on the voice of the person, ad hom to start sir? Don’t mind if I do. Then you tell us we should learn a few lessons in presentation, sorry if it’s not as exciting as MTV videos but it is the content which is important rather than the wrapper.

You then go on to ask if it is the same ‘conspiraloon’ from the chemtrails video. Branding a physics teacher as a conspiraloon because he comes to different conclusions to you is another ad hom, then you try to discredit him by trying to associate him with some chemtrails theory. You then go on to attack the guy’s voice again. You then try to imply that he claims the building falls faster than gravity, what he actually says is that the velocity is within 1% of the rate of freefall to be expected from gravity and given that the video is grainy that would be reasonable (I’m sure a super scientist like you understands ‘margins of error’).

What he says (and I’m sure you understand it if even if you pretend you don’t) is that for nearly 3 seconds at the start of the collapse the building was in freefall and offered no resistance. Newton’s law of conservation of momentum says that as each floor hit the one below mass would increase but velocity would decrease (if I understand it correctly). The only way that this velocity could happen as shown is if something removed the resistance of the floors that collapsed in the first 3 seconds (i.e. controlled demolition or ‘magic’)

Then you go on and try and obfuscate things further by giving us 3 explanations to the results, 2 of which are ridiculous, thus leading us by the nose to the 3rd option (even though the guy on the video has given you a 4th option you have chosen to ignore this). You then try and claim that all truthers believe ‘the most nutty load of crap’, this is a sweeping generalisation and hardly scientific. We then have another attack on the guy’s voice (wow you really don’t like his voice do you? We’re only in your 2nd paragraph).

Next you ask a load of questions about the video, let’s have a look at some of these. What site did it come from? I don’t know but my guess would be that it is newsreel footage. I don’t know if the timescale has been altered, it doesn’t look to collapse any slower or faster than any other footage I’ve seen, but given that the human eye is probably not the best measure of this perhaps it needs further investigation. I’m sure the guy could do the same thing with other video, it’s repeatable (a good thing in science as I’m sure you know). It does show an element of desperation on your part to resort to this, I mean if one of us ‘conspiraloons’ started questioning the veracity of some contrary video evidence we’d be shouted down in a New York minute as paranoid nutcases.

As you are a scientist I would be interested to know why you feel so sure that he plucked a figure from the air with regards the horizontal width of the building. Given that the approximate dimensions of the building are freely available from a number of sources (including the June 04 NIST Progress Report in to WTC7), I wonder why you claim to know that he made it up rather than looked it up (if he did guess it is uncanny, as the width of the building is said to be 330 feet, 100.584 metres. Amazingly close to his 100 metre ‘guess’)

You then go on to tell us about the ‘ferocious levels of digital compression that downloaded videos have applied to them’ (ferocious is a bit of a loaded term isn’t it?). If you rip a DVD to the lowest quality video possible this does not alter the timeline, it alters the quality. This can be evidenced by the fact that the running time stays within a couple of seconds of the original (over the length of a movie). If you are going to start quoting about effects of different compression algorithms it would help to have at least a rudimentary understanding of how they work and what they do.

You then go on to explain how fireproofing works, thanks for that. Before answering your scientific opinion I’d like to bring in another bit of your ‘evidence’ where you question the 20 minutes I quoted with regards the duration of the fire. You go on to tell us that the fires burned for 6 hours. Given that fires need fuel and NIST themselves quoted 20 minutes for the duration of the fires before they exhausted the combustibles in a given area and moved on (see this document->  http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf page 5), I think my statement ending ‘approximately 20 minutes in any area’ is strictly speaking true. It would not be true to give the impression that fire burnt in any one area for 6 hours, something you appear to be trying to do.

OK back to the fireproofing, your analogy with a thermos flask is quite good. I’d like to turn it around a bit if you don’t mind. If you imagine the inner wall in the Thermos flask, the one that is in direct contact with the tea. Once the tea loses its heat (like the fires burning out after 20 minutes) it no longer is directly heating the specific part of the flask and the flask would begin to cool along with the tea. So given that it is stated that the fires only burnt for 20 minutes in each area, before moving on, and that the fireproofing was intact, I think it is eminently reasonable to ask questions about the fireproofing and the effects on the steel (before you ask I know about conduction and I would argue that the fact steel is a good conductor of heat would cause the heat to dissipate)

Your description of tool steel, whilst informative is ultimately misleading. I did not claim it was ‘tool steel’, I said it was hardened steel. The process of adding carbon to steel is done why? To harden it. If you add too much carbon it does, as you say, become brittle. So if the steel has had carbon added to it in order to harden it, I am hardly making it up when I describe it as hardened steel . Whilst I am no expert in any of these fields, I think the description of ‘scientific illiterate’ is a little uncalled for.

Being as you do describe me as a scientific illiterate and being that I bow to your superior knowledge on all things (or is it just metallurgy?), can you explain how with regards to 9-11, WTC7 managed to break the law of conservation of momentum and the law of increasing entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics), how the building decided to take the path of most resistance rather than least and how chaotic asymmetrical random fires had a completely uniform and symmetrical effect when bringing down the building?

