WTC Collapses [Archive] - SciForums.com

scott3x

11-14-08, 01:50 PM

Do you think that is a refutation?

Indeed :-)

Originally Posted by scott3x
For those who want us to imagine that the Towers "collapsed", the assumption that they "fell" on their own is a critical part of the story.

Fell on their own? Did they not see the planes flying into them?

The planes were of negligible effect on the towers. 9/11 Research explains:
********************************
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

And ofcourse, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. It did fall in the classic demolition manner, however, from the bottom up.

Originally Posted by scott3x
But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own...

It appears that those who are the most familiar with the performance of steel frame buildings disagree.

You must mean the people the government paid to 'investigate' the case. The same people that Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief said were engaged in a 'half-baked farce':
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

Let's see the petition that 526 or so Architects and Engineers have signed:
************************************
Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned
************************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

scott3x

11-14-08, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own...

It appears that those who are the most familiar with the performance of steel frame buildings disagree. Hence the peer reviewed documents, which support the official story. Conspiracy theorists want to bring up people like Barnett and Asteneh and their qualifications but ignore the conclusions they reached.

I have never ignored the conclusions they have reached. Astaneh-Asl's conclusions were tentative, however:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060905082531/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC+Paper+2003.pdf

What's more:
***************************
Astaneh resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete. Without FEMA's backing, the National Science Foundation team was shut out.
***************************
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/6_APbuilding.html

In the following video, Jonathan Barnett also made it clear that his team was very surprised that WTC 7 collapsed, and also made it clear that the investigation of tower 7 was not business as usual:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

Stryder

11-14-08, 02:26 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
This was a quite interesting Modelling of the events, however I don't think their rendering took so much consideration into the explosion being structurally damaging.

Interesting enough:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Teenage_boy_blows_up_the_house_with_deodorant

Obviously in this particular unrelated to 9/11 story the fact is that one aerosol can was enough to blow the roof of the house off. This is due to the fact that aerosol's are of course canisters of compressed air.

While of course the Fuel in an aircraft is not compressed air, the Air-Fuel mix that is necessary to cause combustion can be a problem. You see rather than be starved oxygen is pulled in from the floors or extremities of the building during it's flash explosion, this causes a "breathing" effect where the floors themselves would have been rippling not from the impact but the displacement of the volume of air.

Obviously the building with less floor above the impact lasted longer, because the weight of the floors plus the degrading state of the structure caused by fire would eventually cause a collapse.

It doesn't take much to cause a landslide, however it takes a lot to stop one.

scott3x

11-14-08, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
with or without an office fire, or even from the impact of a falling portion of the same building. If impacted from above, the Towers might bend or distort, but they wouldn't explode,

They didn’t explode. Watch a video of the event.

I've watched several.

Originally Posted by scott3x
disintegrate in mid-air,

It didn’t disintegrate in mid-air.

I disagree and so does the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth site, as well as the 9/11 Research site. The 9/11 Research site goes into more depth on the issue in their "Concrete Pulverization" page:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Explosives would not explain disintegration anyway.

Again, I disagree as do many in the 9/11 truth movement.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Anyone who's ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural members remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted if it falls to the floor, but it will never just collapse into pieces under any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional forces.

Yes an erector set weighing a few hundred grams is pretty much exactly the same as one of the tallest buildings in the world. Exactly the same in fact!

I agree that it's a bit different. David Ray Griffin has this to say about the issue of scale:
*************************************
If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.
*************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

That's even worse than Gage and his boxes.

Not to fond of his boxes eh? Personally, I'd like to take another look at them, but I -did- manage to find this excellent 30 minute interview that Alex Jones gave to Richard Gage:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1146773943958672828&ei=ifcdSdrcBoKM-QH8k5jnBg&q=richard+gage+wtc

Originally Posted by scott3x
Buildings that have fallen in earthquakes demonstrate this resistance to disintegration.
http://www.truememes.com/semantics_files/image009.jpg
*************************
http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html

Another irrelevant and moronic comparison.

Must you continue with terms like 'moronic'? I understand that Headspin has used such terms, but seriously, I think all it does is sour the mood of the discussion and distract from the arguments and the evidence. When you present arguments, I try to stay away from such terms and instead try to focus on why your arguments are flawed if I believe that they are.

scott3x

11-14-08, 05:49 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
This was a quite interesting Modelling of the events, however I don't think their rendering took so much consideration into the explosion being structurally damaging.

I'd seen that video before today, but it doesn't seem to get into what took the buildings down.

Interesting enough:
http://digg.com/tech_news/Teenage_boy_blows_up_the_house_with_deodorant

Obviously in this particular unrelated to 9/11 story the fact is that one aerosol can was enough to blow the roof of the house off. This is due to the fact that aerosol's are of course canisters of compressed air.

While of course the Fuel in an aircraft is not compressed air, the Air-Fuel mix that is necessary to cause combustion can be a problem. You see rather than be starved oxygen is pulled in from the floors or extremities of the building during it's flash explosion, this causes a "breathing" effect where the floors themselves would have been rippling not from the impact but the displacement of the volume of air.

Obviously the building with less floor above the impact lasted longer, because the weight of the floors plus the degrading state of the structure caused by fire would eventually cause a collapse.

What makes you think that this is the case? If you listen to Richard Gage, who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, you will come to understand that, although fires have raged stronger and longer in other high rise buildings, the only day that not 1, but -3- high rise buildings allegedly collapsed due to fires (with or without planes) was on 9/11. Here is an excellent video interview that he gives to Alex Jones:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1146773943958672828&ei=ifcdSdrcBoKM-QH8k5jnBg&q=richard+gage+wtc

Also, feel free to browse my web page which has all the information that the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth has, plus some rebuttals that have been tailored for arguments made by forum goers here such as KennyJC and shaman:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

It doesn't take much to cause a landslide, however it takes a lot to stop one.

Sure. In fact, there was atleast one case where -part- of a high rise fell off (the madrid tower). So this could be like a 'land slide' if you will. There have been no cases where a high rise simply disintegrated due to fires alone however, whether or not a plane crashed into it before hand.

Stryder

11-14-08, 06:46 PM

What makes you think that this is the case? If you listen to Richard Gage, who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, you will come to understand that, although fires have raged stronger and longer in other high rise buildings, the only day that not 1, but -3- high rise buildings allegedly collapsed due to fires (with or without planes) was on 9/11.

I'm not sure if Richard Gage took into consideration that the Fire Departments at the time were having to deal with more than one Blaze. As you are well aware a lot of firemen lost their lives when the building eventually collapsed and this would have effected dealing with fires not just through manpower but as a moral shock to all those departments, since Living firemen had not time to grieve or succumb to shock.

spidergoat

11-14-08, 06:51 PM

Absense of evidence is sometimes evidence of absense. If you have seen any demolitions, the explosions are clearly visible as flashes of light and shock waves. Nothing like that was seen in the videos.

scott3x

11-14-08, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
What makes you think that this is the case? If you listen to Richard Gage, who founded Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, you will come to understand that, although fires have raged stronger and longer in other high rise buildings, the only day that not 1, but -3- high rise buildings allegedly collapsed due to fires (with or without planes) was on 9/11.

I'm not sure if Richard Gage took into consideration that the Fire Departments at the time were having to deal with more than one Blaze. As you are well aware a lot of firemen lost their lives when the building eventually collapsed and this would have effected dealing with fires not just through manpower but as a moral shock to all those departments, since Living firemen had not time to grieve or succumb to shock.

The arguments on his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site aren't based upon how many firemen were able to put out the WTC 7 fires. Here are the points made for WTC 7 (generally similar to the twin tower collapses, but they do differ a bit):
********************************
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).
7. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.
********************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/

scott3x

11-14-08, 07:23 PM

Absence of evidence is sometimes evidence of absense.

Perhaps so. However, in this case, many people, including notable authors, architects, engineers, physicists and scholars believe there is plenty of evidence that WTC 1,2 and 7 were brought down by controlled demolition.

If you have seen any demolitions, the explosions are clearly visible as flashes of light and shock waves. Nothing like that was seen in the videos.

You may want to look more closely. There's actually a wealth of evidence that there was in the case of the twin towers, as I make clear on the following page of my web site:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/2.html

I have seen no evidence that this was the case in the case of WTC 7, but because of the rest of the evidence concerning that building, I think it'd be a lot easier to find the explanation for that (perhaps because the demolition material, thermate, is not like normal explosives in this regard) than it would be to explain that it was brought down by the fires alone.

spidergoat

11-14-08, 07:32 PM

WTC7 was not a prominent target, there would be no advantage to destroying it on purpose. The obvious explanation is that two huge office buildings collapsed nearby, and that debris could damage a building in a spot that caused catastrophic collapse.

I fail to understand why anyone would anticipate that simply crashing two huge jetliners into NYC's largest buildings (and the Pentagon) would not create the desired effect (whatever that was). It would not be logical to prepare an extremely risky mission to secretly place explosives in ADDITION to jets, since it was certainly possible that any preparations for explosives would be damaged by the crashes and later detected. Explosives do not eliminate the evidence of their existence.

MacGyver1968

11-14-08, 07:38 PM

spidergoat

11-14-08, 07:44 PM

I am well prepared to accept that the full story has not been told, but I'm not convinced the funny business is revealed in the details of how the towers fell. It would be more likely to be found in Dick Cheney's secret e-mails.

leopold99

11-14-08, 07:57 PM

Found a good excerpt that refutes the notion that the planes and fires brought down the twin towers
still can't believe your own eyes, eh?

scott3x

11-14-08, 07:59 PM

WTC7 was not a prominent target, there would be no advantage to destroying it on purpose.

You may want to read the following:
**********************************
There had to be a very good reason for [WTC 7] to be rigged for demolition whilst it was still occupied. Did Silverstein, the new World Trade Center owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks?

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people:

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml)]
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer (http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles)]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10036925.html)]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV (http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/27904/Ground_Zero_for_the_Secret_Service.html?detectflas h=false&)]

The collapse of WTC 7 also profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html) through insurance payments.
**********************************
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

scott3x

11-14-08, 08:16 PM

The obvious explanation is that two huge office buildings collapsed nearby, and that debris could damage a building in a spot that caused catastrophic collapse.

Damage is one thing. However, other then 9/11, the only cases where high rise buildings have collapsed straight down have been in controlled demolitions.

I fail to understand why anyone would anticipate that simply crashing two huge jetliners into NYC's largest buildings (and the Pentagon) would not create the desired effect (whatever that was).

Because planes have crashed in high rises before and yet have never had the effect that occured on 9/11. It has been argued that no plane the size of 757s even did so, but the WTC towers were specifically designed to withstand crashes of planes of this size (707s are around the same size as 757s). Frank D. Martini, who was the construction manager for the twin towers at the time of the collapse and died during the collapse, had this to say earlier in 2001 concerning the possibility of jet impacts to the buildings:
**********************************
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid * and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
**********************************
http://www.911eyewitness.com/samples/demartini.php

It would not be logical to prepare an extremely risky mission to secretly place explosives in ADDITION to jets, since it was certainly possible that any preparations for explosives would be damaged by the crashes and later detected.

Perhaps, but perhaps the possibility was extremely low. I'm not a military demolition expert, so I wouldn't know, but I believe that the evidence that the buildings -were- taken down by controlled demolition is definitive.

Explosives do not eliminate the evidence of their existence.

Indeed they don't:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

spidergoat

11-14-08, 09:04 PM

The evidence is certainly far from "definitive". Unless there was residue of explosives at the site, or evidence of explosive related material, the rest of it is pure conjecture.

The towers, if you notice, did not fall straight down, The top section fell on the damaged section and tilted on an angle, then the lower floors pancaked. Demolitions require multiple blast points and usually start from the ground up. But the most obvious evidence against this is the lack of explosive shock waves in the video. Loud sounds don't count.

The buildings were NOT designed for that size of an airplane, and definitely not for the amount of fuel they carried.

scott3x

11-14-08, 09:25 PM

The evidence is certainly far from "definitive".

I did qualify that 'definitive' with an 'i believe'- I acknowledge that many remain unconvinced but I attribute this to a lack of knowledge concerning the relevant facts :-).

Unless there was residue of explosives at the site, or evidence of explosive related material, the rest of it is pure conjecture.

There was:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermite.html

The towers, if you notice, did not fall straight down, The top section fell on the damaged section and tilted on an angle, then the lower floors pancaked.

I believe you are referring to the collapse of the top of the south tower. That fact is indeed noted by physicist Steven Jones. Apparently in that one instance, a piece of the tower didn't collapse in sync with everything else. Steven Jones noted something quite interesting despite that fact, however:
******************************
Those who wish to preserve as inviolate fundamental physical laws may wish to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-11: http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/south_tower_collapse.mpeg

http://physics911.net/images/9-11%20Picture8%20(sotower).jpg
Top ~ 34 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?

We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then — and this I’m still puzzling over — this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis added.)

Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific procedure as to ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See Mooney, 2005.)

So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its neglect by studies funded by the US government.
******************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones/

spidergoat

11-14-08, 09:57 PM

scott3x

11-14-08, 10:17 PM

Aluminothermic reactions are exothermic chemical reactions in which aluminum is oxidized while an oxide of another metal is reduced. Although high temperatures are required to initiate such reactions, they are easily self-sustaining once started due to the heat they generate. The most common example of an aluminothermic reaction is thermite, in which powdered aluminum reacts with an iron oxide. Because aluminum has a greater affinity for oxygen than iron, oxygen is transferred from the iron oxide to the aluminum, releasing a great deal of energy and leaving behind molten iron and aluminum oxide.

Do you realize what this means? The building is steel, the aircraft is aluminum, pulverized to a fine mist upon impact, with the fires giving the heat needed to start the reaction, which quickly released enormous heat, melting the steel that carried the building's load.

I have heard this argument before, but from what I gather, even NIST doesn't support it. Instead, NIST desperately clings to the notion that the planes and fires did it alone, tweaking its computer models in an attempt to get the buildings to collapse based on these criteria alone. Despite all their tweaking, even they don't try to simulate how the fires could have actually collapsed the buildings, instead leaving the computer simulation at the 'poised for collapse' stage.

I'm glad that you are considering that aluminothermic reactions did take place, however. The next step is simply in persuading you that those reactions were initiated by thermate that was placed within the building instead of from aluminum. Put simply, the planes didn't leave debris on all the floors and left none at all in WTC 7. Another thing is that steel isn't the same thing as iron oxide. Personally, I would like to know more about how high a temperature is required to initiate a thermite reaction. But the fact there are so few people who believe that aluminothermic reactions could have been induced without the use of thermite/nanothermite leads me to believe that explosives were indeed placed.

scott3x

11-14-08, 10:32 PM

This is in response to the beginning of KennyJC's post that was in the 'there can be only one!' 9/11 thread. His post is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090162&postcount=2363

The following is my response.

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
How did a brilliant individual like yourself come to the conclusion that the top 16 levels of the north tower could come straight down

Well my friend, when fire weakens steel to less than 10% of its original strength and there are thousands of tons on that steel, gravity takes over.

Ofcourse, the fires came nowhere near getting the steel to 10% of its original strength, as Kevin Ryan makes quite clear, even if the fires had reached 2000F, which even NIST doesn't believe the fires could have reached. Here is Kevinn Ryan's famous letter to Frank Gayle, who headed the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project at the time, that is, on 11/11/2004:
*******************************
Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.
*******************************
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451

shaman_

11-14-08, 10:33 PM

Indeed :-)

The planes were of negligible effect on the towers. 9/11 Research explains:
********************************
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.
Leslie Robertson makes it clear

“The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

The towers did withstand the impact. They stayed up for an hour or so and thousands of people were able to evacuate.

********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

And ofcourse, WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. It did fall in the classic demolition manner, however, from the bottom up. WTC was hit by debris from one of the tallest buildings in the world. The fires burned for seven hours. As demonstrated, fire is capable of collapsing steel structures.

That’s what a building looks like when the bottom floors fail. The collapse started near the bottom but not quite at the bottom. If you watch controlled demolitions you will hear the charges going off before the collapse starts. It also didn’t collapse perfectly as it damaged nearby buildings when it fell. So no it wasn't the same as a controlled demolition.

But you are ignoring that a controlled demolition takes a lot of time a planning to pull off, the fires burnt for many hours not affecting the supposed explosives and what it pretty much the final nail - that the firefighters all cleared out because they thought it was going to collapse due to the damage it had received. There is no mystery here.

Repeating over and over that no plane hit WTC and “it looks like a controlled demolition!!” is a foolish argument which will only appeal to the gullible.

You must mean the people the government paid to 'investigate' the case. The same people that Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief said were engaged in a 'half-baked farce':
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225
No I’m referring to the list of engineers who wrote articles in peer reviewed papers supporting the collapse. They are more qualified to talk of such matters than a theologian and crackpot physics professor whose field was cold fusion.

Let's see the petition that 526 or so Architects and Engineers have signed:
************************************
So where is their research? If they are genuinely in that field they know the process. Why aren’t they writing papers for engineering magazines? Perhaps they are fake names, not really behind it, retired, dead, not very good, who knows either way the list on it’s own is meaningless. Unless you are gullible and desperate to reinforce you conspiracy fantasy.

As pointed out to you some of those engineering professionals are very dodgy. They have padded out that list of ‘engineering professionals’ with irrelevant people like software developers, chemists, electrical engineers and an ‘urban activist’ ?

I have never ignored the conclusions they have reached. Astaneh-Asl's conclusions were tentative, however:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060905082531/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC+Paper+2003.pdf Ha because he uses the sub heading “Tentative Conclusions” you are trying to imply that he didn’t really believe it or something. It is a desperate ploy.

This is the man who said this "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff,"

"Those are lightweight buildings," "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

No he doesn’t seem sure at all there. You will of course ignore this and keep mining through his quotes.

What's more:
***************************
Astaneh resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete. Without FEMA's backing, the National Science Foundation team was shut out.
***************************
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/6_APbuilding.html
He resigned because he did not want to sign a disclosure contract. The disclosure contract was to protect the owners of the buildings from having the findings used against them in a lawsuit

In the following video, Jonathan Barnett also made it clear that his team was very surprised that WTC 7 collapsed, and also made it clear that the investigation of tower 7 was not business as usual:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8 We were probably all a little surprised that WTC7 collapsed. Then again, every building in the WTC complex collapsed or partially collapsed. However something unexpected doesn’t equal conspiracy. Well it might in the minds of those desperately looking for a conspiracy to make their lives more interesting.

I disagree and so does the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth site, as well as the 9/11 Research site. The 9/11 Research site goes into more depth on the issue in their "Concrete Pulverization" page:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html Yes gravity can be a bitch.

Again, I disagree as do many in the 9/11 truth movement. Yes but they are fools who ignore all the conclusive evidence that ruins the conspiracy. You just blindly believe everything they say.

Explosives explode, they blast and cause shockwaves usually accompanied by flashes of light and deafening bangs. They don’t just magically turn concrete to dust. A 110 story building collapsing to the top certainly might….

