Hardifire: Mark Roberts, Arthur Scheuerman pt 2

[Seigu007]

Mark Roberts has a twin still attached to his face. FAIL.

[herrflick69]

these to gus sound like idiots. core colapse wat the fuck. they dont have a clue what the are talking about. im mechanic and have never seen steel go to dust by fire damage. its incredible wath they are allowed to say as fact to people, they are lyng. people remember pancacing is not posiple

[MsLibertytree]

@herrflick69 Why would anyone take your word because you are a mechanic? Are you a structural engineer? This disaster was on a much grander scale than anything you are familiar with anyways, so your day to day experiences would differ from an event like 911. Besides that, your grammer and spelling is all f**cked up so it is hard to take what you wrote very seriously.

[damien28173]

@herrflick69 are you retarded? or just have a case of dyslexia?

[herrflick69]

@damien28173 english is my 4th language so fuck spelling. insult is right back at you retard.

[wordgeezer]

Google this: Ronal Wiecks Skeptic Show it will explain exactly what Ronald Wieck is up to. Best to bookmark this because it will soon be deleted. That is if it even gets posted...G:

[AlienEntity1]

FYI I decided to remove all the posts from a commenter - out of respect for the person whose name is being coopted by this youtube troll.

It was the name of one of the victims of Flight 93

Mark Bingham, R.I.P.

Sorry, but it's just too vile to allow. It's too low, too disgusting, and it has to go.

[MsLibertytree]

@AlienEntity1 Wow I used to be a 911 truther until I started to hear Mark Roberts and Micheal Shirmer from Skeptic Mag. It is absurd that in the face of alternative and far more rational explanations, some still hold onto wild conspiracy theories.

LOL I feel like I did when I first became an atheist some years ago- AWAKENED

[AlienEntity1]

Make sure you write to professor Jones and make him prove that thermite can bring down a steel building.

Even a small building would be fine. Any building.

Unless you're dishonest and don't care about the truth. Then don't worry about it. Just carry on believing in 9/11 Truth, as if it were real.

[AlienEntity1]

Don't forget to challenge the truth movement to prove their thermite theory.

Don't forget....Don't forget.

Oh, you already forgot. You don't really care about the truth, do you?

[AlienEntity1]

How many jets flying at 500mph had ever hit a 110 story bulding?

Answer: zero.

Therefore it couldn't happen. That's my answer.

Your question is a logical fallacy: Just because something HASN'T happened does not mean it CANNOT happen.

You confuse the two. That's my answer. No evasion.

An accusation, in fact, that your logic is faulty.

Now, answer all my questions. Oh, whoops! You dodged them all! What about the fire proofing? Dodged.

Demolitions experts? Dodged.

Truther papers? Dodged.

[AlienEntity1]

Just write a simple note to any fire department, and ask them if fire can cause steel buildings to fail.

Write the same note to the major fire research facilities, and see what the answer is.

I think you know the answer already. What fails is your mythology that fires couldn't bring down large buildings.

That's the myth. You need to man up and realize it.

[AlienEntity1]

How do you know how hot a fire gets, or what office fires are like?

It is the same data that NIST uses. That's why the NIST are there, to examine the causes of failures so they can make safety recommendations.

Do you think this is a joke? Do you think fireproofing is a joke? Who the hell are you? You're nobody.

[AlienEntity1]

You're not nearly as clever as you think. In fact, the data for office fire damage is gathered from both real-world examples and from extensive scientific controlled testing.

It's not just a dreamy theory, like 9/11 controlled demolition nonsense, it's actually studied around the world, at universities and institutions.

I've actually read the publications and data. have you?

How do you even know about these things? You really on the same sources as everyone else - the universities.

[AlienEntity1]

What do you think? They are releasing their raw data for analysis under FOIA.

It's a free world. Any engineering team can do their own analysis. Nobody is stopping them.

What is stopping truthers from doing their due diligence?

[AlienEntity1]

One more time - It's up to you truthers to publish, in a mainstream peer-reviewed engineering journal, a paper which demonstrates why the NIST model is incorrect.

You can do it with math, with LS-DYNA, ANSYS, whatever you choose. Just do it.

Until then all you've got is 'I don't believe it' which doesn't cut it.

Oh, and sticking up for Dr. Judy Wood is funny - she doesn't even realize that Hurricane Erin wasn't a hurricane when it reached NYC. She's a looney tune.

