Debunking the Debunkers of the Debunkers of the Official Collapse StoryRegarding this page: http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
About the "hanging floor slab" shown in the picture at the top--
1) what is the evidence that this is actually a floor slab as opposed to some pipes that fell from the ceiling?
2) how exactly does a stiff concrete floor slab bow and bend and sag in the middle from heat?
I don't think concrete can BEND, so that explanation of the floor sagging is simply crap.
Then they write about NIST:
They look at the evidence and create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against the evidence and if new information comes out they change the hypothesis accordingly. You would think if the NIST was going to lie they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence.Um, couldn't the explanation also be that their first hypothesis was a total joke and was laughed at by so-called conspiracy theorists? Does any one think that people who bought and steadfastly supported the official story worried about the NIST model? It was the conspiracy theorists and real scientists who made them change their model.
Ironically, Professor Jones has changed his paper yet the conspiracy theorist [sic] don't cast doubt on whether his paper is correct.That is simply not true, plenty of conspiracy theorists have problems with Jones' theories, particularly the thermite theory.
Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground.The few core columns that survive then miraculously turn to dust at the end of the WTC1 collapse is hardly proof of pancaking, and actually suggests some strange unofficial event occurred.
If the building didn't pancake what happened to the trusses? Assuming they didn't just fly away it's obvious they fell straight down.This is a total non-sequitor that proves nothing.
More evidence of pancaking is on ground zero. [a picture of a debris pile is shown]A pile of debris is NOT proof of pancaking. A huge pile of debris could also occur from demolition, obviously.
Jeez. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived).What is the hard evidence that insulation was stripped off of intact columns by plane debris? There is none!* It's a completely ad hoc argument. Yet their whole collapse theory rests on it! In all honesty, what is a more unsupported theory: that the towers were brought down by demolition or that fires brought down the buildings because the insulation was "stripped" off the columns?
For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favor and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest. There is incredible detailed which support each of the reports below.I've looked over those reports. There are LOTS and LOTS of pretty pictures and models-- but VERY LITTLE hard data or calculations or analysis. I guess it makes people who want to believe the official story feel good, like NIST did some work. But in temrs of science, the NIST reports are sorely lacking.
The worse part is NIST does not even bother to model how the buildings completely collapsed! Nor do they explain the near free-fall collapse times.
Now it is possible that the towers had a very severe flaw in their construction (that is still unknown) that made them completely disintegrate at near free-fall speed. But why isn't there more urgency to figure out the flaw?
Of course the most likely explanation is that the towers were demolished by pre-planted explosives. Demolition is the only theory that easily explains the features of the collapses.
* Fireproofing stripped off columns that are already broken doesn't count-- for what should be obvious reasons.