I agree that it's a bit different. David Ray Griffin has this to say about the issue of scale:
*************************************
If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.
*************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html Oh lordy your heroes are dim witted. The strength of a structure does not scale proportionately to its size. Its more than a ‘a bit different’. You cannot demonstrate how a building of 200 000 tons of concrete and steel behaves with an erector set.

Not to fond of his boxes eh? Personally, I'd like to take another look at them, but I -did- manage to find this excellent 30 minute interview that Alex Jones gave to Richard Gage:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1146773943958672828&ei=ifcdSdrcBoKM-QH8k5jnBg&q=richard+gage+wtc

Must you continue with terms like 'moronic'? I understand that Headspin has used such terms, but seriously, I think all it does is sour the mood of the discussion and distract from the arguments and the evidence. When you present arguments, I try to stay away from such terms and instead try to focus on why your arguments are flawed if I believe that they are.For the most part Scott I try to be polite in all discussions in sciforums. There are times though when I am going to have to call it as I see it. The evidence regularly presented by the truthers is pitiful.

While we are making requests I would politely ask that you actually digest some of the debunking presented to you. Don't just forget the parts you don't like.

scott3x

11-14-08, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
The planes were of negligible effect on the towers. 9/11 Research explains:
********************************
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

Leslie Robertson makes it clear

“The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.”

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

The towers did withstand the impact. They stayed up for an hour or so and thousands of people were able to evacuate.

I find it hard to believe that they would have accounted for the planes but not the fires that would ensue. I'm not alone in that suspicion either. In any case, Kevin Ryan makes it clear that the fires should have had a negligible effect on the buildings, as he made clear in his letter to NIST:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24

shaman_

11-14-08, 11:21 PM

You may want to read the following:
**********************************
[B]There had to be a very good reason for [WTC 7] to be rigged for demolition whilst it was still occupied. Did Silverstein, the new World Trade Center owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks?

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people:

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml)]
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer (http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles)]
I work in IT and can tell you that all companies now have a disaster recover plan. All the full backups are sent offsite regularly. This was a well-established practice even in 2001. Some companies may not have had a plan then, which I find hard very hard to believe, but anyway it was still well known then that the critical information can usually be recovered. The data on some hard drives were recovered from the wreckage so collapsing buildings isn’t a perfect way to destroy them anyway.

So was the loss of data/paperwork really a major issue for these companies? Was it worth the expense of the completely implausible super conspiracy? Stretches credibility a little don't you think? I'm sure there were better targets nearby which were not targeted.

The collapse of WTC 7 also profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html) through insurance payments.
**********************************
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html Larry Silverstein only got $4.6 billion in insurance money, but rebuilding WTC7 cost $6.3 billion.

scott3x

11-14-08, 11:24 PM

WTC [7] was hit by debris from one of the tallest buildings in the world.

The twin towers were closer to other buildings and yet, even though some of them were severely scorched, no other building but WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.

The fires burned for seven hours. As demonstrated, fire is capable of collapsing steel structures.

A warehouse steel structure, ok. But never before or after 9/11 have steel framed high rises collapsed due to fire alone.

shaman_

11-14-08, 11:28 PM

I find it hard to believe that they would have accounted for the planes but not the fires that would ensue. I'm not alone in that suspicion either. In any case, Kevin Ryan makes it clear that the fires should have had a negligible effect on the buildings, as he made clear in his letter to NIST:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24We have been through this several times. Ryan bases that letter on the belief that the steel didn't reach temperatures over 250C. This is blatantly wrong and you even agreed. Stop posting the same irrelevant crap over and over.

shaman_

11-14-08, 11:42 PM

The twin towers were closer to other buildings and yet, even though some of them were severely scorched, no other building but WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.There are photos that clearly show the top stories of WTC1 colliding with WTC7. Had it been a controlled demolition and a symmetrical collapse it would not have happened. But all the buildings in the WTC complex were so damaged that they partially collapsed and/or had to be destroyed.

As mentioned WTC7 didn't quite collapse into its own footprint as it damaged the surrounding buildings.

A warehouse steel structure, ok. But never before or after 9/11 have steel framed high rises collapsed due to fire alone.That is an inane statement that only appeals to the gullible. The basic principles that led to the collapse have happened to other steel framed buildings. You can't just declare these things irrelevant because the building was different.

Anyway the steel supports on the Madrid tower did collapse due to fire. It stayed up due to its concrete core.

767s colliding full speed into buildings among the tallest in the world hasn't happened since either. There were lots of firsts that day.

scott3x

11-14-08, 11:57 PM

Just came across what I believe is an eye opening article regarding the WTC collapses. I wish I had seen it before. Here it is:
"The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11"
http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html

KennyJC

11-15-08, 12:28 AM

An argument has been made that a 10 story apartment building also fell very quickly due to damage without the aid of explosives. But a 10 story apartment building is not the same thing as a steel framed high rise; what's more, no steel framed high rise has ever fallen at all from fires, regardless of how long the building burned.

You’re right; a 10 story building is nothing like a steel framed high rise building. It’s more surprising to me that it would pancake so quickly as it is far lighter than what we saw at the WTC, therefore less kinetic energy.

No steel framed skyscraper has collapsed simply because violent fires are rare on such buildings. Truthers can only point to several examples, and even in one of their examples, a large amount of the building collapsed due to it being constructed of steel. The rest of the building survived most thanks to it’s concrete core.

No serious fire has ever occurred in a building that shared fundamental design elements seen in the WTC.

To me, the rumble heard is reminiscent of tons of explosions going off, but to each their own I suppose.

Tons of explosions going off would uniformly smash the surrounding windows and probably deafen some in lower Manhattan. As it happens these “tons of explosives” were silent when you consider that bombs are typically heard for miles.
It has been argued that the squibs were compressed air and that if it was from explosives, the squibs would be instantaneous like in a regular demolition. It has also been argued that the speed of the squibs is consistent with air being squeezed out by the falling floors above.
This argument has been handily refuted by 9/11 Research:
Look, if you’re going to say these are explosive squibs, then what kind of bomb explodes slowly? A fart bomb?
However, if you take a look at the debris, you'll notice that a lot if not most of the upper debris had the texture of dust or at best sand. It has been argued that the top part of the building held together for at least some of the collapse and that just because one can see concrete breaking up doesn’t mean its just a bit of sand and doesn't weigh anything. Ofcourse all matter weighs -something-. Spread out dust, however, doesn't weigh all that much per cubic meter. It has been argued that the top thirty floors of WTC2 were not mostly dust and did weigh quite a lot, but they were pulverized into dust in mid air anyway; these buildings had no need to 'pancake'; even when falling into thin air they spontaneously disintegrate.

What the fuck are you smoking? Just because most of what you saw was dust, does not mean that everything that is falling is dust. Just tell that to the recovery folk who far from simply having to hoover stuff up, spent years removing actual solid building-type things.

It has been argued that they were not pulverized into dust, that they didn’t fall into thin air, they were pushing down on the lower floors, that they didn’t spontaneously disintegrate. The question has also been asked as to whether concrete can simply be 'pulverized' during the collapse. I believe the answer is no.

Watch any building collapse whether it be controlled or accidental; they produce tremendous amounts of dust. 10 story apartment building appeared to have its concrete completely disintegrated in mid-air as it fell. It’s not bombs that cause these pulverizations of concrete. In any case, the majority of concrete that was used in the WTC was very thin, and thus, very easily broken down.

However, given enough explosives, you can certainly make the debris from a symetrical collapse go beyond the footprint. There is a real problem here for those who believe that the majority of the buildings were brought down by their own weight, however; the more debris didn't come down in the footprint of the building, the less debris is around to supposedly crush the rest of the building. From what I understand, even if -all- the debris fell in its own footprint, this wouldn't be possible; this is just making it even more obvious explosives had to have been used to bring down the buildings.

EXPLOSIVES DO NOT EJECT TONS OF STEEL HUNDREDS OF FEET.

Any explosives that can do this would create more than a little rumble and vibrations.

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
It has been argued that this is "obviously false". No evidence for this argument was given.
Actually, I said that it was obviously false as images from ground zero showed that the windows at the top of the buildings were not smashed, but windows at the bottom of the building were smashed.
Logic dictates that debris smashed the windows below. Since “blast waves” would have hit the top of these buildings, then how come only windows at the bottom of the buildings were smashed?
I believe the idea that the floors pancaked to begin with has no real evidence. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume for a second that they did indeed do so; I have seen no evidence that 'the force of each floor falling on to the other was still enough to nudge the perimeter columns outward' And as to the 'nudge' part; 500 feet does not seem like a nudge. What's more, the debris was being ejected just as strongly right from the beginning, when the length of the fall was still relatively small. The argument has also been made that demolition experts will tell you that their materials do local damage to each beam it is placed on, slicing it like butter. Far from being capable of throwing tons of steel great distances. However, normal demolition experts don't have access to nanothermite, which is capable of packing quite an impressive punch, especially when it comes to iron based metals.
The fact that some debris did fall off to the side is due to the fact that tower was not falling at free fall speed. If the tower was collapsing at free fall speed, all the debris would have gone straight down. But from watching the collapse, you see loose columns at the top being held up by the slow collapse, and following the path of least resistance fell off to the side and it’s momentum continued in an outward direction. As it fell near 1,000, the drift carried it to other buildings.
The part in bold just made me laugh. How the fuck do you know what nanothermite can do compared to conventional explosions? And again, even if this mystical substance does do as you say, where are the ear piercing explosions?
The argument has been made that this is wrong; that the steel core was far from obliterated. In fact, many video and still pictures show that the core in both towers was still standing moments after the collapse. The initial collapse consisted of the floors alone. However, one must take not that there was no claim made that the steel core didn't survive a few moments after the collapse. The point is it was completely destroyed at amazing speed.

The fact is that the steel core was not obliterated. It remained in humungous chunks and was so difficult to remove from ground zero that it had to be cut into smaller sections. This prompted fools like Steven Jones to think that the beams had been cut during the collapse rather than after.

It has been argued that the thermate signature is non-existant when you consider that the materials were already common and present in the WTC for non-sinister reasons. This argument is fundamentally flawed, however, and shows a lack of understanding of what a thermate signature is; a thermate signature, like a hand signature, can only come from one thing: thermate. If it could come from something else, it wouldn't be called a thermite signature.

Except that’s not what Steven Jones says, is it?

Steven Jones says that because he found sodium, barium, aluminum etc. in the WTC dust, that this is a thermate signature. True that these elements may be in thermate, but it is probably in every skyscraper in existence.

psikeyhackr

11-15-08, 07:09 PM

m1v1 + m2v2 = (m1 + m2)v3

v2 = 0 since each level below is stationary.

No mathematical formula can save you now... You have already proven yourself to be insane.

ROFLMAO

I'm guessing your math scared responders away; I admit I really don't understand it, laugh :-). Anyway, feel free to continue with your arguments over in my WTC Collapses thread; although you may want to go light on the math if you want us mere mortals to understand you ;-).

You have gotta be kiddin' me.

I have done a search of that 100+ page thread. I found a little over a dozen mentions of conservation of momentum but the only mathematical description of it is the one I posted. What does the SCI in sciforum mean?

That is why I suggested this "thought experiment".
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2079638&postcount=2125

What information is necessary to test it in a computer simulation? That test could obviate all discussion of plane impact and fire damage.

m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.

But this brings up another equation:

K = m * v^2/2

That is the Kinetic energy of a moving mass. But since velocity is squared reducing the velocity has a larger effect than increasing the mass. It turns out that the conservation of momentum would cause each stage of the collapse to lose so much velocity that there is a net decrease in kinetic energy even though the mass increased. But that energy is necessary to bend and break the steel to make this collapse continue. I don't know how to compute the energy necessary to crush one level of the tower and how the amount of steel affects that computation. I haven't seen it on the net.

Consequently debating this without knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level makes no sense. The world renowned EXPERTS at the NIST had to know that for years. So why are they claiming the collapse was inevitable and the towers came down so fast because the buildings were 70% air by volume?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

That is 15 tons of air per level by the way. It is totally absurd that PBS let someone talk that trash but then they do get money from the government.

Is insane worse than really DUMB?

psik

scott3x

11-16-08, 11:12 AM

ROFLMAO

You have gotta be kiddin' me.

I have done a search of that 100+ page thread. I found a little over a dozen mentions of conservation of momentum but the only mathematical description of it is the one I posted. What does the SCI in sciforum mean?

Laugh :-). Well, a few people here have mentioned that they are, indeed, scientists, although I'm not sure if there are actually any who deal much with the conservation of momentum..

That is why I suggested this "thought experiment".
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2079638&postcount=2125

What information is necessary to test it in a computer simulation? That test could obviate all discussion of plane impact and fire damage.

m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.

But this brings up another equation:

K = m * v^2/2

That is the Kinetic energy of a moving mass. But since velocity is squared reducing the velocity has a larger effect than increasing the mass. It turns out that the conservation of momentum would cause each stage of the collapse to lose so much velocity that there is a net decrease in kinetic energy even though the mass increased. But that energy is necessary to bend and break the steel to make this collapse continue. I don't know how to compute the energy necessary to crush one level of the tower and how the amount of steel affects that computation. I haven't seen it on the net.

Consequently debating this without knowing the quantity of steel and concrete on every level makes no sense. The world renowned EXPERTS at the NIST had to know that for years. So why are they claiming the collapse was inevitable and the towers came down so fast because the buildings were 70% air by volume?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

That is 15 tons of air per level by the way. It is totally absurd that PBS let someone talk that trash but then they do get money from the government.

Is insane worse than really DUMB?

psik

You know, I think I actually understood your argument now, laugh :-). It seems to me that you're worrying too much about the amount of concrete; whatever the amount, the buildings simply couldn't have come down at that speed by any other means then controlled demolition, where, far from the top floors crushing the lower floors, the lower floors were already falling by the time the top floors reached them (thus the clear squibs ahead of the fall, to get things moving before the top actually hit it).

I think it's along the same lines as the one I posted earlier:
http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html

I can't say I understand all of it, but I surmised the above conclusion that I made from it.

psikeyhackr

11-16-08, 04:27 PM

It seems to me that you're worrying too much about the amount of concrete; whatever the amount, the buildings simply couldn't have come down at that speed by any other means then controlled demolition,

That should be obvious but how many people stop listening as soon as you mention controlled demolition?

Regardless of what brought the buildings down they had to hold themselves up for 28 years and withstand the wind. So a person should not need a PhD in physics and a masters in structural engineering to know the designers had to figure out how much steel and concrete to put where. So regardless what anyone BELIEVES brought the buildings down EVERYONE should think it peculiar that no official source can tell us the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the towers after SEVEN YEARS.

I spent two weeks after 9/11 thinking about what an airliner could do to a skyscraper. At the time I didn't know anything about the tube in a tube structure of the building but I concluded there was no way a NORMAL airliner could have done all of that. But I figured it was not my problem and it would get resolved eventually.

I didn't get into an argument about this on the internet with anyone until some time in 2006. By then the NCSTAR1 report was out and people were claiming that explained everything. So I downloaded that and burned it to DVD but I was not about to try and read 10,000 pages. So I started searching it for what I regarded as the necessary information to solve the problem on the basis of my understanding of the physics. I went to college for electrical engineering and my pledge father was an architect. We could see the Sears Tower being constructed from campus at the time so there was lots of talk about skyscrapers.

I have searched the NCSTAR1 report dozens of times. I cannot find the total amount of concrete specified. Various sources on the net specify anywhere from 90,000 tons to 425,000 cubic yards for both towers which would be at least 280,000 tons per building.

Now the distribution of mass of both steel and concrete are of primary importance for two reasons. When the airliner impacted the tower two things happened. The plane punched a hole in the building doing structural damage and the plane pushed the building off center. The NIST report says the south tower moved 12 inches at the 70th floor and that was 130 feet below the center of impact. The kinetic energy of the plane can be calculated rather easily but how much energy did structural damage and how much shook the building which oscillated for FOUR MINUTES. The distribution of MASS MUST BE KNOWN to compute that energy. That same distribution of mass is relevant to analyzing the collapse. The steel and concrete would behave differently so they must be separate. It is the steel that gave the building the spring to oscillate not the concrete. But the concrete acted as a weight on the spring.

So after SEVEN YEARS the really peculiar thing is that all of the engineering schools aren't demanding that info and explaining to the public its importance. It is like the engineering schools are accomplices after the fact. :eek: And the public is supposed to be a bunch of LAYMEN kept ignorant but BELIEVING THE WORD from on high.

The Empire State Building was completed 70 years before the destruction of the WTC. What kind of electronic computers did they have back then? A problem this simple should not have dragged on this long. Look at how much more powerful home computers have become just since 2001. This is just strange psychological bullshit of people not wanting the simple information that would force them to the logical conclusion that they don't want to accept.

But then they want to just throw around the term "conspiracy theorist" and accuse other people of psychological aberrations. Steel, concrete and physics don't give a damn about psychology.

psik

KennyJC

11-16-08, 06:11 PM

Regardless of what brought the buildings down they had to hold themselves up for 28 years and withstand the wind.

Yes, when everything is interconnected.

MacGyver1968

11-16-08, 06:12 PM

Yes, when everything is interconnected.

and not hit by large airplanes flying 500 mph. :)

MacGyver1968

11-16-08, 06:23 PM

Something another SF member said that I thought was funny:

Give me your nutters, your crackpots,
Your huddled woowoos yearning to beam up,
The wretched retards of your teeming shore.
Send these, these fruitcakes, illogic-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

thanks
sci

scott3x

11-16-08, 07:29 PM

scott3x

11-16-08, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by psikeyhackr
Regardless of what brought the buildings down they had to hold themselves up for 28 years and withstand the wind.

Yes, when everything is interconnected.

True, true. Clearly, psykey doesn't understand that a plane hitting a building has the capacity to get a building to self destruct, demolition style :rolleyes:

Don't worry, mum's the word on WTC 7 :cool:

scott3x

11-16-08, 11:08 PM

I've updated and slightly changed the url of my WTC web site to include a fair amount of the materiel that has been posted here. Not quite done yet, but perhaps done for the day:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/wtc/index.html

shaman_

11-17-08, 12:02 AM

A fine collection of debunked arguments there scott.

scott3x

11-17-08, 03:28 AM

A fine collection of debunked arguments there scott.

Must have taken you a long time to come up with such a fine argument there shaman :rolleyes:

Personally, I think the whole 'building was brought down by planes and fires' argument is killed by this simple statement made by psikey:
***************************
m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090944&postcount=33

But I figured I'd refute a bunch of other claims as well anyway.

scott3x

11-17-08, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I find it hard to believe that they would have accounted for the planes but not the fires that would ensue. I'm not alone in that suspicion either. In any case, Kevin Ryan makes it clear that the fires should have had a negligible effect on the buildings, as he made clear in his letter to NIST:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24

We have been through this several times. Ryan bases that letter on the belief that the steel didn't reach temperatures over 250C. This is blatantly wrong and you even agreed.

Yes, I agreed that the steel reached temperatures well over 250C. But it's understandable that Ryan was misled in this regard. Mr. Ryan explains in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."