[AlienEntity1]

The echo chamber inside your head may comfort you, but it is meaningless to the outside world of engineering and demolitions.

If you wish to be an ignoramus, that's your call.

You avoid people with actual expertise in the fields. Why is that? Oh yeah, they might destroy your little fantasy, that's why. LOL

[AlienEntity1]

Using your logic, no Spray-on Fireproofing would be required in any office building, which would save huge amounts of money.

So they need to stop doing it right away. Steel cannot fail from fire, says 9/11 Truth, which trumps actual scientific knowledge and experience, right?

You guys are unbelievable. You make no sense at all.

Leave the fire codes and analysis to the professionals, they actually know what they're doing. Duh.

[AlienEntity1]

Why don't you read what top American demolitions experts think?

Do you even want to know the truth, or are you afraid it might not be what you assume?

Mark Loizeaux

Brent Blanchard

Mark Loizeaux, President

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, INC.

2737 Merryman's Mill Road

Phoenix, Maryland USA 21131

He was actually there at GZ for cleanup. He actually demolishes buildings for a living.

He actually knows what he's talking about. Do you?

[AlienEntity1]

Simple task for you:

Find a peer-reviewed engineering paper which uses standard LS-DYNA to challenge NIST's LS-DYNA model.

Get back to me as soon as you've found one, because it would actually support your allegations.

Where is your data?

[AlienEntity1]

Nice dodge.

The subject in question is:

D-E-M-O-L--T-I-O-N-S.

She has zero qualifications in demolitions, as I correctly stated, and you are avoiding.

You have no seismic data to back up your claim about what the building 'should' have impacted.

You provide no peer-reviewed paper, so your claim is not validated at all.

It is you who makes the alternative claims, you must provide proof. You have not done that.

The NIST engineering model uses standard engineering physics and properties.

[AlienEntity1]

What seismic readings (they are measured, btw, for insurance reasons) are found in explosive demolitions?

Do you have that data? If not, admit you don't have a clue what seismic readings should be expected.

Which demolitions expert are you quoting regarding the seismic readings?

[AlienEntity1]

Why were there no large explosions at the time of WTC7's collapse?

How can an explosive not make a sound?

Ask a physics professor how to do that.

How can you have a violent explosion with no 'boom' sound? How? How? How?

[AlienEntity1]

Why bother fireproofing steel if it can't ever fail in heat?

Why why why?

Go tell all the fire departments that they're wrong, and that steel never fails in a fire.

Go ahead, Einstein.

U don't know what UR talking about.

[AlienEntity1]

Why doesn't Steven Jones prove that painted-on nanothermite can melt a steel beam?

Why does every thermite test (yes, including the latest one shown partially on Jesse Ventura's fake show) fail to burn thru steel beams like the truthers hypothesize?

Why don't truthers come out with their own LS-DYNA engineering study to disprove NIST?

You forget that NIST's engineering model used REAL-WORLD data, not fictional explosives which nobody has used.

Why are steel beams fire-protected?

Think, man

[AlienEntity1]

Small according to whom? Dr. Judy Wood, who knows nothing about demolitions?

Why don't you find out what top American demolitions experts think? The info is out there if you look for it, as are the answers to your questions.

[AlienEntity1]

Yup, if you lump together a bunch of superficial observations, and don't bother to research any further, you can buy into the myths of 9/11 truth.

But the vast majority of those claims literally evaporate under close examination - there are many false reports, exaggerations and plain misunderstandings.

Barry Jennings/ Michael Hess in WTC7 is a good example. Jennings himself backed off an earlier important claim, but truthers don't even want to accept it.

My video:

watch?v=fRfctTxaIZY

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham oph yeah,,,,you said something about smoke before the buildings came down...smoke from street level.....you do know that after the impact of the airplanes,,,there was a buring pile of debris,,....a car fire......other small fires at the base of all the buildings.....that is what causes this white smoke.....this was debunked years ago also. Any other questions.

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham Let me put it to you like this....after all the dishonestly and flat out lies of the Truther movement....Im not surprised that their NEW STAR WITNESSES IS A DEAD GUY..............if you would ask me a good way to try to plant a little seed of perpetual doubt for stupid people to cling to, who dont want to admit they wasted years on a bogus theory....then yes.....make a dead guy your star witness...LOL..Im so not surprised at all.....I was assuming it would be something like this.

