= new reply since forum marked as read
Seems that Gage's "2200 architects and engineers" are having a tough time with that.
Grainger says the fires "would not have been hot enough to sufficiently soften the steel or damage the steel to result in a total collapse of the building." What does that have to do with NIST's expansion hypothesis? Grainger doesn't go beyond his straw-man argument to even attempt to explain what's wrong with that hypothesis; he just declares it impossible.
Grainger claims that "fires have burned longer in similar structures without any collapse." First, name one "similar structure" that sustained a 7-hour unfought fire. And since the NIST "probable cause" hypothesis depends completely on the exact details of the WTC7 structure, don't waste bandwidth with "kinda similar" structures. There are details in that structure that explain how the collapse of column 79 could lead to total collapse, and many of Grainger's colleagues seem to be quite capable of explaining it rather well, yet Grainger seems to be baffled by the very concept. But maybe Grainger just didn't have time in this video to present all the analysis he did to arrive at his flat declaration that it was "impossible," but he's working on a paper to submit to a technical journal? Dream on.
Grainger claims it "doesn't make sense" and "the logic tells you that if you have a single failure at some random point in a building, that the entire building is not going to collapse." What "logic" is that, please? (Hint: "argument from incredulity."
My logic tells me that the NIST hypothesis is perfectly plausible; why can't Grainger's logic tell me where I went wrong? At this point, my logic tells me that Grainger is a first-class bullshitter, but hey, maybe his technical paper will change my mind, huh.
Grainger says we need an "independent" investigation, completely free of any government influence. It's a damn shame, ain't it, that all of Richard Gage's half-million-a-year donations are devoted to raising more money and sending Gage to preach the gospel unto all the lands (well, the nicer ones anyway). Of course, Gage's approach to an "independent investigation" would probably be, "Sentence first -- verdict afterwards," but one might expect some minimal effort toward actually doing something about that petition he keeps asking people to sign. But it is a shame that all of Gage's "experts" are apparently too busy to do an independent investigation of the technical details in the well-established venues, which happens to be reputable technical journals and conferences, not YouTube videos. Or maybe they're just too shy to accept all the fame and fortune that would come from proving their extraordinary claims?
... but I'm continuing my practice as a semi-professional Internet psychiatrist (i.e. I accept PayPal donations).
What's your problem?
Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 11:55 AM - Edit history (1)
You're obviously looking for another excuse to avoid logically analyzing the facts, but I'll answer your question anyway.
After 2 years of general engineering at Virginia Tech (in which physics and chemistry were required), I dropped out to play bass for a band and smoke weed. When that fell apart, I worked for five years as a structural draftsman in an A&E firm, eventually going back to school part time to get a computer science degree. I then worked for over 35 years as a software engineer. (And, by the way, that alone makes me qualified to sign Gage's petition since he thinks even sanitation engineers and landscape architects are qualified to have an expert opinion about structural mechanics and physics, but in my case, I actually know some things about structural mechanics and physics.)
Also, I have over 40 years experience investigating claims made by pseudo-scientists, beginning with testing "pyramid power" and "biorythm" claims in the 70s. My interest in that hobby got started because I fell for a lot of nonsense back in the 60s and early 70s -- whatever else you say about it, that era produced an extraordinary amount of bullshit like ancient astronauts and Bermuda triangles, not to mention JFK conspiracism -- until I figured out that just about anybody can publish a book making all sorts of absurd claims that can't withstand scrutiny. (I dunno, maybe stopping smoking weed was a factor, too.) With the Internet, it's even easier -- even mentally ill people can put up a page or YouTube video, and some people will fall for anything they claim.
I still find that hobby interesting because in the process of looking into the claims for myself, instead of gullibly believing every sensational thing I read just because it was sensational, I've learned a heck of a lot about a lot of different things. 9/11 conspiracism incorporates an unusually wide variety of fields, but since there are also an unusually large number of qualified people pointing out exactly what's wrong with the evidence and arguments offered by the "truth movement," I've learned a lot and I'm still learning. You seem to pick who to believe and who not to believe based solely on their conclusions; I pick my experts based on who can make the best fact-based, logical arguments. Sometimes, that's hard to do, but in this case it's very easy. With the "truth movement experts" that Gage parades in this video series, it's really no contest, especially when it comes to the perfectly idiotic notion of magical silent explosives bringing down the towers. (To his credit, at least Grainger didn't go so far as to actually claim that, but then he doesn't offer any other alternative, either, so it appears that he would like for you jump to that conclusion yourself.)