You see, the fires should have only brought the steel to around 250C/500F and at the time NIST was apparently turning a blind eye to any evidence that suggested otherwise. Since then, NIST has admitted that the temperatures got hotter, but the fact remains that if the fires alone were responsible, it shouldn't have gotten any hotter. Given this fact, his views on the subject make perfect sense:
*******************************
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees [F] -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees [F]) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
****************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

shaman_

11-17-08, 08:26 AM

Yes, I agreed that the steel reached temperatures well over 250C. But it's understandable that Ryan was misled in this regard. Ryan was not misled. Ryan chose to ignore all the evidence that the fires reached higher temperatures.

Mr. Ryan explains in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation." He is focusing on one piece of research and ignoring the rest. This is what you conspiracy theorists do.

You see, the fires should have only brought the steel to around 250C/500F Based on what? You have picked this number from the samples.

Jet fuel burns much hotter than that.

The Cardington tests for office fires all achieved temperatures much hotter than that.

Several steel structures have collapsed due to fire giving indications of temperatures much hotter than that.

How do you explain the bowing seen towards the end?

NITS’s own simulations predicted temperatures much hotter than 250C.

Molten material was reported at WTC5. Are you going to claim that explosives were involved?

and at the time NIST was apparently turning a blind eye to any evidence that suggested otherwise. All the other evidence confirms that the temperatures were near 1000C.

Since then, NIST has admitted that the temperatures got hotter, but the fact remains that if the fires alone were responsible, it shouldn't have gotten any hotter. So when the McCormick Place in Chicago collapsed due to fire, there must have been explosives involved.

Given this fact, his views on the subject make perfect sense: Only to the ignorant.

Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees [F] -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees [F]) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company."
****************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfiredRyan was wrong. He was a lab manager at Underwriters Laboratories. His area was environmental testing, not structural certification or fire engineering. It doesn’t matter how many more times you post this letter over and over, he is still wrong.

shaman_

11-17-08, 08:31 AM

Must have taken you a long time to come up with such a fine argument there shaman Actually it was an observation, not an argument.

What is the point of that site? You are recording your words but exclude the posts which completely discredit them.

scott3x

11-17-08, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Yes, I agreed that the steel reached temperatures well over 250C. But it's understandable that Ryan was misled in this regard.

Ryan was not misled. Ryan chose to ignore all the evidence that the fires reached higher temperatures.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? To me it seems clear that he was informing himself from Frank Gayle's interim NIST report that he had just received.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Mr. Ryan explains in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."

He is focusing on one piece of research and ignoring the rest.

He was focusing on Frank Gayle's interim NIST report. If anyone was at fault for allegedly not noticing that the steel had gotten hotter then 250C, it was NIST's. They're the ones who were on the scene, not Kevin Ryan.

psikeyhackr

11-17-08, 03:21 PM

scott3x

11-17-08, 05:33 PM

If they stop listening at the term controlled demolition, do you honestly think they're going to listen to your treatises on steel and concrete?

I don't call asking someone that if a skyscraper has to hold up its own weight then don't the designers have to figure out how much steel and concrete to put where A TREATISE.

An essay then. In any case, it's too much for people here. Surely you realize this?

I expect grade school kids to understand that information is necessary.

It's one thing to understand that a building has to be built in a way so that it doesn't fall down. It's another thing to persuade people that a plane won't make it auto destruct.

So I expect people to regard it as peculiar that we don't have it. And after SEVEN YEARS!?!?

After seven years, we atleast have more then 500 architects and engineers calling for a new inquiry into the WTC collapses. Most people aren't either, however, and simply don't understand what's so important about steel and concrete; to be honest with you, I still don't really understand it myself.

I -did- understand your point on kinetic energy. To be specific:
***************************
m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090944&postcount=33

However, it seems that this bit of info is beyond virtually everyone here. I guess it needs to be broken down further for them.

Perhaps the simplest way of doing it would be to say:
The towers couldn't have pancaked down. Why? Because the -only- way they could have fallen down as fast as they did is if floors well below the supposedly 'pancaking' part had already begun to fall.

scott3x

11-17-08, 05:53 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
You see, the fires should have only brought the steel to around 250C/500F

Based on what? You have picked this number from the samples.

The number is apparently what NIST was suggesting in its interim report and was certainly a number that Kevin Ryan felt was reasonable. He says as much in his letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
***********************
Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
***********************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24

scott3x

11-17-08, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
You see, the fires should have only brought the steel to around 250C/500F

...Jet fuel burns much hotter than that.

Yes, jet fuel burns up to 1500F/815C. I have it on good authority that the jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center. However, I can't say that I understand the math and since it seems math is -not- the forte of this forum, you can only look at the numbers if you wish:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/how-hot.htm

The Cardington tests for office fires all achieved temperatures much hotter than that.

Quoting Headspin:
***************************
Wasn't the point of the cardigan tests to see how steel and building behaved at various temperatures, rather than to see what temperatures would be reached?

Weren't the Cardigan temperatures the input data, rather than the output data?

If i do tests at various temperatures, I cannot conclude the temperatures reached were those temperatures at some other fire event. What I can conclude is how the steel behaves at certain temperatures.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2083979&postcount=2240

scott3x

11-17-08, 06:18 PM

Several steel structures have collapsed due to fire giving indications of temperatures much hotter than that.

As steel structure is not the same thing as saying a steel framed high rise. No steel framed high rises have ever completely collapsed due to planes and/or fires alone before or since 9/11:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

scott3x

11-17-08, 06:22 PM

How do you explain the bowing seen towards the end?

9/11 Research explains it thusly:
********************************

Bowed Columns, or Refracted Light?

This illustration is in the slide presentations predating the Report, and is included in the final Report (p 33/83). NIST assigns inward displacements of every fifth column at each floor based on their appearance in the photograph.

A key part in NIST's theory of the collapse initiation is that the perimeter columns on one of the faces of each Tower bowed inward, pulled by sagging trusses. The Report contends that the columns on the south face of the North Tower bowed inward in the moments before its collapse and that the columns on the east face of the South Tower bowed inward some time before its collapse. As evidence for the supposed bowed columns NIST cites photographs. The Report includes one annotated photograph allegedly showing bowing in the North Tower, but no such photographs of allegedly bowing of columns in the South Tower. There are two photographs of alleged South Tower column bowing in an earlier slide presentation.

NIST fails to consider an alternative explanation for the bowed appearance of columns in its selected photographs of the Twin Towers: light refraction caused by the layer of hot air adjacent to the Towers. Such atmospheric conditions would refract light in a way that is consistent with apparent distortion of the columns seen in the photographs.
********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#bowed

scott3x

11-17-08, 06:37 PM

NIST’s own simulations predicted temperatures much hotter than 250C.

Those simulations came after the 2004 report. Those simulations are, shall we say, somewhat suspect. Steven Jones points this out in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)":

************************************
The computerized models of the Towers in the NIST study, which incorporate many features of the buildings and the fires on 9-11-01, are less than convincing. The Final report states:

The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases (which became Case A for WTC 1 and Case C for WTC 2) were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events. (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The NIST report makes for interesting reading. The less severe cases based on empirical data were discarded because they did not result in building collapse. But ‘we must save the hypothesis,’ so more severe cases were tried and the simulations tweaked, as we read in the NIST report:

The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted… (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

The primary role of the floors in the collapse of the towers was to provide inward pull forces that induced inward bowing of perimeter columns. (NIST, 2005, p. 180; emphasis added.)

How fun to tweak the model like that, until the building collapses — until one gets the desired result. But the end result of such tweaked computer hypotheticals is not compelling, sorry gentlemen. Notice that the “the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted” (NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added) to get the perimeter columns to yield sufficiently — one suspects these were “adjusted” by hand quite a bit — even though the UK experts complained that “the core columns cannot pull the exterior [i.e., perimeter] columns in via the floor.” (Lane and Lamont, 2005; emphasis added.)

...So how does the NIST team justify the WTC collapses, when actual models fail to collapse and there are zero examples of fire-caused high-rise collapses? Easy, NIST concocted computer-generated hypotheticals for very “severe” cases, called cases B and D (NIST, 2005, pp. 124-138). Of course, the details are rather hidden to us. And they omit consideration of the complete, rapid and symmetrical nature of the collapses.

Indeed, NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.

The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. …(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome.
************************************
http://physics911.net/stevenjones

scott3x

11-17-08, 06:41 PM

Molten material was reported at WTC5. Are you going to claim that explosives were involved?

Looks like it may well have been the case:
***************************
5 and 6 World Trade Center

What Caused the Large Holes Visible from Above

Some reports suggested that explosions were responsible for the holes in WTC 6 and WTC 5. 1 The depths of the holes have been cited as evidence of this, as have their clean profiles...
***************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

scott3x

11-17-08, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
and at the time NIST was apparently turning a blind eye to any evidence that suggested otherwise.

All the other evidence confirms that the temperatures were near 1000C.

It's quite possible that steel was vaporized, never mind that it reached 1000C:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies, New York Times, October 2, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B 63)

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE, New York Times, November 29, 2001 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B 63)

However, NIST turned a blind eye to this back in 2004 and to this day it seems to have a hard time even admitting that much of the steel got beyond 250C:
Imagined Heat (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration)

I assume the reason is that in 2004, it was suggesting that -no- steel had gotten past 250C, despite the reports from the New York Times stating that WTC investigators Dr. Barnett and Dr. Abstaneh-Asl had claimed that there was vaporized/evaporated steel way back in 2001. Perhaps they don't want to look like they change their opinion with the changing political currents.

scott3x

11-17-08, 07:00 PM

So when the McCormick Place in Chicago collapsed due to fire, there must have been explosives involved.

The McCormick Place was a steel structure, not a steel framed high rise. 9/11 Research makes quick work of the comparison:

****************************
The McCormick Place Roof Collapse

The Most-Cited Example of a Fire-Induced Collapse of a Steel Structure

Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings totally collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples) defenders of the theory frequently cite the McCormick roof collapse incident.

McCormick Place is a warehouse-type building that housed a large exhibition hall. It had a long-span roof supported by web trusses. When a fire broke out in an exhibition with many flammable displays it rapidly spread, and a portion of the roof collapsed within 30 minutes.

Comparisons of the McCormick Place incident to the collapses of the Twin Towers are sometimes made because the floor diaphragms on that constituted most tenant-space floors in the Towers were also supported by web trusses.

The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.

Furthermore, the comparisons of the roof trusses of McCormick Place to the floor trusses of the Twin Towers is limited by the following facts:

* The floor trusses were insulated, unlike the roof trusses.
* The floor trusses spanned at most 60 feet, apparently much shorter than the roof trusses.
* The floor trusses had to support the floor loads of the concrete slabs and office furniture, whereas the roof trusses only had to support snow loading.
****************************

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html

scott3x

11-17-08, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Ryan wrote that the institute's preliminary reports suggest the WTC's supports were probably exposed to fires no hotter than 500 degrees [F] -- only half the 1,100-degree temperature needed to forge steel, Ryan said. That's also much cooler, he wrote, than the 3,000 degrees needed to melt bare steel with no fire-proofing.

"This story just does not add up," Ryan wrote in his e-mail to Frank Gayle, deputy chief of the institute's metallurgy division, who is playing a prominent role in the agency investigation. "If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.

He added, "Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around (500 degrees [F]) suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
****************************************
http://www.wanttoknow.info/911kevinrryanfired

Ryan was wrong. He was a lab manager at Underwriters Laboratories. His area was environmental testing, not structural certification or fire engineering. It doesn’t matter how many more times you post this letter over and over, he is still wrong.

When he was fired, he had been promoted to the top management job in his division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. I'm not sure if his division dealt with steel, but what I -do- know is that what you know isn't necessarily a part of your job description; what happened on 9/11 captivated the attention of many people and seeing as how the company he worked for had certified the steel, the issue of how the steel held up was of a more then a passing interest to him. He explains his learning of the subject in the years following 9/11 in his article "Propping Up the War on Terror (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html)":
******************************
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important.

Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire... Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm [Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18

By 2003, all of this information was available to anyone who cared. The details were, without a doubt, difficult to reconcile with testimony from officials, reporters, and scientists who were supporting the official story. But in November of that year, I felt that answers from UL were needed. If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

Knoblauch's written response contained several points. He wrote: "We test to the code requirements, and the steel clearly met those requirements and exceeded them." He pointed to the NYC code used at the time of the WTC construction, which required fire resistance times of 3 hours for building columns, and 2 hours for floors. From the start, his answers were not helping to explain fire-induced collapse in 56 minutes (the time it took WTC2, the South Tower, to come down). But he did give a better explanation of UL's involvement in testing the WTC steel, even talking about the quality of the sample and how well it did. "We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on," he wrote, "and it did beautifully."19

This response was copied to several UL executives, including Tom Chapin, the manager of UL's Fire Protection division. Chapin reminded me that UL was the "leader in fire research testing," but he clearly did not want to make any commitments on the issue. He talked about the floor assemblies, how these had not been UL tested, and he made the misleading claim that UL does not certify structural steel. But even an introductory textbook lists UL as one of the few important organizations supporting codes and specifications because they "produce a Fire Resistance Index with hourly ratings for beams, columns, floors, roofs, walls and partitions tested in accordance with ASTM Standard E119."20 He went on to clarify that UL tests assemblies of which steel is a component. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." In any case, Chapin suggested that we be patient and wait for the report from NIST, because the investigation into the "collapse of WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7" was an ongoing process and that "UL is right in the middle of these activities."21

For the most part, I did wait, although I shared my concerns with Chapin again at UL's Leadership Summit in January 2004. I encouraged him to ask for a company news release on our position, but this did not happen and I never heard from him again. By the time UL tested the floor assembly models in August of that year, I had been promoted to the top management job in my division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. Two months later, NIST released an official update that included the floor test results, as well as Frank Gayle's results, in which steel temperatures were predicted. These results clearly invalidated the major theories of collapse, because pancaking could not occur without floor collapse and steel does not turn to licorice at the temperatures discussed.

After reviewing this update, I sent a letter directly to Dr. Gayle at NIST. In this letter, I referred to my experiences at UL and asked for more information on the WTC investigation and NIST's soon-to-be-published conclusions. NIST had planned at the time to release its final report in December, with time allowed for public comment. After I allowed my letter to become public,22 this date was moved to January 2005, and then nothing was heard from NIST for several months.

Other than UL's involvement in testing the steel components, the facts I stated had all been reported publicly, but when I put them together plainly, they were considered outrageous. Five days after I sent my letter, I was fired by UL for doing so. The company made a few brief statements in an attempt to discredit me, then quickly began to make it clear that its relationship with the government, perhaps due to its tax-exempt status, was more important than its commitment to public safety...
******************************
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html

scott3x

11-17-08, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Must have taken you a long time to come up with such a fine argument there shaman

Actually it was an observation, not an argument.

What is the point of that site? You are recording your words but exclude the posts which completely discredit them.

Actually I think it's clear that in the site it's I who debunk a lot of official story beliefs. It's a work in progress and clearly hasn't yet incorporated everything that's been written here, but it includes a fair amount. If you feel that any part of it is flawed, by all means, point it out to me and I'll have a look.

scott3x

11-17-08, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x's wacky website
An argument has been made that a 10 story apartment building also fell very quickly due to damage without the aid of explosives. But a 10 story apartment building is not the same thing as a steel framed high rise; what's more, no steel framed high rise has ever fallen at all from fires, regardless of how long the building burned.

You’re right; a 10 story building is nothing like a steel framed high rise building. It’s more surprising to me that it would pancake so quickly as it is far lighter than what we saw at the WTC, therefore less kinetic energy.

Speaking of kinetic energy, there's a certain point that has apparently been ignored by official story believers. Here it is again:

The towers couldn't have pancaked down. Why? Because the -only- way they could have fallen down as fast as they did is if floors well below the supposedly 'pancaking' part had already begun to fall.

Here is the reasoning in more depth:
***************************
m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090944&postcount=33

Here is the reasoning in even -more- depth:
The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11 (http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html)

Is -any- official story believer going to tackle this issue? I admit that the last link is a little difficult to understand, but surely the first and perhaps even the second aren't so hard to understand?

scott3x

11-17-08, 10:25 PM

Speaking of kinetic energy, there's a certain point that has apparently been ignored by official story believers. Here it is again:

The towers couldn't have pancaked down. Why? Because the -only- way they could have fallen down as fast as they did is if floors well below the supposedly 'pancaking' part had already begun to fall.

Here is the reasoning in more depth:
***************************
m1 is the mass of the falling top portion of the tower. v1 is the velocity at which it would hit the lower intact portion, in this case 44 mph or 64.5 ft/sec. m2 is the mass of one level of that lower portion which has a velocity of ZERO. So the velocity of the combined masses after the mash up will be v3 = m1*v1/(m1 + m2). So v3 is going to be smaller than v1. THE FALLING MASS WILL BE SLOWED DOWN BY MASS ALONE. That does not count the energy lost to crush each level.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090944&postcount=33

I have now spoken to what I believe is an official story believer who's also a physicist. Thank goodness. I was beginning to think they might not exist here, but I am happily mistaken. He essentially said that, so long as v3 was not significantly reduced, the collapse could still procede at nearly free fall speed. I believe that it would have been and I believe that this link (http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html) shows it, but I admit I don't understand the reasoning in the link and so I can't in honesty say I can explain it myself.

MacGyver1968

11-17-08, 10:35 PM

13 posts in a row...must be some sorta record. :)

scott3x

11-17-08, 10:58 PM

13 posts in a row...must be some sorta record. :)

Laugh :-). And I still didn't really respond to one of KennyJC's posts. Not sure if I will though, he's using certain language again. Anyway, as you may have noticed, sometimes the reason I post so many posts is that I cut up my response to a post to make it easier to do for me; as in, I'll just address this little point. Not so hard. And then I'll address this other point; not so hard... etc.

I used to write single enormous responses, but I found that it works better for me if I divide it up; that way, I can at times link a previous post if it's a single or dual issue post as opposed to a multi issue post wherein linking to it would mean that a person would have to sift through the post in order to get to the relevant data.

shaman_

11-18-08, 12:09 AM

The number is apparently what NIST was suggesting in its interim report No that is what Ryan wanted to believe from reading the interim report. Their report from 2004 (is that the one we are talking about?) had estimates of temperatures far above 250C. Didn't they estimated pockets reaching 2000F very early on? Even the conspiracy theorists quote that one. Where do you get the idea that NIST don’t think the temperature went over 250C? Do you even know? You are just mindlessly repeating what Ryan said without even computing that the number was cherry picked from the steel tests.

The belief from the beginning was that the fire got very hot, near 1000C.

and was certainly a number that Kevin Ryan felt was reasonable. Irrelevant. He is not an authority on the matter and is contradicted by those who are, and the supporting data.

He says as much in his letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
***********************
Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
***********************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24Yes keep spamming the same thing over and over. Spamming the same quotes repeatedly is not a substitute for an argument.

Yes, jet fuel burns up to 1500F/815C. I have it on good authority that the jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center. Good authority? Lol. To say that they played no role in the collapse is a ridiculous statement. I have pointed out why to you several times but you will not digest anything that doesn’t come from conspiracy sites. It is your religion and your faith strong, while your mind is switched off.