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham Hello again....well you need to stop believing Alex Jones and your Truther buddies..Jenning's Explosions were the collapsing towers...the north tower precicely..He was inside 7 for both collapses..There is a timeline of barry Jennings movements on 9/11 along with the people who were with him..so we have a few people...go look at NISTS barry jennings timeline..Took me a few minutes..nothing odd,,,except it is noted from quite some time ago that he "Has since changed his story"

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham Can u please source me this claim that Popular Mechanics has classified photos...I have never heard that......can you source please and I will try to give you an answer.....and im looking into jennings.

[AlienEntity1]

Dude, I've created a video on Jennings/Hess.

watch?v=fRfctTxaIZY

You might find it interesting and useful.

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham once again, their are thousands of Journalists in the world from countries that hate us, are our enemies....take it to them if its so great....how come ten years later not one of these media outlets wants to touch your claims...because they are so stupid.....thats why..u just dont realize how dumb it sounds to normal people not in your kooky movement...its like saying Santa CLause brung down the towers. LOL....so go ahead and give it to the Chinease...or Iranian media...I

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham I'm not swayed in the slightest by any claims of evidence from truthers.......or your CALCULATIONS..whats your degree in einstein......so if you have great evidence here is my advice...take it to the Syrian media...or libian media....or any media that hates us...and see what theyll do with it.....NOTHING BECAUSE ALL YOUR EVIDENCE IS BS AND BOGUS>>THATS WHY NO ONE IN THE WORLD CARES

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham Why would a magazine have classified photos...please tell me why you believe these "Stupid SMOKING GUN" allegations...whats is your evidence of them having anything classiied.....You do know that EVERY SINGLE FIRFIGHTER THERE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO COLLAPSE. It was a raging inferno....I know you guys only show the one side that doesnt look to bad...u are very deceptive me thinks

[AlienEntity1]

MarkB1ngham. Yes, some of the photos are from a police helicopter and you can find them now. FOIA request came thru.

img683. imageshack. us /g/ 01roll1027y. jpg

Now, please stop whining like a schoolgirl. If you want to learn, that's great. Please do.

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham So you never saw the pictures of the scoop I gues......I have ......maybee you should try to do what you say all day long and actually RESEARCH. god, you guys are so annoying....you claim to know all this stuff but in reality all you know is your retarded theories you got from Loose change....guess what..even the makers admit the following "I admit loose change definatly contains FACTUAL ERROERS AND SOME DUBIOUS CLAIMS," It started out as a fiction kids made it

[JPPolachek]

@MarkB1ngham I love how you guys now think that Popular Mechanics, and Now National Geographic, BBC, are all IN ON IT, because they show your group to be such a silly stupid little club.....I know it sucks when one of the Most Popular ENGINEERING magazines totally shreads your whole silly conspiracy ideas..and you dont even have any real theories You guys just ask dumb questions, but you can NEVER ANSWER ANY.

[charlesfloyb]

David Griffen cited a whole bunch of firefighters that said they heard explosions. The video "Zero" has a firefighter saying the buildings could not come down by fire. Also, I hear there is a group called firefighters for 9/11 truth. I'm saying the reason NIST probably didn't even use your firefighter quotes as evidence for the collapse, is because it's very weak evidence for the global collapse if it's evidence at all. I think the quotes are at best, guesses that the building might fall.

[AlienEntity1]

Yes, but he ignored all the firefighters who saw the building losing structural integrity. It's called 'quote mining', when you misuse quotes to create a misleading impression.

Trial lawyers do that kind of thing to trick juries. It's an effective debating tactic, but it isn't scientific.

No firefighters saw or heard bombs, did they? Just explosions, which are heard in other building fires as well. Did you know that explosions are common?

ie: not proof of bombs or explosives.

[charlesfloyb]

There is an FBI agent saying, "Clear out, there is a bomb in the building". I think the anti-truthers do a good job including some of the firemen quotes without mentioning all the quotes of secondary devices at the scene. All these firemen's quotes could be legitimate. Firemen might know a structure has a good chance of collapsing. But why? What was inside the building besides the limited fuel of office furniture that would cause all the creaking and damage to the structure? Explosives!

[AlienEntity1]

So where was the bomb located and who saw it?

There's zero evidence that anyone saw a bomb. Period.

Stop pretending to look for truth if you have no intention of finding it. The firemen are on record giving their opinion that the fires were destroying the building.