According to the logic of Gage's "experts," if it looked like a CD then it must have been a CD, and if it never happened before then it can't be true, and if the NIST hypothesis of thermal expansion of a girder at column 79 is wrong then the only other explanation is CD. All of these arguments are an insult to the very concept of logic, regardless of the credentials of the people making them, and no engineering degree is required to see that. The NIST hypothesis of thermal expansion may or may not be correct -- no cameras inside the building to verify it -- but we can say with 100% certainty that explosives did not bring down WTC7 or the towers. We can say that because with 100% certainty, there are no magical silent explosives. We can also rule out thermite (a conjecture invented, not because of any credible evidence, but for the sole purpose of keeping CD delusions alive despite the impossibility of silent explosives), because there is no plausible way that thermite melting could be timed to cut through all the columns at nearly the same time. (And that's even if it's actually possible to cut through that much steel with any practical thermite device, which has never been demonstrated. Don't you find it remarkably how successful that claimed technology was on the first try?) Here's the kicker: In his presentations, Gage tries to have it both ways, claiming explosives when he's talking about "sudden onset" but then switching to thermite when he feels compelled to explain why there were no RDX sounds on any of the videos, or seismic signatures, or broken windows for blocks -- nothing anywhere close to what that much explosives would have produced. Apparently, "truthers" don't have any problem with that cognitive dissonance, but I sure do.
It's a shame that Gage has led so many people down the blind alley of thinking WTC7 was going to crack the conspiracy case wide open, but the number of signatures he collects based on his distorted and disingenuous presentations is utterly irrelevant, because it just doesn't matter that they simply refuse to see what's wrong with the CD hypothesis. What matters is that Gage's "experts" have yet to produce the first valid technical argument that concludes it was a CD.
But here's why you can't defend Grainger's arguments: He doesn't actually make any arguments of any significance; he just confidently makes many dubious and unsupported assertions. I'm sorry, but if Grainger doesn't even understand progressive collapse, then I'm not at all interested in his credentials. If he can't tell me what should have prevented complete collapse, then I'm not interested in his "professional opinion" that it couldn't happen. To me, it's perfectly plausible that it happened because the interior connections were shear connections, designed for gravity loads only, which means that when a beam or girder fell on one end, there was nothing substantial to prevent the moment force from breaking the few bolts holding the other end in place on its seat. Then when that column lost enough lateral restraint, it would buckle, too. Starting with the columns under the east penthouse, that apparently happened inside the building for well over 6 seconds before the exterior shell began to fall. But Gage's "experts" apparently have no explanation for that so they just ignore it. That's not the way to convince me that you know what you're talking about.
All of Gage's "experts" claim that the collapse into free-fall was too sudden to be explained by a progressive collapse, and most even claim that the free-fall can't be explained without explosives. But as a prime example of the dearth of facts and logic behind it, that claim is completely dependent on completely ignoring the time between the penthouse collapse and the shell collapse, and importantly, completely ignoring the 1.75 seconds, 7-foot fall of the shell before it went into free-fall. Gage's "experts" don't seem to understand what that 7 feet means, but here's a diagram drawn to scale of how much buckling could occur in 8 floors of unrestrained columns by the time the top descended 7 feet:
The columns were not continuous pieces of steel. They were made from 2-story-tall sections bolted together. If a column started buckling after losing lateral restraint over 8 floors, the buckling forces would quickly localize to those weaker points and break them. How much resistance do you expect from a broken column? (Hint: no differential equations are required to answer, even though Gage's "experts" can't seem to figure it out.)
AE911Truth "experts" have never offered a CD hypothesis that actually explains the known facts, so they just ignore any inconvenient facts that get in their way and falsely claim the building went into free-fall instantaneously. That is what should be expected from a CD but that's just not what happened with WTC7. Why not?
And yet, you find their failed arguments to be so compelling that you're willing to convince yourself that magical silent explosives exist. As a semi-professional Internet psychiatrist, I find that to be fascinating.
Hmmmm...I wonder who makes the better argument?
Sooner or later the truth will come out. Even if it takes 100 years.
Like the 1953 US/UK coup in Iran
Or the Lusitania
That's why more and more people every day all over the world are demanding a real investigation.
How many are furiously googling Scott Grainger, trying to find something to slime him with. That's where many in the US are, in the gutter. How low can they go.
10 Conspiracy Theories That Came True