Saying the jet fuel played no role is like saying jumping out of a plane without a parachute wont kill you. Sure hitting the ground at terminal velocity will kill you but jumping out of the plane wont. It is a lame attempt to misrepresent the truth.

The towers would have probably stayed up were it not for the jet fuel which started the massive fires over several floors. In previous high rise fires, the fire started slowly and worked its way from one office to another and then another floor to another over a long period of time. In WTC there was almost instantly a raging fire, over many floors. By the time the fuel was burnt out that place was an inferno with some of the steel unprotected.

You claim that the fires never went over 500F yet jet fuel burns up to three times that temperature!

Quoting Headspin:
***************************
Wasn't the point of the cardigan tests to see how steel and building behaved at various temperatures, rather than to see what temperatures would be reached?

Weren't the Cardigan temperatures the input data, rather than the output data?

If i do tests at various temperatures, I cannot conclude the temperatures reached were those temperatures at some other fire event. What I can conclude is how the steel behaves at certain temperatures.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2083979&postcount=2240Perhaps they were but one of the tests involved burning only wood and one test was a simulation for a burning office. These tests reached atmospheric temperatures near 1000C.

NIST performed their own tests to simulate office fires and the results were consistent with the Cardington ones.

As steel structure is not the same thing as saying a steel framed high rise. A steel framed high rise is a steel structure.

No steel framed high rises have ever completely collapsed due to planes and/or fires alone before or since 9/11:Every time you post that sentence my estimate of your IQ goes down a little more. Do you really think repeating that over and over means anything? Are you trying to make the case that anything that happens for the first time didn’t really happen? Do you even know what your point is here? I don’t think you do. Just repeating it over like a mantra for the gullible makes you feel better.

9/11 Research explains it thusly:
********************************

Bowed Columns, or Refracted Light?

This illustration is in the slide presentations predating the Report, and is included in the final Report (p 33/83). NIST assigns inward displacements of every fifth column at each floor based on their appearance in the photograph.

A key part in NIST's theory of the collapse initiation is that the perimeter columns on one of the faces of each Tower bowed inward, pulled by sagging trusses. The Report contends that the columns on the south face of the North Tower bowed inward in the moments before its collapse and that the columns on the east face of the South Tower bowed inward some time before its collapse. As evidence for the supposed bowed columns NIST cites photographs. The Report includes one annotated photograph allegedly showing bowing in the North Tower, but no such photographs of allegedly bowing of columns in the South Tower. There are two photographs of alleged South Tower column bowing in an earlier slide presentation.

NIST fails to consider an alternative explanation for the bowed appearance of columns in its selected photographs of the Twin Towers: light refraction caused by the layer of hot air adjacent to the Towers. Such atmospheric conditions would refract light in a way that is consistent with apparent distortion of the columns seen in the photographs.
********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#bowedI’ve already responded to this before and I can’t really be bothered anymore You don’t intend to actually think you just want to preach your religion. So I’m just going to cut and paste like you do.
“
This is completely incorrect. For photographs of the degradation, the author refers Mr. Hoffman to NCSTAR1-3C and NCSTAR1-5A. Perimeter column bowing in WTC 1 appears in NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108. Bowing in WTC 2 is visible in NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83. A wealth of photographs also shows sagging of objects in the interior of both structures. Regarding Mr. Hoffman’s attempt to explain away these obvious signs of structural distress, the author notes that, had heated air refraction been to blame, the bowing would have appeared at slightly different locations from different vantage points, and many of the clearest photographs were taken from a moving helicopter. Convection also would
have created the appearance of bowing at other locations, rather than being restricted to precisely the same locations in both towers. Furthermore, such strong refractory effects would also necessarily include a great deal of turbulence, which would also be visible as a strong blurring effect, as is familiar to anyone who has ever seen a desert mirage. None of these photographs shows such a turbulent effect, and all of them are consistent with respect to the columns and floors affected. It is therefore Mr. Hoffman who is denying the clear signs of fire-induced structural weakness, and he does so with the flimsiest of excuses.”
R.Mackey

shaman_

11-18-08, 02:40 AM

The McCormick Place was a steel structure, not a steel framed high rise. 9/11 Research makes quick work of the comparison:
There were differences but the point is that the fire alone caused the steel structure to collapse. None of the differences pointed out reduce the importance of that. That’s like saying a bullet may kill a human but it wouldn’t kill a dog because it walks on four legs.

In fact the McCormick Place collapsed in 30 minutes after what started as a small fire. This demonstrates that fires can easily reach temperatures hot enough to warp and soften steel. Even those that weren't started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and a large explosion…..

When he was fired, he had been promoted to the top management job in his division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. I'm not sure if his division dealt with steel, but ....So instead of conceding or at least demonstrating that you are aware of the discussion taking place you just spam another link from a conspiracy site.....

Actually I think it's clear that in the site it's I who debunk a lot of official story beliefs. It's a work in progress and clearly hasn't yet incorporated everything that's been written here, but it includes a fair amount. If you feel that any part of it is flawed, by all means, point it out to me and I'll have a look.Didn’t you read my comment? You seem to be trying to record the discussion being had here except without the rebuttals which expose your posts for what they are. That part is a little flawed.

scott3x

11-18-08, 08:42 AM

riginally Posted by scott3x
The number is apparently what NIST was suggesting in its interim report and was certainly a number that Kevin Ryan felt was reasonable. He says as much in his letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
***********************
Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
***********************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24

No that is what Ryan wanted to believe from reading the interim report.

I suppose I could say that you want to believe the official story as well. Why don't we just say that you and he both simply believe what you do and not put a desire to it? By the way, Kevin Ryan may have believed that the temperatures got no higher then 250 at the time, but he certainly doesn't think so now. Ofcourse, he believes explosives were the ones that brought the temperatures so high, not fire.

Their report from 2004 (is that the one we are talking about?)...

I believe they only did one on the WTC buildings in 2004...

...had estimates of temperatures far above 250C. Didn't they estimate pockets reaching 2000F very early on? Even the conspiracy theorists quote that one. Where do you get the idea that NIST didn’t think the temperature went over 250C? Do you even know? You are just mindlessly repeating what Ryan said without even computing that the number was cherry picked from the steel tests.

I am indeed repeating what Kevin Ryan said Frank Gayle was suggesting. One need not be 'mindless' to repeat something that's noteworthy, despite your apparent belief that this must be so. However, as I have mentioned, at present, neither Kevin Ryan or I feel that that's as high a temperature as the steel got. Even in his 2004 letter, he did address the 2000F fire temperature claim. He clearly didn't believe it at the time, but he not only mentions it, but states that even if it were the case, it could not have melted the steel, as Dr. Hyman Brown mentioned. It may be that the only reason Kevin Ryan mentions Dr. Hyman Brown at all is because his story came out in a newspaper and said that his findings were supported by NIST's preliminary findings. Here's a quote from Kevin Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24):
*******************************
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
*******************************

The belief from the beginning was that the fire got very hot, near 1000C.

Kevin Ryan believed that NIST's Frank Gayle was not one who initially felt this way. If you can show me evidence that this was not, in fact, the case, I would be happy to see it. Kevin Ryan addressed the fact that someone -outside- of NIST did see it this way, but still made it clear that even if that had been so, the fires couldn't have melted the steel, which is what Dr. Hyman Brown was claiming at the time.

scott3x

11-18-08, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
and was certainly a number that Kevin Ryan felt was reasonable.

Irrelevant. He is not an authority on the matter and is contradicted by those who are, and the supporting data.

Just to make sure that we're arguing about the same thing, here's the relevant excerpt of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."

He is claiming 2 things:
1- NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C.

2- That this is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. If he's claiming this, I assume that such an analysis was actually -done-, but if so, I don't have it on hand.

scott3x

11-18-08, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
He says as much in his letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
***********************
Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
***********************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24

Yes keep spamming the same thing over and over. Spamming the same quotes repeatedly is not a substitute for an argument.

Agreed; if you don't understand my argument, I must find other ways to try to get you to understand it if I want a discussion on its merits to take place.

psikeyhackr

11-18-08, 10:18 AM

psikeyhackr

11-18-08, 10:37 AM

I have now spoken to what I believe is an official story believer who's also a physicist. Thank goodness. I was beginning to think they might not exist here, but I am happily mistaken. He essentially said that, so long as v3 was not significantly reduced, the collapse could still procede at nearly free fall speed.

There are two aspects to analyzing physics problems. There is figuring out the correct equations to use AND there is getting the correct data to plug into the equations.

The thing about a skyscraper is that it must get stronger going down and more strength requires more steel and more steel means more mass. So a skyscraper must get heavier going down. Now I would not expect a physicist to have the specialized knowledge about the details on that regarding skyscrapers but I would expect him to know that information was necessary. So a COMPETENT physicist should be DEMANDING the correct data on that.

A physicist should not want to BELIEVE a physicist should want to KNOW.

That is the trouble here. Once someone decides to BELIEVE they don't care about CORRECT DATA anymore.

psik

scott3x

11-18-08, 10:41 AM

An essay then. In any case, it's too much for people here. Surely you realize this?

No, I consider this is easy shit.

But I also think a lot of people are willfully stupid. They have decided what they want or don't want to believe and can't or won't evaluate simple facts that contradict their beliefs.

I think the main problem is that so many claims are presented as evidence or even facts. Given this fact, I think it's understandable that people who are given to the idea that their own government would never be a party to such things are swayed by these spurious claims.

It is a form of group stupid.

As I mentioned to Headspin in the past (he's also an alternate story believer), viewing one's opponents as stupid in some way isn't, in my view, productive. I don't really view anything as 'stupid' per se. Unintelligent, perhaps, but as a general rule I view most if not all human beings intelligent. The issue with things such as 9/11 is that it's fairly complex and I believe it takes time to realize the truth, especially if one has a mindset that finds it hard to believe that elements of the government could do such things.

How is it that majorities of people in one country can collectively believe in one religion but majorities in another believe a different religion? Are people in one country more logical than those in another?

It's an argument that could be made, from both countries in question, ofcourse. I personally don't subscribe to an institutional religion myself.

A lot of goofy Truthers act like this is a religion. Physics doesn't give a damn about emotional bullshit.

True, but people do. Therein lies the problem...

Like talking about steel temperatures without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd.

Is it? Jim Hoffman doesn't seem to think so:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

Perhaps he has a vague idea as to the quantities of the steel? I don't know, but I'm interested in hearing your response to this...

Plus the exterior columns would only be heated on one side and could radiate heat to the air and conduct it up and down the building. How often do people point out they just got heated on the inside?

No idea :-p. I am not much of an expert on such things as of yet. I've only been at this a few months so far...

scott3x

11-18-08, 10:43 AM

psikeyhackr

11-18-08, 02:38 PM

Like talking about steel temperatures without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd. Is it? Jim Hoffman doesn't seem to think so:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration

That link contains this:

Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat

Notice the "huge steel columns"

If someone is claiming that the temperature weakened the steel then the quantity of steel must be part of the argument. In that link Hoffman is implying that the heat was not sufficient. So he doesn't need to specify the steel since he is saying the weakening could not happen. There is also the problem of timing. The south tower came down in less the one hour and the north tower in less than two. So what temperatures are necessary to weaken how much steel in that much time?

The 250 deg C of the paint deformation test isn't enough to weaken the steel anyway so that isn't worth talking about in relation to causing the collapse of the towers.

Maybe I should have said, "talking about steel temperatures weakening the steel without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd." The conductivity of 36 foot columns would be a factor in this event.

It is as though people who have decided to BELIEVE the results of the plane impact alone brought the buildings down have to convince themselves that the temperatures and the quantity of heat energy generated weakened the steel enough to bring the buildings down. So why don't they want accurate info on the distribution of steel.through the towers.

One purpose of my thought experiment removing 5 level was show the fire was irrelevant to understanding what could not cause this event if the top 16 stories could not destroy the intact 89.

psik

scott3x

11-18-08, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Like talking about steel temperatures without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd.

Is it? Jim Hoffman doesn't seem to think so:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/n...l#exaggeration

That link contains this:

Note the absurdity of asserting that the fires in the core were as intense as those in the tenant spaces when the core:

* Had very little fuel
* Was far from any source of fresh air
* Had huge steel columns to wick away the heat

Notice the "huge steel columns"

If someone is claiming that the temperature weakened the steel then the quantity of steel must be part of the argument. In that link Hoffman is implying that the heat was not sufficient. So he doesn't need to specify the steel since he is saying the weakening could not happen.

Yes, this is exactly my point- while it would be nice to know the amount of concrete and steel, it's not necessary to see that the the buildings simply could not have been taken down by the planes and the resulting fires.

There is also the problem of timing. The south tower came down in less the one hour and the north tower in less than two. So what temperatures are necessary to weaken how much steel in that much time?

The 250 deg C of the paint deformation test isn't enough to weaken the steel anyway so that isn't worth talking about in relation to causing the collapse of the towers.

Maybe I should have said, "talking about steel temperatures weakening the steel without reasonably accurate information on the quantity of steel on each level is absurd." The conductivity of 36 foot columns would be a factor in this event.

Make sense. But since we don't have that information, we have to do the best we can without it.

It is as though people who have decided to BELIEVE the results of the plane impact alone brought the buildings down have to convince themselves that the temperatures and the quantity of heat energy generated weakened the steel enough to bring the buildings down. So why don't they want accurate info on the distribution of steel.through the towers.

I haven't seen anyone here who doesn't want accurate information. I was even commended for emailing Abstaneh-Asl concerning the New York Times article stating that he had mentioned that there was evidence of vaporized steel (he never responded). It's just that they feel that such accurate information is unnecessary; that officialdom has already made it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have sufficient information to prove their case and that while they would mislead the american people concerning other things, such as the Iraq war, for a little cash and perhaps a few thousand soldiers' lives, they would never even -consider- doing such a thing to american civilians (they might have their reservations concerning the government's policy concerning foreign civilians, ofcourse).

One purpose of my thought experiment removing 5 level was show the fire was irrelevant to understanding what could not cause this event if the top 16 stories could not destroy the intact 89.

Can you link to that thought experiment again? I personally wish that the physicist I had spoken to would come join us in this forum, because I feel that there isn't really anyone on the official side of the story here who knows much math...

psikeyhackr

11-18-08, 06:33 PM

scott3x

11-18-08, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Yes, jet fuel burns up to 1500F/815C. I have it on good authority that the jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

Good authority? Lol. To say that they played no role in the collapse is a ridiculous statement.

Sorry, but I trust Jim Hoffman's 9/11 research site more then your word on the matter.

I have pointed out why to you several times but you will not digest anything that doesn’t come from conspiracy sites.

Link to where you have pointed it out then.

It is your religion and your faith strong, while your mind is switched off.

Just responding to a person makes it necessary to use one's mind. In regards to responding to you, I frequently find that the most difficult aspect, actually, is keeping cool while you go on with your taunts.

Saying the jet fuel played no role is like saying jumping out of a plane without a parachute wont kill you. Sure hitting the ground at terminal velocity will kill you but jumping out of the plane wont. It is a lame attempt to misrepresent the truth.

He said 'almost no role' and I find that your metaphor to be unhelpful to your arguments.

The towers would have probably stayed up were it not for the jet fuel which started the massive fires over several floors.

Discredited here:
Imagined Heat (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration)

In previous high rise fires, the fire started slowly and worked its way from one office to another and then another floor to another over a long period of time. In WTC there was almost instantly a raging fire, over many floors. By the time the fuel was burnt out that place was an inferno with some of the steel unprotected.

I admit I haven't heard evidence for the above before- who's your source, Ryan Mackey?

You claim that the fires never went over 500F yet jet fuel burns up to three times that temperature!

I claim that Kevin Ryan claimed that Frank Gayle was suggesting that the -steel- never went beyond 500F back in the 2004 interim NIST report, not the fires.

Originally Posted by scott3xQuoting Headspin:
***************************
Wasn't the point of the cardigan tests to see how steel and building behaved at various temperatures, rather than to see what temperatures would be reached?

Weren't the Cardigan temperatures the input data, rather than the output data?

If i do tests at various temperatures, I cannot conclude the temperatures reached were those temperatures at some other fire event. What I can conclude is how the steel behaves at certain temperatures.
***************************
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2083979&postcount=2240

Perhaps they were but one of the tests involved burning only wood and one test was a simulation for a burning office. These tests reached atmospheric temperatures near 1000C.

Ah, I see; all office fires are the same eh?

NIST performed their own tests to simulate office fires and the results were consistent with the Cardington ones.

You mean the tests the Underwriter Laboratories did for NIST? You may remember Kevin Ryan, who had the top management job in his division of Underwriters Laboratories, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions before he was fired, allegedly because a single letter sent to NIST's Frank Gayle? He wrote quote a good article concerning many things concerning 911. In regards to tests, his company was actually part of a very important one carried out for NIST's 2004 report:
******************************
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
******************************

Or do you mean that they did another test, to make up for the fact that this one didn't support their pancaking theory?

scott3x

11-18-08, 06:57 PM

Yes, this is exactly my point- while it would be nice to know the amount of concrete and steel, it's not necessary to see that the the buildings simply could not have been taken down by the planes and the resulting fires.

To me this is about the difference between BELIEVING, SUSPECTING and KNOWING.

The objective is to KNOW. No ifs , no ands, no buts, no room for equivocating. Considering that people knew enough to design the Empire State Building almost 80 years ago there is no excuse not to have data this simple. The NIST report says there were 12 different types of perimeter wall panels. They don't tell us the number of each type or the weight of each type. The only reason we know the weight of the heaviest is because it is in an engineering magazine from 1970.

The fact that official sources do not supply us with simple information is nearly as big a crime as 9/11. We are failing to solve a problem that should have taken less than a year. And grade school kids should comprehend the principles of knowing what data is relevant to solve it.

Sounds good, but it seems that enough is known already to make that bit of knowledge unnecessary. I say this because I have never heard Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin or anyone else in the truth movement aside from you mention the issue of not knowing the precise amount of steel involved.

Apparently Kevin Ryan did feel it was important enough to mention certain aspects of the steel and concrete in combination, however. From his article Propping up the War on Terror (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html), he mentions that each floor had "1,000 tons of concrete and steel", although he doesn't specificy in what proportions.

He also mentions the following:
*********************************
The Twin Towers and Why They Fell

It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4
*********************************

scott3x

11-18-08, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
As steel structure is not the same thing as saying a steel framed high rise.

A steel framed high rise is a steel structure.

Yes, but it is a -subset- of the possible steel structures, one that is much more robust then a steel warehouse, as 9/11 Research made clear.

Originally Posted by scott3x
No steel framed high rises have ever completely collapsed due to planes and/or fires alone before or since 9/11:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/collapses.html

Every time you post that sentence my estimate of your IQ goes down a little more. Do you really think repeating that over and over means anything? Are you trying to make the case that anything that happens for the first time didn’t really happen?

I'm trying to make the case that it's extremely unlikely that -any- steel framed high rise would completely collapse due to fire, plane initiated or not. On 9/11, 3 steel framed high rises completely collapsed. The government would like us to believe that fires did the trick every time, but many don't buy it.

scott3x

11-18-08, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
9/11 Research explains it thusly:
********************************

Bowed Columns, or Refracted Light?