They weren't forced to wonder what was burning, it was a giant multifloor office fire. You have to be very thick not to see this obvious fact.

And you've added another strawman -office furniture -as if that's all that burns.

[charlesfloyb]

The evidence for explosives is as good as the evidence of firemen saying the builinding will come down. By the way, I agree that the firemen felt the building would come down. With their experience, there were enough factors in question to make them feel that WTC7 would collapse. But bombs, also known as secondary devices were in the buildings. Several explosions that need accounting for... Start by watching 9/11 total proof that bombs were planted in the building on you tube.. then answer

[AlienEntity1]

'The evidence for explosives is as good as the evidence of firemen saying the builinding will come down.'

Baloney.

[charlesfloyb]

Care to explain why?

[AlienEntity1]

And again, explosives most certainly do not cause a building to creak and groan, nor do they cause large fires.

Wrong again. No wonder people laugh at truthers. You deserve it, with this kind of nonsense.

[AlienEntity1]

So your method again is not scientific - the gash (remember the gash?) was seen by firefighters, which means that it was most likely there.

It has nothing to do with DRG and explosions. Nothing. You're attempting to deflect away to something else (irrelevant, btw) and somehow argue that it undermines NIST.

Further, you didn't read the NIST report before commenting - contrary to what you just wrote NIST DID QUOTE THE FIREFIGHTERS!!

IT IS PART OF THE EVIDENCE. Why must you deny basic facts?

[AlienEntity1]

If you had bothered to read the charts, you'd see that NIST calculated results with and without debris damage.

And, btw, do you know that 'firefighters for 9/11 truth' isn't made up of firefighters who were at the scene in NYC? No, they're a handful of disgruntled crackpots from San Fransisco.

You are so gullible. Very easy to fool.

[JPPolachek]

Yeah, Ok buddy, you take the word of shocked people from the day of the attack. Just forget about the thousands of professional investigators who worked this case and came to their conclusions. But some firefighter on 9/11 knows better,,,yeah whatever dude, Im sure if you found that firefighter today he'd kick your ass for trying to use his statements to back up your debunked theories. Get over it, you guys lost. Watch National Geographics 9/11 show, it says it all. See who your leaders are.

[JPPolachek]

Hey charlesfloyb, Im glad you mentioned Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. Guess how many FDNY firefighters are a member of that group. ZERO. AS IN NOT EVEN ONE. All the 9/11 groups are bunk, just like the Architects and Engineer/Scholars group. Guess why there are now 2 different scholar groups. Because they split because one still holds true to the Space Death Beam cause of WTC destruction. Im totally serious. Look it up. The other group just believes in silent super secret explosives

[AlienEntity1]

Refreshing to hear a voice of reason among all the tinfoil-hat chatter.

Welcome.

[JPPolachek]

@charlesfloyb The FDNY was saying all day that WTC 7 was going to come down all day long. They were all expecting it to collapse at any time..Chief Nigro (spelling??) had ordered the area evacuated of firefighters because as Larry Silverstien is famoulsy quoted as saying by silly truthers that since there was already such terrible loss of life that day THEY (meaning chief Nigro of FDNY ordered the to Pull IT= pull out the firefighters...because the FDNY warned of collapse

[JPPolachek]

@charlesfloyb This is a classic Truther technique....you take peoples scared confused quotes from that day,when they were hearing many loud sounds...steel poping, out, elevators collapsing, fireballs going down the elevator shafts..buildings falling...Im sure they heard some bangs and pops..but the fact remains.NONE OF THOSE FIREFIGHTERS ARE STANDING WITH YOU GUYS HOLDING UP SILLY SIGNS>They know it was not a controlled demo...they hate you guys..Firefightes 9/11 has NO FDNY memeber, why huh??

[charlesfloyb]

The host says "We understand that building 7 was impacted by large pieces of debris from the North Tower, that created a 10 story gash in the south side." The "10 story gash" that he's referring to, I think is simply a dark rectangular area that looks like a shadow but can't really be identified as a shadow or as a building gash. What observable characteristics would positively identify the area as a building gash?

[AlienEntity1]

You can see the gash in a news video closeup. It is a consistent feature which did not exist before the debris impacts.

Only truthers bother to deny such clear evidence, since it undermines their myth of CD.

That's why mainstream science doesn't care what truthers think - it's as meaningful as listening to members of the flat earth society deny photographic evidence.

It's both stupid and boring.