You then say ’they seem to think that steel maintains all its strength until it suddenly liquifies’. Who thinks this? I don’t, where did I say that? If steel is heated to the point where is softens sufficiently it would tend to deform rather than snap (i.e. it would bend). What wouldn't happen is for every perimeter column to give way within 1/10th of a second of each other (what would have been necessary for WTC7 to drop the way it did). Your blacksmith bit was a good laugh, given that office fires burn at around 700C and for the purpose of forging temperatures have to be around 1100C I am confused as to the relevance (see ->  http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf). Where did you study metallurgy again?

Then you say ‘the most likely reason for the failure of the steel frame of the buildings is differential thermal expansion which can exert enormous forces.’ I think you should get in touch with NIST because they claim that this is the first time EVER that a steel framed building has collapsed due to thermal expansion. If NIST claim this is the first time it has ever happened how can it be the most likely reason? So the most likely reason is one that has never happened before? Could you explain your definition of 'most likely' I am after all a scientific illiterate.

I'm interested to know what you believe as you appear to contradict yourself. You say that steel softens and loses strength when heated, but then follow it with a description of the 'enormous forces' that differential thermal expansion can exert. If steel is softened by heating then surely it cannot exert an enormous force as it is softened. If steel is exerting an enormous force then it can't have been softened. These arguments appear to be mutually exclusive to me.

After you cluck on about 6 hour fires and denigrate me for claiming they were only 20 minutes in each particular area (something that NIST and I agree on), you then bring up the ‘large tank of generator diesel’. Being as the official NIST report in to WTC7 discounts this diesel as having anything to do with the collapse (they also discount any damage from the 2 towers falling before you bring that up) I would love to know how a scientific person can defend a report they clearly know nothing about.

You say you have taken it upon yourself to study the procedures required to demolish buildings with explosives, a very noble act I’m sure but unfortunately you have looked at only standard methods used in the demolition industry. With regards the ‘many kilometres of cabling’, do you think it impossible to detonate explosives using radio signals? Exactly what kind of cabling is required for radio signals these days? Do you think the army still have a little fella running with a spool of cable? (well you used the term plunger, do the bombs have ‘ACME TNT’ on them too?) The reason cabling is used in standard demolition is that it is the cheapest method, it most certainly doesn’t mean it is the only method! You could set of a bomb with a mobile phone signal, pretty sure I haven’t got a cable on my mobile, have you? (apart from when it’s charging)

You then say ‘The idea that during those weeks and months none of the regular plumbers, electricians, and network installation engineers ever noticed sticks of explosive taped to the steel beams supporting the cable trays is absurd.’ Sticks of explosive? This is the ACME TNT planted by people in black and white jumpers with bags marked swag? I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Here’s a for instance, I’m not saying this is how it happened (like you are with your sticks of explosive, plungers and kilometres of cable) but it’s just a free flow of ideas on how it could have been done. Given the resources I’m sure someone could design a bomb that is triggered by radio, the explosives could be hermetically sealed (meaning that sniffer dogs couldn’t smell them), you could even make them magnetically mounted for ease of placement. If you created however many of these were needed and they were marked numerically so that they were placed in the right places for the detonation sequence how long would it take to place them? It all depends on how many charges were needed and how big the team was but it sounds eminently more possible than the luddite picture you painted (and none of these suggestions are beyond the limits of what is possible today).

You say that controlled demolition is ‘scientifically impossible’ but the only real claims against it you have made are logistical. I know for a fact that a team of demolition experts could make WTC7 fall the way it did on 9-11, I find it illogical and counter intuitive that fires could do what I saw happen to WTC7. NIST haven’t used real world models to prove their thesis, they have opted for the world of computer simulation. As a scientist do you give as much credence to computer simulations as you do real world experiments? If you do then CERN have a bit of a problem justifying their £5 billion on the LHC to you I guess. From a scientifically illiterate's POV if you can’t make it happen in the real world then it becomes a matter of faith.

pwned? Wow are you like a l33t hax0r?

Here's a response from Kevin Ryan ->  http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf

Here's one from Charles Thurston ->  http://truememes.com/mackey.html

Here's another from 911research->  http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html

From the introduction: -

This review will never be a complete reply to Mackey's essay. An attempt to create such a reply would be misguided since it would lend legitimacy to Mackey's method: generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- while employing a vast array of propagandistic techniques, factual distortions, and logical fallacies. The rationale behind that method seems clear enough: create a smokescreen of baseless arguments and distractions, clothed in claims of intellectual superiority and scientific legitimacy, such that the audience might be reassured that there is no need to look at the evidence of controlled demolition.

If you are 'conspiracy theorists are not just idiots, they're dangerous idiots' then can you post with the same handle? The reason I think you are both is that in your most recent post you have used the term pwned and linked to Ryan Mackay, both of these were done in the last post to me on another thread by 'conspiracy theorists are not just idiots, they're dangerous idiots'.

I don't mind if you don't want to use your name but it is a little misleading to pretend to be 2 people. Apologies if you aren't the same person, if you are, I'll reply to your last post as 'conspiracy theorists are not just idiots, they're dangerous idiots' tomorrow as I need to sleep now.

But the version of the article I posted already includes fairly reasonable responses to the articles you listed :(

ha, nicked the link from that post!

Thank you for your honesty about nicking the link. Did you manage to read the 313 pages before posting it on this thread? Or did you naturally assume that it was all tip top and above board because it is a debunking article?