This illustration is in the slide presentations predating the Report, and is included in the final Report (p 33/83). NIST assigns inward displacements of every fifth column at each floor based on their appearance in the photograph.

A key part in NIST's theory of the collapse initiation is that the perimeter columns on one of the faces of each Tower bowed inward, pulled by sagging trusses. The Report contends that the columns on the south face of the North Tower bowed inward in the moments before its collapse and that the columns on the east face of the South Tower bowed inward some time before its collapse. As evidence for the supposed bowed columns NIST cites photographs. The Report includes one annotated photograph allegedly showing bowing in the North Tower, but no such photographs of allegedly bowing of columns in the South Tower. There are two photographs of alleged South Tower column bowing in an earlier slide presentation.

NIST fails to consider an alternative explanation for the bowed appearance of columns in its selected photographs of the Twin Towers: light refraction caused by the layer of hot air adjacent to the Towers. Such atmospheric conditions would refract light in a way that is consistent with apparent distortion of the columns seen in the photographs.
********************************
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#bowed

I’ve already responded to this before and I can’t really be bothered anymore. You don’t intend to actually think you just want to preach your religion. So I’m just going to cut and paste like you do.

There's nothing wrong with cutting and pasting if the original author makes the point you were trying to make.

"This is completely incorrect. For photographs of the degradation, the author refers Mr. Hoffman to NCSTAR1-3C and NCSTAR1-5A. Perimeter column bowing in WTC 1 appears in NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-24 and 2-25, and NCSTAR 1-5A Figure 8-108. Bowing in WTC 2 is visible in NCSTAR1-3C Figure 2-37 and NCSTAR1-5A Figures 9-46, 9-59, 9-80, 9-82, and 9-83. A wealth of photographs also shows sagging of objects in the interior of both structures. Regarding Mr. Hoffman’s attempt to explain away these obvious signs of structural distress, the author notes that, had heated air refraction been to blame, the bowing would have appeared at slightly different locations from different vantage points, and many of the clearest photographs were taken from a moving helicopter. Convection also would have created the appearance of bowing at other locations, rather than being restricted to precisely the same locations in both towers. Furthermore, such strong refractory effects would also necessarily include a great deal of turbulence, which would also be visible as a strong blurring effect, as is familiar to anyone who has ever seen a desert mirage. None of these photographs shows such a turbulent effect, and all of them are consistent with respect to the columns and floors affected. It is therefore Mr. Hoffman who is denying the clear signs of fire-induced structural weakness, and he does so with the flimsiest of excuses."
R.Mackey

Apparently Jim Hoffman hasn't gotten around to debunking this particular point of Mackey's. As Jim Hoffman stated in his Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html) article:
******************
Following the publication of these, Mackey generated Version 2 of his essay. More than 300 pages in length, this version has lengthy fallacy-rich sections addressing Thurston's and Ryan's articles almost line-by-line.

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.
******************

I will give Ryan Mackey the benefit of the doubt in this particular case, however. Jim Hoffman only stated that NIST failed to consider a certain possibility. He didn't say that that possibility was necessarily true.

scott3x

11-18-08, 07:31 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
The McCormick Place was a steel structure, not a steel framed high rise. 9/11 Research makes quick work of the comparison in its The McCormick Place Roof Collapse (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/mccormick.html) article:
****************************
The McCormick Place Roof Collapse

The Most-Cited Example of a Fire-Induced Collapse of a Steel Structure

Thermal weakening of structural steel is a crucial element of the official theory of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Since there are no examples of steel-framed buildings totally collapsing due to fire stress (outside of these three alleged examples) defenders of the theory frequently cite the McCormick roof collapse incident.

McCormick Place is a warehouse-type building that housed a large exhibition hall. It had a long-span roof supported by web trusses. When a fire broke out in an exhibition with many flammable displays it rapidly spread, and a portion of the roof collapsed within 30 minutes.

Comparisons of the McCormick Place incident to the collapses of the Twin Towers are sometimes made because the floor diaphragms on that constituted most tenant-space floors in the Towers were also supported by web trusses.

The first fact that should be noted in regard to any such comparison is that the McCormick Place incident was not a total building collapse -- it was only a roof collapse. Much less was it the total collapse of a high-rise building. Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.

Furthermore, the comparisons of the roof trusses of McCormick Place to the floor trusses of the Twin Towers is limited by the following facts:

* The floor trusses were insulated, unlike the roof trusses.
* The floor trusses spanned at most 60 feet, apparently much shorter than the roof trusses.
* The floor trusses had to support the floor loads of the concrete slabs and office furniture, whereas the roof trusses only had to support snow loading.
****************************

There were differences but the point is that the fire alone caused the steel structure to collapse. None of the differences pointed out reduce the importance of that.

That’s like saying a bullet may kill a human but it wouldn’t kill a dog because it walks on four legs.

I find the analogies you're making to be misleading. How about you simply consider this excerpt from the article above:
**********************
Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.
**********************

In other words, the argument probably had its high times with the original FEMA report, before NIST discredited it.

John99

11-18-08, 07:34 PM

maybe this will help explain things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BA8LWKiOTGI

scott3x

11-18-08, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Ryan was wrong. He was a lab manager at Underwriters Laboratories. His area was environmental testing, not structural certification or fire engineering. It doesn’t matter how many more times you post this letter over and over, he is still wrong.

When he was fired, he had been promoted to the top management job in his division, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions. I'm not sure if his division dealt with steel, but what I -do- know is that what you know isn't necessarily a part of your job description; what happened on 9/11 captivated the attention of many people and seeing as how the company he worked for had certified the steel, the issue of how the steel held up was of a more then a passing interest to him. He explains his learning of the subject in the years following 9/11 in his article "Propping Up the War on Terror (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html)":...

So instead of conceding or at least demonstrating that you are aware of the discussion taking place you just spam another link from a conspiracy site.....

You stated that Kevin Ryan was 'wrong'. You justify this belief by saying that his job description didn't include structural certification or fire engineering. That's not evidence, that's a conjecture.

Personally, however, I like providing evidence, not conjecture. So I presented you with evidence that demonstrated that he -did- know what he was talking about, providing a long excerpt wherein he details his knowledge of the steel tests that Underwriter Laboratories was performing on behalf of NIST.

scott3x

11-18-08, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
What is the point of that site? You are recording your words but exclude the posts which completely discredit them.

Actually I think it's clear that in the site it's I who debunk a lot of official story beliefs. It's a work in progress and clearly hasn't yet incorporated everything that's been written here, but it includes a fair amount. If you feel that any part of it is flawed, by all means, point it out to me and I'll have a look.

Didn’t you read my comment? You seem to be trying to record the discussion being had here except without the rebuttals which expose your posts for what they are. That part is a little flawed.

Actually, I include rebuttals I've found here and then I debunk them in turn. The problem is that the discussion continues and I haven't updated it in a bit. What this means is that the latest rebuttals to my rebuttals (and my rebuttals to said rebuttals) haven't yet been put in. I'm not sure if I'll continue with it, it takes a fair amount of work to do.

Remember that what inspired me to do it was when I had finished rebutting Kenny's many rebuttals of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth points demonstrating the WTC building collapses were caused by controlled demolitions and then -you- said that it had all been debunked. Loathing the prospect of having to rebut everything all over again, I decided to create the site so that I could just link to it when people claimed that the A&E material was bunk.

So if I find myself loathing the prospect of rebutting something yet again, I may decide to update the site again.

John99

11-18-08, 08:00 PM

Why dont we have a fiction sub forum? This thread would be perfect there.

psikeyhackr

11-18-08, 10:00 PM

scott3x

11-18-08, 11:42 PM

Sounds good, but it seems that enough is known already to make that bit of knowledge unnecessary. I say this because I have never heard Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin or anyone else in the truth movement aside from you mention the issue of not knowing the precise amount of steel involved.

No one else built a model showing that the behavior of the towers in response to impact would change on the basis of mass and distribution of mass.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

Yes, I saw that :-). But while I have no quarrel with your argument, I simply feel that it may be an unnecessary one. Yes, it would be good to know this, but the people I mentioned above all believe that there is plenty of evidence even without this. If you were to get in touch with one of them, however, you could always ask them whether they felt how much knowing this information could change things and how to go about getting it.

If you had asked me SEVEN YEARS ago if people would be arguing about this for so long I would have told you, "No way!"

People still argue about whether Pearl Harbor was an inside job (I believe it was). The argument may go on for a very long time.

But why haven't those people managed to persuade the majority?

I think it has to do with mindsets. If you find it difficult to believe that your government could do such things, then you would probably steer away from people who claim that it would as a general rule. Ironically, I think that forums like this one may well be the key to persuading people of this nature- because they're not being asked to read a book, only a post.. or it starts that way anyway. One post becomes 2, becomes 10, etc. Atleast this is how it happens with certain individuals, such as shaman, kenny and others. I personally find that their arguments keep me relatively sharp. Sometimes when I go onto alternate theory websites I'll see someone come up with an idea and then someone else say 'yeah, sounds good'. And I mean, sure, it sounds good. But I don't see evidence backing it up and I just start thinking, we can't reach conclusions like that. So that's what I like about this forum anyway. You want to make the case for controlled demolition, ok, but you're going to have to make it -very- well because most if not all misteps will be pointed out by people with the opposing view.

Why is there so much silence from our engineering schools?

Perhaps they took a look at what happened to Steven Jones and decided it would be best to keep quiet on the issue.

I haven't seen anyone else suggest that thought experiment of eliminating levels and computing the effect either.

Richard Gage, from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth did it with some cardboard boxes I believe.

I don't understand what it takes to settle this since I can't comprehend people believing a plane could do that in that time. Someone would have to PROVE it to me and I would laugh at them if they couldn't supply that information.

When I first saw the planes crash and the collapses, I bought into the 'plane did it' theory. It seems to me you know a bit more about buildings then your average citizen, so I can understand that you were skeptical.

I am currently video editing my second demonstration of a collapse which shows that the mass makes a difference.

Cool...

Apparently Kevin Ryan did feel it was important enough to mention certain aspects of the steel and concrete in combination, however. From his article Propping up the War on Terror, he mentions that each floor had "1,000 tons of concrete and steel", although he doesn't specificy in what proportions.

The problem with that is that it doesn't show how the towers had to be heavier and stronger toward the bottom. Therefore how can it be more likely to convince people that the top could not crush everything below. In less than 18 seconds to be sure.

Have you taken a look at this?:
The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11 (http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html)

I can't understand it, but it seems that it makes it clear that the towers had to be brought down by controlled demolition.

but it sounds to me like you are judging on the basis of who says what rather than understanding the physics yourself.

I believe I understand enough to know that it was a controlled demolition. When it comes to things that require a fair amount of complicated math, however, I tend to stop understanding it.

Forget BELIEVING people just understand the grade school physics and figure out the obvious.

I took a grade 12 physics course and passed it if memory serves. I've read a book or 2 from physicists (Steven Hawkins and someone else). But doing these things doesn't mean that physics becomes a breeze. Something that puzzles me; if what you say is indeed so important, why hasn't physicist Steven Jones brought it up?

A skyscraper must support its own weight so it must be stronger and therefore heavier toward the bottom and it had to be documented to be constructed so why can't EXPERTS like the NIST tell everyone things so simple in a 10,000 page report that took 3 years and cost $20,000,000.

They only use the term "center of mass" four times and "center of gravity" six times in 10,000 pages. How did they expect to explain anything? What happened with that "center of mass" of that tilted top of the south tower? We don't know. It ain't there.

Your points sound good and it would indeed be nice to know the answers to your questions. However, I'd like to see what you think of the linked page above...

shaman_

11-19-08, 03:09 AM

I suppose I could say that you want to believe the official story as well. Why don't we just say that you and he both simply believe what you do and not put a desire to it? By the way, Kevin Ryan may have believed that the temperatures got no higher then 250 at the time, but he certainly doesn't think so now. So why the bloody hell do you keep posting his letter from years ago?

Ofcourse, he believes explosives were the ones that brought the temperatures so high, not fire. His opinion is completely irrelevant.

I believe they only did one on the WTC buildings in 2004...

I am indeed repeating what Kevin Ryan said Frank Gayle was suggesting. One need not be 'mindless' to repeat something that's noteworthy, despite your apparent belief that this must be so. However, as I have mentioned, at present, neither Kevin Ryan or I feel that that's as high a temperature as the steel got. So why do we have to keep going through this? Are you thinking about the links you are spamming?

Even in his 2004 letter, he did address the 2000F fire temperature claim. He clearly didn't believe it at the time,Who cares? He is not qualified to be an expert on such matters.

but he not only mentions it, but states that even if it were the case, it could not have melted the steel, as Dr. Hyman Brown mentioned. It may be that the only reason Kevin Ryan mentions Dr. Hyman Brown at all is because his story came out in a newspaper and said that his findings were supported by NIST's preliminary findings. Here's a quote from Kevin Ryan's letter to Frank Gayle (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090188&postcount=24):
*******************************
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
*******************************,Brown was wrong. The official story has never mentioned melting steel. You should know that. Move on.

Kevin Ryan believed that NIST's Frank Gayle was not one who initially felt this way. If you can show me evidence that this was not, in fact, the case, Read his damn report. Ryan has latched onto the results of the paint samples. Only three of these samples reached temperatures over 250C. However it has been made clear that very few of these came from the impact zone. You will not stop clinging to them though. They are irrelevant, there is more valuable evidence than those.

In the documents I have read, Gayle draws no conclusions and makes no implications that the maximum temperature was a very low 250C.

I would be happy to see it. Kevin Ryan addressed the fact that someone -outside- of NIST did see it this way, but still made it clear that even if that had been so, the fires couldn't have melted the steel, which is what Dr. Hyman Brown was claiming at the time.Which no one believes. Next.

Just to make sure that we're arguing about the same thing, here's the relevant excerpt of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."

He is claiming 2 things:
1- NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C. .No he wasn’t.

2- That this is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. If he's claiming this, No it isn’t. The jet fuel alone is three times that temperature.

Agreed; if you don't understand my argument, I must find other ways to try to get you to understand it if I want a discussion on its merits to take place.I’m trying to get through to you why that quote is totally irrelevant to the discussion but instead of actually computing what I write you keep spamming the quote as a response!!

Sorry, but I trust Jim Hoffman's 9/11 research site more then your word on the matter. Even after so much of what they say has been demonstrated to be utter crap.

Link to where you have pointed it out then. :rolleyes:

Just responding to a person makes it necessary to use one's mind. In regards to responding to you, I frequently find that the most difficult aspect, actually, is keeping cool while you go on with your taunts. I’m barely keeping my taunts in check at the moment. You post some mindless rubbish from your conspiracy sites, I take the time to point out to you what the problems with it are, eventually you move on or don’t respond at all, then triumphantly you post the same crap a few days later as the definitive proof. When I say we have been through that you respond with “what? when? Point out to me where..” You being intellectual dishonest, obtuse and constant spamming is more provoking than me occasionally using the word “stupid”.

He said 'almost no role' and I find that your metaphor to be unhelpful to your arguments. It played a critical role. Saying “almost no role” is no less wrong.

Discredited here:
Imagined Heat (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#exaggeration) Argh the paint samples again! We have been through the other points there such as the flashover claim.

This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers. Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6. Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect
our conclusions, listed below:
 Excepting only Test 5, thermocouples in Tree 2 experienced temperatures of over 800 oC for several minutes. In the case of Test 1, the period above 800 oC was over 20 minutes in duration. In tests 2 through 4, instrumentation was damaged by temperatures spiking above 1200 oC – and approaching 1600 oC in Test 2 –making a determination of duration impossible.
 The lone exception, Test 5, was the test of “rubblized” workstations where combustible materials were collapsed, partially buried by ceiling tiles, and not provided additional ventilation. Lower temperatures are expected, but this case still produced gas temperatures of over 600 oC for roughly fifteen minutes.
273
 Thermocouples in Tree 3, located away from the burning workstations and thus less susceptible to damage, reported temperatures above 800 oC for at least ten minutes in all six tests. Readers are reminded that half of these tests involved no jet fuel, just ordinary office materials.
 These results directly contradict Mr. Hoffman’s claim, reprinted above, that temperatures above 800 oC are only produced for “a few seconds.”
R.Mackey

Next week when you post that link again I am going to post this.

I admit I haven't heard evidence for the above before- who's your source, Ryan Mackey? That was from my head. Many debunkers have mentioned it. Instead of trying to attack my source, verify it for yourself.

I claim that Kevin Ryan claimed that Frank Gayle was suggesting that the -steel- never went beyond 500F back in the 2004 interim NIST report, not the fires. Okay but he wasn’t suggesting that either.

Ah, I see; all office fires are the same eh? . Two different fire tests produced results consistent with those seen in the other examples of steel structures collapsing as well as the simulations. Yes a complete coincidence. Are you really trying to imply that different offices might produce temperatures 750C lower? lol

You mean the tests the Underwriter Laboratories did for NIST? No the workstation tests.

You may remember Kevin Ryan, who had the top management job in his division of Underwriters Laboratories, Environmental Health Laboratories, overseeing all company functions before he was fired, allegedly because a single letter sent to NIST's Frank Gayle? He wrote quote a good article concerning many things concerning 911. In regards to tests, his company was actually part of a very important one carried out for NIST's 2004 report:
******************************
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15
******************************

Or do you mean that they did another test, to make up for the fact that this one didn't support their pancaking theory?Were we discussing pancaking?

Were you not aware of this?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

“NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.”

Yes, but it is a -subset- of the possible steel structures, one that is much more robust then a steel warehouse, as 9/11 Research made clear. The towers lasted twice as long as the Mcormick place and those fires were started with thousands of gallons of jet fuel. Just saying ‘oh but it was a tall steel structure’ doesn’t change the fact that it was vulnerable to fire just as the others were.

I'm trying to make the case that it's extremely unlikely that -any- steel framed high rise would completely collapse due to fire, plane initiated or not. The steel part of the Madrid Tower did collapse due to fire! You have decided to avoid reality.

On 9/11, 3 steel framed high rises completely collapsed. The government would like us to believe that fires did the trick every time, but many don't buy it.They are ill informed, gullible or dim-witted. The evidence is overwhelming.

I find the analogies you're making to be misleading. I’m using analogies because it is so hard to get through to you and I feel I need them illustrate my point.

How about you simply consider this excerpt from the article above:
**********************
Any comparison of it to the Twin Towers is limited to the Towers' floor diaphragms. FEMA blamed the heat-induced failure of the Towers' floor diaphragms, but failed to provide a convincing explanation of how floor failures could have led to total building collapse. Moreover, the alleged failure of the Towers floor trusses has lost relevance with NIST's endorsing the column failure theory to the exclusion of the truss failure theory.
**********************

In other words, the argument probably had its high times with the original FEMA report, before NIST discredited it.Read the FAQ.

shaman_

11-19-08, 03:18 AM

You stated that Kevin Ryan was 'wrong'.
You justify this belief by saying that his job description didn't include structural certification or fire engineering. That's not evidence, that's a conjecture.That's not why he was wrong. He was wrong because the steel temperatures did go over 250C! NIST estimated early on the the temperatures were near 1000C!