[charlesfloyb]

So what characteristics of the "10 story gap" besides "It is a consistent feature which did not exist before the debris impacts." Could you see furniture from the inside of the buiding? If so, that would be evidence of a gash. A dark unidentified rectangular shadow looking section is NOT evidence of a gash. Can you see any items that are inside the building? If so, then that would be evidence of a building gash. I don't think NIST or FEMA identified it as a 10 story gash either.

[AlienEntity1]

Nope, they didn't mention it really. I have seen it on the video, and on stills taken from it. It's very obvious that a giant section of the building collapsed at some point.

Deny it if you will, but what's the point of denying simple facts? That doesn't get you the truth. I'm only interested in the truth, not some anti-government nonsense.

See it for yourself, don't discount it unseen. That's a big mistake.

[charlesfloyb]

Do you have a link of this photo or something? From what I've seen, it was a dark rectangular shadow like area. But there was nothing specific that led me to think it was a gash. I'm asking if there is anything specific in the characteristics that actually identify the said gash as a building gash. If you're interested in the truth then you should be happy to describe the features of said gash. And correct, NIST nor FEMA mentioned it. It's a nonfactor in the collapse anyways.

[AlienEntity1]

Look, again, you're not a forensic scientist, so it doesn't really matter if you refuse to see the obvious:

1) eyewitness testimony of a 20 story gash

2) video footage of a gash in the same area described, clearly showing some significant damage events

3) the close up I linked you to clearly shows significant structural damage to the top, including downward sagging of W side floors.

Your analysis is a nonfactor in the truth, because it denies the truth for doctrinal reasons.

[charlesfloyb]

I did look at those photos from those websites you typed in below. None of them show a gash. What they do show is alot of dark smoke and with a good imagination one might imagine a gash behind the smoke. So, I guess I can congratulate you on your good imagination. Remember, you're trying to say something exists when neither NIST or FEMA acknowledge it. You're trying to imply that this gash had something to do with the collapse when neither NIST or FEMA acknowledges it. I don't see the gash.

[AlienEntity1]

LOL. Now you use FEMA and NIST as proof against the gash? That's really funny - you believe NIST when it suits you, you ignore NIST when they say something you don't like. That's brilliant denial. Hat's off to you.

This photo shows the 'gash' feature. Truthers simply cannot plausibly deny that it is structural damage. They don't want to see it, yet it's there anyway.

911myths. com /assets /images /wtc7groove2. jpg

[AlienEntity1]

And you're also in complete denial of firefighter testimony of the gash. I suppose you have some secret reason why you think you know more than someone who was on the scene.

I don't have that kind of hubris. Firefighters testified about the 20-story gash. Your denials cannot erase this fact. Sorry. It's a waste of time in the search for truth.

[AlienEntity1]

Here's an example of charles' level of denial. This is professional testimony he's completely denying:

'Captain Chris Boyle recalls, "On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.'

A hole 20 stories tall. Hmm, and there's video evidence of that hole...... To a truther, it means their all lying, right?

Truthers need to deny basic reality or their world falls apart. There is ample evidence of the gash. Period.

[charlesfloyb]

Let's analyze what you've provided for evidence. A quote by Boyle where he says "... there had to be a hole..." He's not actually saying he saw a hole, he's making an assumption. No, he's not lying, but he's making an assumption during a recollection. It's the intepretation of his recollection that has you confused.

The second part of the "evidence" that you provide you say is on video. Where? I think I've seen all of the pictures and videos and the gash can't be verified .

[AlienEntity1]

Yes, he's actually saying there was a hole. You don't seem to understand the phrase, 'there had to be a hole 20 stories tall'. He is estimating the stories, not the hole.

If I didn't know better I'd think you were joking, trying not to understand the obvious. But I've seen this level of denial with truthers before. They reject any and all evidence, making endless excuses.

Unfortunately for you, there are others who testified to the gash. You lose. It was there.

Give up the flat earth defense

[AlienEntity1]

And some more testimony:

'So we left 7 World Trade Center, back down to the street, where I ran into Chief Coloe from the 1st Division, Captain Varriale, Engine 24, and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did. FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler'

[AlienEntity1]

The link was provided below.

The evidence for the gash is far, far more substantial than any evidence for controlled demolition, which is after all just speculation. Yet the gash is clearly visible.

Keep denying reality and you will never get to the truth. The truth is that there is no real evidence of CD, only wild rumor and speculation.