Personally, however, I like providing evidence. Evidence from ill-qualified sources which has already been debunked many times over.

So I presented you with evidence that demonstrated that he -did- know what he was talking about, providing a long excerpt wherein he details his knowledge of the steel tests that Underwriter Laboratories was performing on behalf of NIST.He is not an authority on the matter. In fact NIST say that UL did not even certify the steel in the first place.

Headspin

11-19-08, 06:05 AM

That's not why he was wrong. He was wrong because the steel temperatures did go over 250C! NIST estimated early on the the temperatures were near 1000C!

Evidence from ill-qualified sources which has already been debunked many times over.
can you state what you mean by "the temperatures were near 1000C!"

Your arguments are unconvincing because you are being too general with the data. You need to distinguish between atmospheric fire temperatures and steel temperatures. You also need to distinguish between column and floor temperatures, the hottest part in a building fire is likely to be at the top of the ceiling, which the cardington tests show. You cannot equate a ceiling/floor temperature to a column temperature, even the cardington fire tests show these to be wildly different with the column temperatures much lower than the floor temperatures (cardington tests showed the column temperatures were in the low hundreds, half or a third that of the floor temperatures). Just saying "1000C" is misleading because it looks like you are trying to convince people that the core columns reached those temperatures which won't help your argument. You are exagerating the temperatures from a test which actually showed the floor systems did not fail!

You are also quoting mackey saying 1600C?? where did that come from? does he mean Fahrenheit, or is this anomalous data, flashover termperature? again simply throwing out a number without context is pseudoscience.

He is not an authority on the matterI think you are confusing fascism with science.
In fact NIST say that UL did not even certify the steel in the first place.<groan> UL certified the steel floor assemblies!
surely you see the misleading nature of the statement "UL did not certify the steel" ?
The steel is a component of the steel floor assemblies!!
To quote Ryan himself "This is a bit like saying we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."

edit - oops, its "Cardington" not "Cardigan"

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/default1.htm

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-5Draft.pdf

shaman_

11-19-08, 07:59 AM

can you state what you mean by "the temperatures were near 1000C!"

Your arguments are unconvincing because you are being too general with the data. I am generalizing a little here but there are two things to consider. 1. I am refuting Scott’s confusing claims that NIST did not think the fire (or the steel) went over 250C.

2. I have spend a bit of time in the other thread referencing the Cardington fire tests (I believe Kenny linked to some others) where the temperature of unprotected steel was only marginally below that of the atmospheric temperature.

You need to distinguish between atmospheric fire temperatures and steel temperatures. You also need to distinguish between column and floor temperatures, the hottest part in a building fire is likely to be at the top of the ceiling, which the cardington tests show. I don’t know if the data exists to be that accurate when discussing WTC. Keep in mind though that the fires were across many floors.

You cannot equate a ceiling/floor temperature to a column temperature, even the cardington fire tests show these to be wildly different with the column temperatures much lower than the floor temperatures (col temps in the low hundreds). Just saying "1000C" is misleading because it looks like you are trying to convince people that the core columns reached those temperatures which won't help your argument. You are exagerating the temperatures from a test which actually showed the floor systems did not fail! The columns in the Cardington structure were insulated and did not have the long-span construction of WTC.

You are also quoting mackey saying 1600C?? where did that come from? does he mean Fahrenheit, or is this anomalous data, flashover termperature? again simply throwing out a number without context is pseudoscience. I didn’t notice that. I assume it is a mistake. A mistake that 911research also made when they reported temperatures of 7500C!
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

<groan> UL certified the steel floor assemblies!
surely you see the misleading nature of the statement "UL did not certify the steel" ?
The steel is a component of the steel floor assemblies!!
To quote Ryan himself "This is a bit like saying we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car." I don’t know much about this one and am only reading up on it as I type this. I think the comment that the steel was certified by UL would still be incorrect though. Scott did say that on page 3.

Mackey makes a few points about this. One of them is worth noting.

The fire rating only applies to the complete structural system, which includes, in particular, undamaged fireproofing material. Therefore, after an aircraft impact which damaged the fireproofing, the rating is no longer valid.

I see your point though.

I think you are confusing fascism with science.Oh come on he was a chemist who worked in environmental testing. Scott keeps referring to his opinions on the temperatures of the fire. It is a confused appeal to authority.

Headspin

11-19-08, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Headspin
You cannot equate a ceiling/floor temperature to a column temperature, even the cardington fire tests show these to be wildly different with the column temperatures much lower than the floor temperatures (col temps in the low hundreds). Just saying "1000C" is misleading because it looks like you are trying to convince people that the core columns reached those temperatures which won't help your argument. You are exagerating the temperatures from a test which actually showed the floor systems did not fail!
2. I have spend a bit of time in the other thread referencing the Cardington fire tests (I believe Kenny linked to some others) where the temperature of unprotected steel was only marginally below that of the atmospheric temperature.

I don’t know if the data exists to be that accurate when discussing WTC. Keep in mind though that the fires were across many floors.
What temperature did the columns reach in the cardington tests?
if you don't know the data off the top of your head, you can find it by clicking here and follow the column links: 4D,4E,4F,3E
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm

The columns in the Cardington structure were insulated and did not have the long-span construction of WTC.In the Cardington test 4 there is no fireproofing or insulation on either beams or columns. if i am incorrect on this then please show your proof. I don't know the significance of the "long span" construction of the wtc, i would suggest that would weaken your argument, rather than strengthen it.

I don’t know much about this one and am only reading up on it as I type this. I think the comment that the steel was certified by UL would still be incorrect though.you can listen directly to Kevin Ryan on the subject, it is covered in the first few minutes:
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0805/20080526_Mon_Brouillet1.mp3

Mackey makes a few points about this. One of them is worth noting.
The fire rating only applies to the complete structural system, which includes, in particular, undamaged fireproofing material. Therefore, after an aircraft impact which damaged the fireproofing, the rating is no longer valid.NIST experiments firing a shotgun at fireproofed steel actually did not damage the fireproofing. So Mackey repeats NISTs assumption. There is no argument that it was not damaged - of course it would have been damaged to an extent, but the relevent question is was it damaged enough to significantly to affect the fire rating of the structure. Moot point anyway if we are looking at test data with zero fireproofing which assumes conditions as favourable to your argument as possible.

Oh come on he was a chemist who worked in environmental testing. Scott keeps referring to his opinions on the temperatures of the fire. It is a confused appeal to authority.The argument is whether UL certified the steel assemblies and the fire rating of the assemblies, which NIST say they did not (obviously they did not want the test data revelaved which would have contradicted their own report), and Kevin Ryan said they did certify the steel and the fireproofing. The argument is is not about Kevin Ryan's credentials, but if you bring it up make sure you get it right - he worked as a lab manager for many years, which is a pretty senior and experienced position, and had scientific training in chemistry.
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0805/...Brouillet1.mp3

psikeyhackr

11-19-08, 05:20 PM

scott3x

11-19-08, 08:14 PM

People still argue about whether Pearl Harbor was an inside job (I believe it was). The argument may go on for a very long time.

Not a valid comparison. :shrug:

There was nothing about Pearl Harbor that had to violate any laws of physics in order for the official story to be true. That was only a case of possibly secretive human behavior and probably something that can never be proven with 100% certainty. There just happens to be A LOT of suspicious circumstantial evidence.

It seems to me there's enough evidence to indict FDR personally. However, I agree that no laws of physics needed to be broken in the official Pearl Harbor story.

Some minimum of steel had to be on every level of the WTC for it to stand and withstand the wind for 28 years. The Empire State Building is proof that this is an area of knowledge where there has to be sufficient expertise. How many people were thinking about landing on the moon when the ESB was completed, 38 years before the actual landing? Now we can't solve something this simple 39 years after the landing. :eek:

They are both Newtonian physics problems. This is PATHETIC!. :mad:

psik

Life can at times have down times. I believe the reason more people haven't investigated issues concerning 9/11 is that they're too concerned with their own lives. And the people who were paid to investigate 9/11 did it under restrictive circumstances or, in some cases, may well have been in on the deception themselves. You could say they were selling the official story. Gene Corley seems to have worked overtime in that role. Kevin Ryan has written a fair amount on this in his article Propping Up the War on Terror (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html):
**********************************
Selling the Official Story: Some Key Players

Shankar Nair, whose statement quoted above is quite telling, was one of those "experts" on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science. That is, they started with their conclusions and worked backward to some "leading hypotheses."
Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. What may be a surprise is just how lucrative these relationships can be. For example, Nair's company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.6

Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8

There was really no need for phony media coverage. As with The 9/11 Commission Report and the lead-up to the Iraq War, the major media simply parroted any explanations, or non-explanations, given in support of the official story. One example is from a television program called "The Anatomy of September 11th," which aired on the History Channel. Corley took the lead on this one as well, but James Glanz, a New York Times reporter, was also interviewed and helped to spread what is probably the worst excuse for collapse given. He told us that the fires heated the steel columns so much (the video suggested 2500 F) that they were turned into "licorice." Other self-proclaimed experts have been heard promoting similar theories.9 They will probably come to regret it.

This is because the results of physical tests performed by NIST's own Frank Gayle proved this theory to be a ridiculous exaggeration, as some people already knew. The temperatures seen by the few steel samples saved, only about 500 F, were far too low to soften, let alone melt, even un-fireproofed steel. Of course that result could have been calculated, knowing that 4,000 gallons of jet fuel10 ---not 24,000 gallons or 10,000 gallons, as some reports have claimed---were sprayed into an open-air environment over several floors, each comprised of more than 1,000 metric tons of concrete and steel.

Another expert who served on NIST's advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton's partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11 Early on Thornton said: "Karl, we all know what caused the collapse." He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Koch attempted to clarify as follows. "I could see it in my mind's eye: The fire burned until the steel was weakened and the floors above collapsed, starting a chain reaction of gravity, floor falling upon floor upon floor, clunk – clunk – clunk, the load gaining weight and momentum by the nanosecond, unstoppable. Once enough floors collapsed, the exterior walls and the core columns were no longer laterally supported and folded in."12 This is a description of what was called the Pancake Theory, the most widely accepted version of what happened.

The Pancake Theory was promoted by an influential 2002 NOVA video called "Why the Towers Fell," in which Corley (yet again) and Thornton were the primary commentators. Both of them talked about the floors collapsing, and Thornton described how the perimeter columns buckled outward, not inward as Koch had described. The video made a number of false claims, including exaggeration of the temperatures (2000 F), remarks about melting steel, and the incredible statement that two-thirds of the columns in WTC1 (the North Tower) were completely severed. NIST's report now indicates that only about 14% of the columns in WTC1 were severed, and in some photos we can count most of these for ourselves.13
**********************************

psikeyhackr

11-19-08, 10:36 PM

Many of the scientists involved in the investigation were asked to examine ancillary issues, like escape routes and other emergency response factors. But those few who attempted to explain what really needed explaining, the unique events of fire-induced collapse, appear to have engaged in what can only be called anti-science.

ROFLMAO

I never had any intention of reading the entire 10,000 page NCSTAR1 report. I just downloaded it so I could more quickly search it for what I thought had to be important in analyzing the event. A couple of things I searched for were "center of mass" and "center of gravity". At the time I was particularly interested in the "center of mass" of the south tower because of that tilt of around 20 degrees. That should have fallen down the side. Why didn't it?

But anyway, I only found four instances of the use of "center of mass" and they were all in a report about the effect of shock on suspended ceilings. So I was wondering why the hell would they study that. But it turns out that that report has is the only mention of the need to know the distribution of mass in order to analyze the effect of the impact. So it seemed very strange to me that a report on an idiotic subject would also have such competent information in it. The "center of mass" is in reference to the airliner. It is the only REAL object in the entire report that center of mass refers to. The 6 places where they use "center of gravity" refer to computer simulation components. So it did look to me like the competent, conscientious people got shuffled off to doing trivial bullshit. But they still stuck some gems of relevant information in there.

Most of that report is time wasting but complicated trivia. A big expensive snow job.

psik

shaman_

11-19-08, 10:36 PM

What temperature did the columns reach in the cardington tests?
if you don't know the data off the top of your head, you can find it by clicking here and follow the column links: 4D,4E,4F,3E
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/DataBase/TestData/BRETest/page47.htm

In the Cardington test 4 there is no fireproofing or insulation on either beams or columns. if i am incorrect on this then please show your proof. If we are talking about the same tests you are incorrect.

In one of the tests, a small part of the columns were unprotected. However the steel softened and buckled so in all the remaining tests the columns were completley protected.

“800mm of the columns including the connections were also unprotected. The supporting columns were squashed by 180mm (pictured in Figure 4.4) at unprotected column temperatures of 670°C.197 As a direct result of this squashing all further tests had protected columns to the underside of the slab.”
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

The document Behaviour of Steel Framed Structures Under Fire Conditions also confirms this. The pdf I have is all an image though, it doesn't recognize the text.

This is relevant to the temperatures mentioned in your first paragraph as well.

I don't know the significance of the "long span" construction of the wtc, i would suggest that would weaken your argument, rather than strengthen it. The theory is that the long span trusses are more susceptible for fire.

you can listen directly to Kevin Ryan on the subject, it is covered in the first few minutes:
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0805/20080526_Mon_Brouillet1.mp3

NIST experiments firing a shotgun at fireproofed steel actually did not damage the fireproofing. I read that there was some damage. The argument was regarding the extent.

So Mackey repeats NISTs assumption. There is no argument that it was not damaged - of course it would have been damaged to an extent, but the relevent question is was it damaged enough to significantly to affect the fire rating of the structure. There was much steel recovered which was stripped of it’s fireproofing but there is always the problem of determining if it happened before or after collapse. I believe the photographs of the impact areas gave indication of stripped fireproofing.

Moot point anyway if we are looking at test data with zero fireproofing which assumes conditions as favourable to your argument as possible.

The argument is whether UL certified the steel assemblies and the fire rating of the assemblies, which NIST say they did not (obviously they did not want the test data revelaved which would have contradicted their own report), and Kevin Ryan said they did certify the steel and the fireproofing. The argument is is not about Kevin Ryan's credentials, Scott has repeatedly mentioned Ryan’s opinion on the temperatures of the fires (or was it steel). I am just trying to make it clear that Ryan’s opinion is not evidence.

but if you bring it up make sure you get it right - he worked as a lab manager
for many yearsYes I know, I have mentioned that before.

, which is a pretty senior and experienced position, and had scientific training in chemistry.
http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet/0805/...Brouillet1.mp3.. and that makes him an expert on fires in high rise office buildings?

He did not even work in the area which tested the assemblies. He was in environmental testing, on water I believe.

scott3x

11-20-08, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Headspin
...which is a pretty senior and experienced position, and had scientific training in chemistry.

..and that makes him an expert on fires in high rise office buildings?

He did not even work in the area which tested the assemblies. He was in environmental testing, on water I believe.

You focus on his job description and degrees, not on the man himself. At times, what is needed when it comes to taking on officialdom is not established credentials but the willingness to investigate things on one's own time and the -courage- to bring up politically dangerous issues. It's clear from articles like Propping Up the War on Terror (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html) that Kevin Ryan had both of these qualities and for that he was fired.

scott3x

11-20-08, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
...WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane at all. It did fall in the classic demolition manner, however, from the bottom up.

WTC was hit by debris from one of the tallest buildings in the world.

Debris doesn't make a building collapse demolition style, no matter where it came from.

The fires burned for seven hours. As demonstrated, fire is capable of collapsing steel structures.

Some steel structures, sure, but not steel framed high rises, sorry.

That’s what a building looks like when the bottom floors fail.

Due to explosives, yes.

The collapse started near the bottom but not quite at the bottom.

If so, they put the explosives a bit higher then the bottom. It doesn't change much.

If you watch controlled demolitions you will hear the charges going off before the collapse starts.

As Headspin said in another forum (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=130790&t=467248):
***********************************
people seem to forget there were many reports of witnesses reporting explosions and bombs before and during the towers "collapse" - firefighters, journalists, police, first responders, workers in the buildings, people on the scene etc. Also reports of bombs in the building and at the world trade centre prior to collapse
***********************************

Here's a good video with such supporting evidence, check it out at about 1:40:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4556787288866368337&ei=VrclSfe0FKGI-gGe6KnwBg&q=WTC+7+demolition

It also didn’t collapse perfectly as it damaged nearby buildings when it fell. So no it wasn't the same as a controlled demolition.

Leave perfection to the gods. Even a demolition expert has said that it had "absolutely" been imploded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

Ofcourse, said demolition expert doesn't live in the U.S. and thus didn't have to deal with the type of political fallout that would have occured had this been the case.

But you are ignoring that a controlled demolition takes a lot of time and planning to pull off...

Not addressing something doesn't mean I have ignored it; you simply hadn't brought it up before. I will look into this.

the fires burnt for many hours not affecting the supposed explosives

Again, I will look into this one.

and what is pretty much the final nail - that the firefighters all cleared out because they thought it was going to collapse due to the damage it had received. There is no mystery here.

Yes, the final nail in the official story. How did they know it was going to collapse? Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage makes it clear just how damning for the official story that is in this video (http://www.blinkx.com/video/foreknowledge-of-wtc7-collapse-police-and-giuliani-knew/iNqTYoPUXS8T8TFJJJuhWw).

fedr808

11-20-08, 02:45 PM

scott3x

11-20-08, 06:23 PM

Well you haven't answered one of the questions which disproves the entire story of demolitions in the towers. There was no bulls eye on the tower.

You see, the explosives were, in your arguement, placed in the direct area where the airplane hit. Nowhere else, because than if the explosives were, lets say 10 stories lower, it would be incredibly obvious that the planes didn't take out the tower, the explosives did. The only way for the explosives to have been as subtle as possible is for the plane to hit the exact spot.

A normal passenger plane is moving at around 400 mph, around the area of 600 feet per second, that's pretty fast wouldn't you say so? If the pilot and co pilot had above average sight abilities they would be able to accurately count the number of floors at a range of around 100-300 feet away from the tower. Now if the plane is moving at around 600 feet per second than that means that the pilot or co pilot have around 1/2 to 1/6 of a second to not only count the number of stories on the building, but to also redirect and change the altitude to hit them.

On top of that these guys probably poured on full throttle for maximum impact meaning the plane could realistically be going around the area of 550 miles per hour or more, which translates to 775+ feet per second. Meaning that realistically speaking the pilots had even less time to perform this feat.

So in effect it would be impossible for the pilots to not only count that many levels of the building but to change the altitude of the plane.

9/11 Research answers this on its Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition page (http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#positioning):
**************************************
•How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?

There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel. Second, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft. Assuming that the jetliners were being flown by autopilot at the times of their impacts, the GPS navigation systems could have kept the targeting error margin to within a few feet. Third, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. Consider that the black boxes that store aircrafts' voice and data recorders protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes.
**************************************

scott3x

11-20-08, 07:13 PM

But you are ignoring that a controlled demolition takes a lot of time and planning to pull off

I went looking for an answer to this. I didn't find any of the big names (Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Research) saying anything on this, but I -did- find this:
**************************
9/11 was a master plot, concocted by a handfull of Israelis and dual passport Americans and carried out by the resources of the Mossad. Larry Silverstein buys a nearly worthless WTC building complex (worthless due to the asbestos the buildings were stuffed with and needed to be cleaned up, the cost of which may have rivaled the value of the buildings themselves) weeks before 9/11, makes sure it is over-ensured against terrorist acts, tellingly with a german ensurer, next hires an israeli security firm and in the weekend before 9/11 cuts off power in all the WTC buildings with 'maintenance' as an excuse, so the buildings are virtually empty. At that moment the coast is clear to let a team of demolition experts from the israeli army led by Peer Segalovitz into the WTC buildings. These charges plus detonators had been prepared at the premises of the Urban Moving Systems company, a Mossad front. During this weekend these prepared charges were loaded into vans, driven into the basement of WTC next to the elevator shaft, unloaded into the elevator, and lifted onto the roof of the elevator through the openening in the elevator ceiling. Next the elevator moved from floor to floor while charges where being attached to the columns as displayed in this video from 0:22 onwards[I saw no video at this part of the text].The detonators of these charges were radio controlled and finally detonated from WTC7 on the day of 9/11.
**************************
http://able2know.org/topic/125237-1

the fires burnt for many hours not affecting the supposed explosives

Plucked from a similar question regarding the twin towers (http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#positioning), I got this from 9/11 research:
*************************
explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation.
*************************

fedr808

11-20-08, 07:20 PM

9/11 Research answers this on its Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition page (http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/demolition.html#positioning):
**************************************
•How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?

There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel. Second, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft. Assuming that the jetliners were being flown by autopilot at the times of their impacts, the GPS navigation systems could have kept the targeting error margin to within a few feet. Third, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. Consider that the black boxes that store aircrafts' voice and data recorders protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes.
**************************************

Im not asking why the charges didn't get destroyed. I am implying that the pilots could never have hit the exact targets of those charges. And autopilot doesnt work because the auto pilot is programmed to fly to the normal destination not the towers. Plz read it next time.

scott3x

11-20-08, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Originally Posted by fedr808So in effect it would be impossible for the pilots to not only count that many levels of the building but to change the altitude of the plane.

9/11 Research answers this on its Frequently Asked Questions: Controlled Demolition page:
**************************************
•How could charges have been pre-positioned in the Towers in such a way that the plane crashes and fires wouldn't have set them off?

There are several possible answers to this. First, some charges may indeed have been set off by the crashes but masked by the huge fireballs created by the combustion of aerosolized jet fuel. Second, the charges could have been arranged so as to avoid the regions that the attack planners expected to take direct hits from the aircraft. Assuming that the jetliners were being flown by autopilot at the times of their impacts, the GPS navigation systems could have kept the targeting error margin to within a few feet. Third, explosives can be engineered so that heat alone will not detonate them. The plastic explosive C4, for example, requires the simultaneous delivery of high heat and pressure to induce detonation. Fourth, it is relatively easy to design casings for explosives that would allow them to survive even the most violent assaults. Consider that the black boxes that store aircrafts' voice and data recorders protect their contents from impact accelerations of 3,400 Gs and from temperatures of 2,000 F for up to 30 minutes.
**************************************

Im not asking why the charges didn't get destroyed. I am implying that the pilots could never have hit the exact targets of those charges.

First of all, why would it even be -necessary- to hit any exact location if the charges were radio controlled?

And autopilot doesnt work because the auto pilot is programmed to fly to the normal destination not the towers.

Clearly you don't know about the newer GPS navigation systems available at the time. The following is from an article titled Plausibility Of 9/11 Aircraft Attacks Generated By GPS-Guided Aircraft Autopilot Systems (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/AutopilotSystemsMonaghan.pdf) from the Journal of 9/11 studies:
*************************
U.S. federal government and civil aviation industry publications describe the development and implementation pre-September 11, 2001, of state-of-the-art systems capable of facilitating precise automated navigation of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft used that day to a given destination. The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost. The information signal can be obtained through the use of GPS signal receiving equipment.[1]
*************************

Another theory is posited here (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm).

Plz read it next time.

I read it before I responded, regardless of what your sentiments on the matter may be.

shaman_

11-20-08, 08:59 PM

You focus on his job description and degrees, not on the man himself. At times, what is needed when it comes to taking on officialdom is not established credentials but the willingness to investigate things on one's own time and the -courage- to bring up politically dangerous issues. It's clear from articles like Propping Up the War on Terror (http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html) that Kevin Ryan had both of these qualities and for that he was fired.No he was fired for writing erroneous articles which compromised the reputation of his current employer.

He chose to ignore any evidence of high temperatures and focused on the paint samples.

From the above article - “I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation.”

That paragraph again confirms that he is willfully ignorant. That last sentence seems to invalidate the previous claim but anyway….

I’m focusing on his qualifications because his opinion of what the temperatures should have been is irrelevant.

Debris doesn't make a building collapse demolition style, no matter where it came from. The debris alone did not cause the collapse.

Some steel structures, sure, but not steel framed high rises, sorry. Do you visit reality often? The steel on the Madrid tower collapsed due to the fire. It was a high rise that was only left standing due to its concrete core. If steel structures can collapse due to fire there is no fundamental difference when a tall steel structure collapses due to fire.

Due to explosives, yes. Yet there is no evidence for explosives.

If so, they put the explosives a bit higher then the bottom. It doesn't change much. They don’t do that in demolitions do they?

As Headspin said in another forum (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=130790&t=467248):
***********************************
people seem to forget there were many reports of witnesses reporting explosions and bombs before and during the towers "collapse" - firefighters, journalists, police, first responders, workers in the buildings, people on the scene etc. Also reports of bombs in the building and at the world trade centre prior to collapse
***********************************

Here's a good video with such supporting evidence, check it out at about 1:40:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-4556787288866368337&ei=VrclSfe0FKGI-gGe6KnwBg&q=WTC+7+demolition
Can’t watch videos from work.

I’m guessing you are going to present me with more cherry picked witness testimony. We’ve been though this many times. We have even looked at individual cases. People saying they heard an explosion that sounded like a bomb isn’t surprising at all considering what happened that morning and taking into account that there was a bomb attempt only a few years earlier. There are many explanations for these noises that have nothing to do with bombs.

Leave perfection to the gods. So it didn’t collapse into its own footprint.

Even a demolition expert has that it had "absolutely" been imploded:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3DRhwRN06I

Ofcourse, said demolition expert doesn't live in the U.S. and thus didn't have to deal with the type of political fallout that would have occured had this been the case. So he is relying on youtube videos to give us his “expert” evaluation.

One demolition youtube expert, thats it? I can’t watch the video at the moment to see him but one is pretty weak.

Not addressing something doesn't mean I have ignored it; you simply hadn't brought it up before. I will look into this. Even your hero Ryan said it takes a lot of preparation.

Again, I will look into this one.

Yes, the final nail in the official story. How did they know it was going to collapse? Watch the videos I presented regarding WTC7 foreknowledge. One showed a firefighter saying that the leaning building was unstable. The building looked so damaged that firefighters think it will collapse so they back off, and then it does. How can you actually think that is suspicious?! Are you on medication?

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth founder Richard Gage makes it clear just how damning for the official story that is in this video (http://www.blinkx.com/video/foreknowledge-of-wtc7-collapse-police-and-giuliani-knew/iNqTYoPUXS8T8TFJJJuhWw).Does this video involve cardboard boxes? :D

scott3x

11-20-08, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Originally Posted by shaman_
Originally Posted by scott3x
But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own...

It appears that those who are the most familiar with the performance of steel frame buildings disagree.

You must mean the people the government paid to 'investigate' the case. The same people that Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief said were engaged in a 'half-baked farce':
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225 ...

No I’m referring to the list of engineers who wrote articles in peer reviewed papers supporting the collapse. They are more qualified to talk of such matters than a theologian and crackpot physics professor whose field was cold fusion.

I notice that you've gotten rather fond of personally attacking Steven Jones (for others reading this, this is the physics professor he's alluding to) simply because he's a mormon. Steven Jones has made it clear that peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper with various theories on how fires could have caused the collapse of the WTC bulidings have been thrown into the dustbins of history in his article Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones) Something some may fail to realize is that a peer reviewed paper is only as good as the peers involved.

Steven Jones, in contrast, has had articles published in Nature and Scientific American regarding his work on muon catalyzed fusion -before- 9/11, which are arguably the most coveted scientific journals around.

True, he hasn't yet published any of his 9/11 work in either journal. However, considering the controversy surrounding 9/11, it's understandable that he hasn't yet been able to do so. He -has- however, been published in other peer reviewed journals, such as the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/), The Open Civil Engineering Journal (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM) and The Environmentalist (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/).

scott3x

11-20-08, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Let's see the petition that 526 or so Architects and Engineers have signed:
************************************
Please Take Notice That:

On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned
************************************
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
************************************

So where is their research? If they are genuinely in that field they know the process. Why aren’t they writing papers for engineering magazines? Perhaps they are fake names, not really behind it, retired, dead, not very good, who knows either way the list on it’s own is meaningless.

The list of architects and engineers, complete with their numbers and addresses is far from meaningless. They can be verified easily enough. All you need is a phone. If they weren't behind it, I sincerely don't believe that they'd risk revealing so much about themselves. As to why they aren't writing papers for engineering magazines, are you sure none of them are? Simply because you or I haven't heard of it doesn't mean they haven't done it. I think it's understandable if few have done so, however. For one, why reinvent the wheel? The founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, Richard Gage, was initially struck by the evidence that noted 9/11 author David Ray Griffin had gathered. Kevin Ryan had also begun to talk to David Ray Griffin and in fact allowed him to publish a copy of the letter that he'd sent to Frank Gayle's NIST before he was fired for writing said letter. Kevin Ryan has worked with Steven Jones on atleast one paper. Architects and Engineers also relies on Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page. In other words, all of these people are essentially working -together-. If one of them has already said it well, there's no reason that another has to do the same. In these circumstances, a petition works much better, as it's simply making it clear that people agree, without the need for everyone take time out of their every day lives to write individual papers.

As pointed out to you some of those engineering professionals are very dodgy. They have padded out that list of ‘engineering professionals’ with irrelevant people like software developers, chemists, electrical engineers and an ‘urban activist’ ?

You must be looking at a list that includes people who aren't architects and engineers. The more then 500 architects and enginers can be seen here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_

shaman_

11-20-08, 11:44 PM

I notice that you've gotten rather fond of personally attacking Steven Jones (for others reading this, this is the physics professor he's alluding to) simply because he's a mormon. No I’m attacking him because he’s a moron.

Moron, not mormon. ..Oh come on I had to.

The guy took his own interpretations of artwork to conclude that jesus visited the Americas.. You really need to get some better heroes.

Steven Jones has made it clear that peer reviewed paper after peer reviewed paper with various theories on how fires could have caused the collapse of the WTC bulidings have been thrown into the dustbins of history in his article Right so every peer reviewed article, written by people who know far more about it than he does, is wrong but his are all right. Yes sure I’ll take that crackpot’s word on it.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones) That laughable document has been taken apart by debunkers for years. It is rife with errors. Anyone actually wanting to know the truth only needs to spend a few minutes at the debunking sites to get a more balanced picure, and they will see this. Those who just want to maintain the fantasy will never leave the conspiracy sites and keep referring to Jones’ flawed work.

Something some may fail to realize is that a peer reviewed paper is only as good as the peers involved. When we are talking about twenty something journals I think we can comfortably say that a number of people have evaluated the work. Oh that's right all the structural engineers are in on the conspiracy as well. Just like the government, firefighters, major media networks, police, everyone near the pentagon ect ect.

Steven Jones, in contrast, has had articles published in Nature and Scientific American regarding his work on muon catalyzed fusion -before- 9/11, which are arguably the most coveted scientific journals around. So that means he can’t possibly be wrong about Jesus visiting the Americas for a holiday. That's what you’re saying isn’t it?

True, he hasn't yet published any of his 9/11 work in either journal. However, considering .. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago….

the controversy surrounding 9/11, it's understandable that he hasn't yet been able to do so. He -has- however, been published in other peer reviewed journals, such as the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/), The Open Civil Engineering Journal (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM) and The Environmentalist (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/).After all these years this is all he can get, which gives you an indication to the quality of the work he is submitting. An environmental journal and a little known engineering journal for which, apparently, there was no actual review. It shows that with a few $$ you can still get stuff published in one or two publications.

"Something some may fail to realize is that a peer reviewed paper is only as good as the peers involved. "

But we have been through all of this before. Your comment ‘for others reading this’ makes me think something. I think I understand you a little better now. You constantly spam the same stuff over and over again as if we didn’t discuss it on the previous page and others hadn't discredited it several timea already. I could be discussing why one of your sources is incorrect and as a rebuttal you will post that source. I have been convinced that you are either very stupid, dishonest or you have a genuine mental/memory problem.

But now I think you are just trying very hard to impress the lurkers. Imagine having an argument with someone who thought they were being filmed. Instead of listening, they were looking at an imaginary camera and constantly repeating old arguments while trying to impress an imaginary audience. It would be annoying. That’s essentially what you are doing. You aren’t interested at getting to the bottom of anything you just want to spam your conspiracy links in an attempt to proselytize.

That doesn’t rule out the other possibilities I mentioned though.

scott3x

11-21-08, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I have never ignored the conclusions they have reached. Astaneh-Asl's conclusions were tentative, however:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060905082531/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~astaneh/1-Publications/Astaneh-9ASEC-WTC+Paper+2003.pdf

Ha because he uses the sub heading “Tentative Conclusions” you are trying to imply that he didn’t really believe it or something. It is a desperate ploy.

I'm making it clear that wasn't sure that his conclusions were right. Reading his tentative conclusion one can see that not once does even state it is his belief. He only says it is his opinion. Take a look for yourself:
************************************
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
************************************

This is the man who said this "I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff,"

"Those are lightweight buildings," "There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i03/03a02901.htm

No he doesn’t seem sure at all there. You will of course ignore this and keep mining through his quotes.[/b]

Perhaps he has solidified his belief since his tentative conclusions. In any case, there are reams of evidence that make it clear that the fire collapse theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. Apparently, however, I still have to present more before you'll believe me :-p.

Originally Posted by scott3x
What's more:
***************************
Astaneh resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete. Without FEMA's backing, the National Science Foundation team was shut out.
***************************
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/6_APbuilding.html

He resigned because he did not want to sign a disclosure contract. The disclosure contract was to protect the owners of the buildings from having the findings used against them in a lawsuit

Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.

scott3x

11-21-08, 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
In the following video, Jonathan Barnett also made it clear that his team was very surprised that WTC 7 collapsed, and also made it clear that the investigation of tower 7 was not business as usual:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgCoV7phKa8

We were probably all a little surprised that WTC7 collapsed. Then again, every building in the WTC complex collapsed or partially collapsed.

Which should be even more surprising...

However something unexpected doesn’t equal conspiracy.

True. However, It does warrant a more thorough investigation. Instead, it got a less thorough investigation as Jonathan Barnett made clear in the above mentioned video.

scott3x

11-21-08, 06:30 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Originally Posted by shaman_It didn’t disintegrate in mid-air.

I disagree and so does the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth site, as well as the 9/11 Research site. The 9/11 Research site goes into more depth on the issue in their "Concrete Pulverization" page:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html

Yes gravity can be a bitch.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but gravity simply couldn't have accounted for the amount of pulverized concrete. 9/11 Research, on its Concrete Pulverization (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html) page quotes 9/11 online researcher plaguepuppy who explains why:
****************************************
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation[:]

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

****************************************

scott3x

11-21-08, 06:43 AM

Explosives would not explain disintegration anyway.

Again, I disagree as do many in the 9/11 truth movement.

Yes but they are fools who ignore all the conclusive evidence that ruins the conspiracy. You just blindly believe everything they say.

If that were true, the endless discussions we've had would have never taken place. I would have simply referred you to my gurus if you wished to find enlightenment and left it at that. As it is, I counter your 'conclusive' evidence on a regular basis. Anyway, it seems clear to me that explosives would account best for the tower's disintegration, since gravity didn't have a prayer of accomplishing it as I made clear in my last post.

scott3x

11-21-08, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I agree that it's a bit different. David Ray Griffin has this to say about the issue of scale:
*************************************
If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.
*************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

Oh lordy your heroes are dim witted. The strength of a structure does not scale proportionately to its size. Its more than a ‘a bit different’. You cannot demonstrate how a building of 200 000 tons of concrete and steel behaves with an erector set.

My knowledge on this issue is lacking. However, the rest of the evidence I have presented makes it clear that the buildings could only have come down due to controlled demolitions.

Headspin

11-21-08, 07:28 AM

.. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago….I have heard this claim repeated many times as if it were being used in some pavlovian conditioning experiment, but I never actually saw any actual "debunking" of Professor Steven Jones work.

Would you show the proof that formed your belief that his work was bunk?

I am referring in particular to the discovery of the unreacted nanothermite explosive, and also the huge quantity of tiny molten alumino-iron spheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermite all found in the wtc dust.
In particular the above, but also the other work such as the discovery of silicate particles resembling microscopic swiss cheese, which is surely indicative of high temperature evaporation which would have needed temperatures much higher than any building or jet fuel fire would have been able to achieve, and the sulphidation of a steel I-beam, which can be produced experimentally with ease by exposing steel to a reacting mixture of thermite and sulphur.

scott3x

11-21-08, 07:32 AM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Not to fond of his boxes eh? Personally, I'd like to take another look at them, but I -did- manage to find this excellent 30 minute interview that Alex Jones gave to Richard Gage:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...chard+gage+wtc

Must you continue with terms like 'moronic'? I understand that Headspin has used such terms, but seriously, I think all it does is sour the mood of the discussion and distract from the arguments and the evidence. When you present arguments, I try to stay away from such terms and instead try to focus on why your arguments are flawed if I believe that they are.

For the most part Scott I try to be polite in all discussions in sciforums. There are times though when I am going to have to call it as I see it. The evidence regularly presented by the truthers is pitiful.

I'd say that the evidence regularly presented by the official story is pitiful, but you don't see -me- saying that it's moronic. Or even pitiful, because I don't want to hurt your feelings ;).

While we are making requests I would politely ask that you actually digest some of the debunking presented to you. Don't just forget the parts you don't like.

shaman, the idea that I am trying to 'forget' parts I don't like is, in my view, insulting. Not only am I doing my best to remember everything, I've actually even started a -web site- with arguments from you and others and my refutations. I've also now created a schematic of this entire thread, with the response trees labelled out, so I'm now aware as to which posts I never responded to (which is why I find myself responding to this post of yours, number 25, when we're already past 100).

fedr808

11-21-08, 09:14 AM

No Scotch once more you do not understand what i am saying. I am saying that the plane would have to hit the exact position of where the explosives were set so that it looked realistic. radio control has nothing to do with it.