The lack of evidence should tell you something, if you're paying attention.

[TheSkepticalIdealist]

@AlienEntity1

I actually gave Charles a link to the original archive VIDEO of the gash. He claims its smoke, yet strangely the video shows that the "smoke" doesnt move at all. If he is unsure if it is a trick of the light or not we only have to look at the testimony of the firefighters who reported the damage to the South of 7, I wonder who he will call a liar next!! :D

[AlienEntity1]

Yup, he started off here declaring 'A dark unidentified rectangular shadow looking section is NOT evidence of a gash... I don't think NIST or FEMA identified it as a 10 story gash either.'

So I correct him, several times, by giving him names and references (to the NIST report, including page numbers)

And yet he's unable to accept that Boyle saw a gash - yet it was Boyle who was there, not Charles.

It's astonishing denial of the facts. OH well..

[AlienEntity1]

OK, I wonder if you will be able to process this information, but here it is:

The news footage:

archive. org/ details /abc200109111323-1404

Still footage and analysis.

911myths. com /html /wtc7_damage. html

Notice in this image (911myths. com /assets /images/ news_wtc7_1. jpg) you can not only see a deep gouge starting at the top of the building, but that the floors on the W. side of the 'gash' are no longer level, but are drooping severely.

Why deny the facts if you want truth?

[AlienEntity1]

Dr. Sunder of NIST 'The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7,' 'On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out.'

[charlesfloyb]

Yes, I actually remember this quote by Shyam Sunder. It is a good find on your part. If my memory serves me right, this quote came from a public interview he gave, prior to the public meeting on December 18th, 2007 and for sure before the final report of WTC7. It's interesting that Sunder would say, "most important thing we found" and then never use it as a cause for the collapse in the final report. Do you know when exactly Sunder made that statement?

[AlienEntity1]

I don't think you've read the report, so you don't understand what the importance of the damage was.

Try:

NCSTAR 1-9 Chapter 5 'WTC7 Visual Evidence...'

esp p 130 on

You should really pay attention to the FDNY testimony listed in Chapter 6.6 p299 and on, to understand the kind of damage that was seen initially, and also the progression of structural failure witnessed first hand.

Just read it. It's the best, most direct evidence you'll ever get. Don't be afraid of the truth.

[AlienEntity1]

Remember, initially you absolutely denied that there was any 'gash', now you've retreated to a position which claims it wasn't relevant to the collapse.

I've noted your changed position, but have you? It's not ok to just move the goalpost in a discussion, because you then avoid acknowledging the importance of new information, instead avoiding it.

This is not a good methodology.

[AlienEntity1]

OK Charles, just in case you still are unconvinced about what Boyle meant, here's a further quote from him:

'There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it.'

Is that clear enough for you now?

[charlesfloyb]

Boyle's recollection of the events is very vague, and Boyle didn't testify under oath as some of the usages of "testified" that you used implied. It sounds like a simple retelling of what he thought he saw during an offhand interview. "probably a third of it" isn't very convincing that he knew what he saw. Boyle says"had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building" when your quote of Sunder says, "-approximately 10 stories". That's a difference of 10 stories. This isn't evidence at all.

[AlienEntity1]

Why are you so strenuously trying to evade and dismiss basic evidence? First you deny any gash, you deliberately misinterpret Boyle's testimony, denying he ever meant he saw a gash 'He's not actually saying he saw a hole, he's making an assumption.' You were wrong, but you go much further...Now you assume he somehow isn't telling the truth because he wasn't under oath.

Why bother even dealing with evidence if you're unprepared to take anything seriously? Just deny it all and blame gubmint..

[AlienEntity1]

According to your current modus, nothing, absolutely nothing that is presented as evidence for damage is valid, yet remarkably you apparently swallow, hook, line and sinker, the truther mythology of explosive CD - yet the overwhelming evidence supports the conventional understanding.

If you wish to be on the wrong side of knowledge, be my guest. It doesn't make you smart, astute, and perceptive - in fact it makes you the opposite.

That's why it's boring.

[TheSkepticalIdealist]

@charlesfloyb

Ah right so you're here as well I see and continuing to call the firefighters liars.

It wasn't just Boyle that reported the hole in 7, but you already know that since you claim you watched my video, right?

Stop claiming you aren't saying the firefighters are lying which is ALL you've said since I first saw you post.

[AlienEntity1]

So we were both incorrect: NIST actually did identify the gash as well.

There goes your source for refutation. Oh well....

I thought it was just firefighters.

[charlesfloyb]

Roberts at says "steel has to be fireproofed or its going to fail eventually in a fire no matter how thick it is." Can Roberts show one shred of evidence for this? Any examples? Any tests?

Also, what evidence is there that the fireproofing was removed from the debris from the towers?

[AlienEntity1]

Good question. NIST itself actually had UL do tests on scaled-down truss assemblies (with fireproofing) and you can see what happened. Out of 4 tests, two failed to meet a 2hr minimum.

And nobody has ever tested a 60ft truss, because it's just too big to fit. Therefore any fire rating is theoretical - it may not actually hold up as hoped.

Yes, there is plenty of evidence of fireproofing removed. Both in other WTC buildings which were hit by debris and ballistic tests carried out by NIST.

[charlesfloyb]

"failed to meet a 2 hour minimum", what exactly happened? I thought the tests all passed and basically the tests showed that the fireproofing met the expectations of the code.

I'm not asking to test the actual size, just a scaled down model to see the if and how the steel would weaken to the point of failure.

[AlienEntity1]

UL conducted several tests on behalf of NIST, only 2 of 4 met a 2hr rating.

And that was with intact fireproofing. The fact is, that without full fireproofing, there is no expectation (from a scientific POV) that the steel could withstand those fires.

It is entirely reasonable to allow that it MAY have failed due to fires alone. That possibility has never been eliminated, but is mostly denied by truthers, not surprisingly.

[charlesfloyb]

I'm not sure about what your citing as "plenty of evidence" that fireproofing was removed. If those ballistic tests that you're referring to are the ones where NIST took a shotgun and fired it on the fireproofing attached to a hunk of plywood, I'd hardly call that convincing. The only part that was removed was where the bullet shot at it. Then, the debris mostly hit the outside of the building, but the fireproofing still remained in tact in the inside. How would it all just peel off?

[AlienEntity1]

Don't set up a strawman argument or poison the well if you're interested in learning. Why do that?

The ample evidence is that buildings 5 and 6 showed, conclusively, that the debris from other buildings caused fireproofing to be dislodged. There's no point in arguing the opposite, that's just typical truther nonsense.

In addition, there is a long history of documented loss of insulation in the towers, again the historic record is very clear that the material was flimsy.

[AlienEntity1]

The towers required fireproofing in order to meet continued safety inspections, and this is why there is documentation that the stuff was fairly cheap, crappy, and fell of rather easily.

Esp. with trusses, which are thin, the material didn't stay on very well. But it was cheap, so it's still in use. Is it great? That's an open question.

The mechanism for it's dislodging is not direct impact alone, but vibration by impacts. It's not rocket science.

[AlienEntity1]

Also, you are in no position to make a judgment about engineering, unless you are well versed in the subject.

Anybody can deny things, even a child can do that. 'Yes it is' 'No it isn't' etc... This is not a scientific approach at all, but simply a rhetorical exercise.

Truthers get so many facts backwards, and then seem surprised that their conclusions are faulty. It's not really a surprise, if you really understand the issues - ignorance is not a substitute for knowledge.

[AlienEntity1]

Don't forget you had millions of lbs of debris falling from the towers onto various buildings. Some buildings were partly collapsed by such impacts.

Do you really find it difficult to understand that the fireproofing would not remain intact under such conditions?

Do you seriously expect that the material was engineered to stay on in those scenarios? There's zero evidence to show that. No fire codes come close to requiring that kind of thing, so you don't assume it.

[wordgeezer]

Reallly inneresting one column pulling on the floor joists....blaw bla bla.......zzzzzzzZZZZZZ

[niverent]

I know NISTs report is true because the government says its true. The government is there to protect us not attack us duh! Alll you liberal kookspiracy down syndrome tards need to let Jesus into your heart and stop believing in your nonsense.

[UNTC321]

Could Roberts get that thing cut off his face? It is hard to look at him.

[UNTC321]

"No lateral support in the core"is a lie!

[wordgeezer]

Hillarious, three psuedo- intellectuals who are all slaves of the official government story pretending to have a discussion...(:

[boojiboy1986]

Even more hilarious. A pseudo-intellectual who is a slave to a facetious conspiracy pretending to listen to a discussion...(:

[samh09]

ROFL