And actually after seeing this picture i am now neutral on the fact. I believe now that there is a passibility that explosives other than jet fuel were on the plane.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg

If you see in the last one their is an explosion shooting out of the entrance from where the plane crashed. A plane moving at 600 mph and explosives IN the building would not cause that, so there must have been explosives in the middle section that shot out backwards as well as in other directions.

psikeyhackr

11-21-08, 11:43 AM

Here is why I keep talking about the steel and concrete:

If it can't be expressed in figures, it's not science. It's opinion.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/roboman/proverbs.html

psik

scott3x

11-21-08, 07:03 PM

Here is why I keep talking about the steel and concrete:

If it can't be expressed in figures, it's not science. It's opinion.

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/roboman/proverbs.html

psik

There's a lot of evidence even without knowing the amount of concrete though. It'd be nice to know and if I knew of a way to find out via the internet, I think I'd give it a try, but in the meantime I've focused on all the -other- evidence, most of which points to controlled demolition.

scott3x

11-21-08, 07:42 PM

No Scotch once more you do not understand what i am saying.

That so federline :-p?

I am saying that the plane would have to hit the exact position of where the explosives were set so that it looked realistic. radio control has nothing to do with it.

What don't you understand from this statement:
"The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost."

I'll give you a hint where you should focus your attention: accurate

And actually after seeing this picture i am now neutral on the fact. I believe now that there is a passibility that explosives other than jet fuel were on the plane.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/Story.crash.sequence.jpg

If you see in the last one their is an explosion shooting out of the entrance from where the plane crashed. A plane moving at 600 mph and explosives IN the building would not cause that, so there must have been explosives in the middle section that shot out backwards as well as in other directions.

Your argument seems sound, but I simply don't know enough concerning what happens when jets hit buildings to be sure. That theory has been posited, but at present, it doesn't have many mainstream alternate theory backers. I have an open mind on it, but until I can make proper sense of it and/or the mainstream alternate theory backers go for it, it'll have to go in the same box as, say, mini nukes. In any case, whether or not the plane was loaded with an explosive device, that in and of itself wouldn't have been enough to bring down the buildings.

alaska1976

11-21-08, 08:09 PM

For those of us liking a good mystery the twin towers are it!

I have a question for proponants of the towers being sabotaged by explosives. Can you show your proof or even strong circumstantial evidence aside from pictures of the buildings and their actual collapses that charges were used? It is easy to look at the pictures and decide charges were used. But, it is not easy to show the facts and figures of the time and cost to literally tear down and rebuild sections of a floor to get at the main braces.
This is an area not a lot of people talk about; how the charges were set on dozens of floors of two buildings in multiple areas to create a pancake explosion to perfectly set the top of the building onto it's base.
1st, before you respond please refer to a diagram of the normal floor area that represents each floor above and below of the trade towers. Note where the offices are and note where the restrooms are and the elevators and stairwells to deduce where drilling and tearing of walls would have to take place to get into the core of the building covered by meters of cement and other solid obsticles.
2nd, account for how many floors would have to have been detonated to cause a pancake collapse.
3rd, account where each charge would have to be set and how much work would have to be done to plant all charges on just a single floor.
4th, show some kind of proof that each tower had major work done that would have literally shut off use of specific secitions of each floor being worked on to place and afix the charges.
5th, a time element. How long from start to finish for both buildings.

A suggestion here. Before you do any of the above, go web hunting for buildings that have been demolished and read how long it took from setting charges to detonation. Also have a good look at any pictures that show what has to be done BEFORE any charges can even be set. Now compare what you find that is normally done for preping a legal demolition job and compare that factual evidence to your heresay evidence that the same was done to the trade towers while not being gutted.

scott3x

11-21-08, 08:43 PM

Responding to post 27 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090245&postcount=27) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
You may want to read the following:
**********************************
There had to be a very good reason for [WTC 7] to be rigged for demolition whilst it was still occupied. Did Silverstein, the new World Trade Center owner who wisely invested in insurance against terrorism, have prior knowledge of the attacks?

One thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people:

[B][WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron’s), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank’s Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor’s Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1261.shtml)]

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer (http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles)]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet (http://www.thestreet.com/markets/matthewgoldstein/10036925.html)]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV (http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/27904/Ground_Zero_for_the_Secret_Service.html?detectflas h=false&)]

I work in IT and can tell you that all companies now have a disaster recover plan. All the full backups are sent offsite regularly. This was a well-established practice even in 2001. Some companies may not have had a plan then, which I find hard very hard to believe...

Something that should be investigated then, don't you think?

...but anyway it was still well known then that the critical information can usually be recovered. The data on some hard drives were recovered from the wreckage so collapsing buildings isn’t a perfect way to destroy them anyway.

So was the loss of data/paperwork really a major issue for these companies? Was it worth the expense of the completely implausible super conspiracy? Stretches credibility a little don't you think? I'm sure there were better targets nearby which were not targeted.

The authors of the articles that were cited definitely think it was a major issue. As I've said in the past, leave perfection to the gods. I think most of the people who wanted that information destroyed were fairly satisfied. As to credibility, if you would have told me all of this on the day 9/11 happened I would have probably been stunned. But as time goes on and you learn more, you start to realize that reality is at times stranger then fiction. As to better targets, by all means, elaborate on what you think inside jobbers would consider to be better targets.

Originally Posted by scott3x
The collapse of WTC 7 also profited Silverstein Properties to the tune of ~$500 million through insurance payments.
**********************************
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html

Larry Silverstein only got $4.6 billion in insurance money, but rebuilding WTC7 cost $6.3 billion.

If he built it again, I imagine he did so to make even more profits. I certainly haven't heard that he was under any obligation to do so. However, even if he hadn't, he had -already- made a net profit of about 500 million from WTC 7's destruction, as 9/11 Research makes clear (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html#ref8):
*******************************
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
*******************************

scott3x

11-21-08, 09:28 PM

This is a response to spidergoat's post 16 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090025&postcount=16).

I am well prepared to accept that the full story has not been told, but I'm not convinced the funny business is revealed in the details of how the towers fell.

If people could agree that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolition, the next step would be to further investigate who had access to the buildings. That investigation has actually already been done by some, and the results point to some -very- interesting suspects.

It would be more likely to be found in Dick Cheney's secret e-mails.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see those as well. But I think that the WTC buildings is in my view the most obvious smoking gun. We're all told there's nothing to see and most of the evidence has been destroyed, but I still believe it may well be our best bet. There are, ofcourse, other smoking guns I've explored and may re-explore, such as the pentagon flyover (http://www.thepentacon.com/)...

psikeyhackr

11-21-08, 09:59 PM

There's a lot of evidence even without knowing the amount of concrete though. It'd be nice to know and if I knew of a way to find out via the internet, I think I'd give it a try, but in the meantime I've focused on all the -other- evidence, most of which points to controlled demolition.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Holmes

It may be impossible to fight city hall but it is certainly possible to ridicule them.

The nation that put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. And took 3 years and spent $20,000,000 to produce a 10,000 page report that can't come up with 232 simple numbers. The world's only super power is a pathetic joke. :D

psik

scott3x

11-21-08, 10:00 PM

This is in response to the first part of post 30 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090265&postcount=30) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
The twin towers were closer to other buildings and yet, even though some of them were severely scorched, no other building but WTC 7 collapsed into its own footprint.

There are photos that clearly show the top stories of WTC1 colliding with WTC7.

The towers essentially came straight down, but in a mushrooming way, exploading symetrically outwards. Here's a picture from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg):
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg

Note that WTC 7 was only hit by lighter debris and yet it suffered more damage then buildings that got the brunt of the debris.

Had it been a controlled demolition and a symmetrical collapse it would not have happened.

All that was required was a very energetic controlled demolition; the symetry was there, it just exploded outwards more then a normal demolition, which generally tries to keep debris in its own footprint.

scott3x

11-21-08, 10:16 PM

This is in response to psikeyhackr's post 121 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098293&postcount=121) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
There's a lot of evidence even without knowing the amount of concrete though. It'd be nice to know and if I knew of a way to find out via the internet, I think I'd give it a try, but in the meantime I've focused on all the -other- evidence, most of which points to controlled demolition.

“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Sherlock Holmes

Definitely a good line in this case.

It may be impossible to fight city hall but it is certainly possible to ridicule them.

I don't think it's impossible, although I'm not sure if 'fight' is the best word to use. I think what is needed is education. People have to understand the issues. When they do, politicians will find it impossible to ignore and have to answer questions that at present they feel are unnecessary to answer.

The nation that put men on the moon can't tell the entire world the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of buildings designed before the moon landing. And took 3 years and spent $20,000,000 to produce a 10,000 page report that can't come up with 232 simple numbers. The world's only super power is a pathetic joke. :D

psik

I wouldn't exactly put it that way. Put another way, my guess is that you're an american yes? Do you consider yourself to be part of a 'pathetic joke'? I'll be honest with you. There are times when I wonder whether my life will improve. Many times, I find it impossible to even find the motivation to look for a job. And yet, despite this, even if I were to die of malnutrition or what have you, I still think that my life would have been worth the trouble. I would have said a few things before going off into that good night and seriously, what more does anyone really do? And can one really say that it isn't enough?

The problems that face the U.S. and the world are myriad. 9/11, ultimately, is only one of many. I simply have found it to be a good focal point at this point in time in my life. To me, it exemplifies a lot of things that are wrong in North America (I'm Canadian). To this idea that authority figures would never be mistaken and/or lie about such things. In time, I may move on to other issues, but for now it holds my attention.

scott3x

11-21-08, 10:33 PM

This is in response to alaska1976's post 118 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098162&postcount=118) in this thread.

For those of us liking a good mystery the twin towers are it!

I have a question for proponents of the towers being sabotaged by explosives. Can you show your proof or even strong circumstantial evidence aside from pictures of the buildings and their actual collapses that charges were used? It is easy to look at the pictures and decide charges were used. But, it is not easy to show the facts and figures of the time and cost to literally tear down and rebuild sections of a floor to get at the main braces.
This is an area not a lot of people talk about; how the charges were set on dozens of floors of two buildings in multiple areas to create a pancake explosion to perfectly set the top of the building onto it's base.
1st, before you respond please...

You must think we're made of time or something :-p. Unfortunately, no one here (to my knowledge at any rate) is being paid to do such an in depth investigation. At present, I'm more interested in making it clear that controlled demolition is the most plausible reason for the WTC building collapses. When that is firmly established, I may indeed find it a good idea to investigate the issues you bring up. Ofcourse, you could always jump the gun and investigate the possibility yourself ;-). Another possibility is that you ask in 9/11 truth movement forums, such as abovetopsecret.com (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/), Let's Roll Forums (http://letsrollforums.com/index.php) or Loose Change Forums (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/)

shaman_

11-22-08, 02:24 AM

I'm making it clear that wasn't sure that his conclusions were right. Reading his tentative conclusion one can see that not once does even state it is his belief. He only says it is his opinion. .What are you talking about? What’s the point of distinguishing between the two? His opinion , based on the evidence and utilizing his years of experience was that the collapse was caused by the fire.

There may certainly be some details he is not completely sure of, but at no point does he give serious consideration to explosives being responsible, something he makes even clearer in the interview I have linked to.

Your contention that because he uses the words ‘opinion’ and ‘tentative conclusions’, he’s not sure what happened and it may have been explosions is a hopeless attempt to minimize the damage that this expert does to your pathetic conspiracy theory.

Take a look for yourself:
************************************
TENTATIVE CONCLUSIONS

Based on the field investigation and study of drawings and other design related documents, it is the opinion of the author that the highly redundant exterior tube of the World Trade Center with many closely spaced columns was able to tolerate the loss of many columns and support the gravity while almost all occupants who could use a stairway escaped to safety. The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued. Finally, in the opinion of the author, if the walls around the stairwells were stronger and the stairwells were not all located at one place, many of the victims who were trapped in the floors above the impact area probably could find a useable staircase and escape to safety.
************************************

Perhaps he has solidified his belief since his tentative conclusions. In any case, there are reams of evidence that make it clear that the fire collapse theory doesn't have a leg to stand on. Apparently, however, I still have to present more before you'll believe me :-p. .He had access to the site and the steel. He was in the best position to come to a conclusion. The ‘reams of evidence’ looks rather silly considering steel buildings have collapsed due to fire.

Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.Sometimes you need to leave your simplistic fantasy land. If the construction of the buildings was found to be faulty then there would be legal implications because people could potentially be held responsible for the collapse. This would be an ugly can of worms.

Which should be even more surprising... .Are you serious? You cannot be serious. Two bloody skyscrapers fell on them! What do you expect?

If they fell in their own footprint it is suspicious and if they don’t fall in their own footprint it is suspicious. You are deluded.

True. However, It does warrant a more thorough investigation. Instead, it got a less thorough investigation as Jonathan Barnett made clear in the above mentioned video.There was an investigation. You just don’t like the results.

With a religion such as yours, if there was another investigation and it found nothing you would still not believe it.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but gravity simply couldn't have accounted for the amount of pulverized concrete. 9/11 Research, on its Concrete Pulverization (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html) page quotes 9/11 online researcher plaguepuppy who explains why:
****************************************
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation[:]

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?

****************************************That does nothing to explain that gravity wouldn’t be responsible.

His assertion appears to be that because the towers were near free fall speed there was no energy left to pulverize the concrete. The towers may have been near free fall speed but they weren’t at free fall speed. When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went.

The claim that dust is shooting out the sides of the building at the very start of the collapse is a ridiculous exaggeration.

He also claims that there is dust when nothing is moving very fast. When the top thirty floors of a building are crushing down on one it doesn’t matter if you have reached a great speed yet. There is an amazing amount of force there. It can also be misleading estimating speed when looking at something that large.

The mechanism for pulverizing the concrete is no mystery - the building’s weight, gravity and kinetic energy.

Watch the video, if there were explosions where are the blasts?

If that were true, the endless discussions we've had would have never taken place. Scott, you think nuclear devices might have been involved, you thought a missile hit the pentagon and not think a plane flew over the pentagon instead. You blindly read everything these people write and have shown this time and time again.

You are not after the truth, you just want to preach your religion. If you were generally after the truth you would visit debunking sites or the screw loose change guide. You will never stray from the comfort of your pitiful conspiracy sites.

I would have simply referred you to my gurus if you wished to find enlightenment and left it at that. Your gurus are fools.

As it is, I counter your 'conclusive' evidence on a regular basis. Such is the nature of the internet and the phenomenon that is the desire to believe in conspiracies. There will always be plenty of links to keep you sure there was a conspiracy. Just as long as you don't think too much or accidentally digest the work of the debunking sites.

Anyway, it seems clear to me that explosives would account best for the tower's disintegration, since gravity didn't have a prayer of accomplishing it as I made clear in my last post.:rolleyes:
Not only is "plaguepuppy"s (?) post unconvincing, explosives are not necessarily the answer either. Explosive explode, they don't just make concrete turn to dust. Where are the blasts?

You are constantly employing the false dilemma fallacy. If there are errors in the NIST explanation, and there may certainly be some, that doesn't mean that explosives are the only alternative explanation.

shaman_

11-22-08, 05:52 AM

I have heard this claim repeated many times as if it were being used in some pavlovian conditioning experiment, but I never actually saw any actual "debunking" of Professor Steven Jones work. .Then you haven’t been looking. I can find plenty of documents discussing his original 911 work. Do you want to see these?

Would you show the proof that formed your belief that his work was bunk?

I am referring in particular to the discovery of the unreacted nanothermite explosive, and also the huge quantity of tiny molten alumino-iron spheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermite all found in the wtc dust. There isn’t a lot of material regarding those claims because they are more recent. His work was laughed at for years before he brought those up. They are the last in a long chain. Sites like 911myths and debunking911 addressed the claims made in the document Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? which is what gave him his notoriety. It was a paper full of errors and bad science. Within that document he made claims of thermite while not addressing, or perhaps understanding, the many problems with this claim. He was only interested in the conspiracy explanation.. His early work was so poor, and I am talking about the thermite claims as well, that when he comes up with these new, slightly different claims, I don’t think many really bother. How many wrong things can someone say before people don’t take them seriously?

In particular the above, but also the other work such as the discovery of silicate particles resembling microscopic swiss cheese, which is surely indicative of high temperature evaporation which would have needed temperatures much higher than any building or jet fuel fire would have been able to achieve, and the sulphidation of a steel I-beam, which can be produced experimentally with ease by exposing steel to a reacting mixture of thermite and sulphur.As mentioned, these claims only from the last year so while I can produce many articles discussing thermite/thermate generally, I can only find a few that mentions them specifically and most are jref forum posts.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron%20Spheres

Are you interested in seeing the forum posts?

scott3x

11-22-08, 07:35 AM

Response to last part of post 30 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090265&postcount=30) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
A warehouse steel structure, ok. But never before or after 9/11 have steel framed high rises collapsed due to fire alone.

...the steel supports on the Madrid tower did collapse due to fire. It stayed up due to its concrete core.

You make it sound like a stronger building when it was in fact a weaker one. 9/11 Research makes this clear (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html).

scott3x

11-22-08, 10:13 AM

Been working on the website for this thread. I've begun to cite -who- has made the arguments I'm countering, as well as the posts where those arguments were made. It makes it easier for me to keep track of things and some (such as myself) who would like a somewhat more organized discussion might appreciate seeing what arguments have and have not been countered yet (from whatever side you're on). Still has a ways to go, but I believe it's progressing nicely. Here's the new link:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/

Headspin

11-22-08, 10:39 AM

DEBUNK = refute, expose, disprove, to remove bunk.

.. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago….
I have heard this claim repeated many times as if it were being used in some pavlovian conditioning experiment, but I never actually saw any actual "debunking" of Professor Steven Jones work. . ”

Then you haven’t been looking. I can find plenty of documents discussing his original 911 work.I was hoping that you were going to show something that "debunks" Professor Jones' work, but when pressed, it seems you can only offer "discussions" of his "original" 911 work, ok.

Would you show the proof that formed your belief that his work was bunk?

I am referring in particular to the discovery of the unreacted nanothermite explosive, and also the huge quantity of tiny molten alumino-iron spheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermite all found in the wtc dust. ”

There isn’t a lot of material regarding those claims because they are more recent.You are saying there has been no refutation of this work, strange then that you stated "a joke that were debunked long ago", (and by the way those discoveries were announced more than a year ago, and Jones' first draft paper was only announced 2 and something years ago)

His work was laughed at for years before he brought those up. They are the last in a long chain. Using ridicule against someone is not a refutation of a claim. If you are saying you believe his work is bunk because you have seen people laugh at it, then you have only shown that you have a propensity for herd-think.
You do know that laughing at someone is not part of the scientific method, don't you?

Sites like 911myths and debunking911 addressed the claims made in the document Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?Those sites do not refute Professor Jones work.

It was a paper full of errors and bad science. Within that document he made claims of thermite while not addressing, or perhaps understanding, the many problems with this claim. He was only interested in the conspiracy explanation.. His early work was so poor, and I am talking about the thermite claims as well, that when he comes up with these new, slightly different claims, I don’t think many really bother. How many wrong things can someone say before people don’t take them seriously? In case you didn't notice- you didn't actually say anything that refutes or debunks Jones work, you just used a lot of unsubstantiated negative words relating to him and his work, perhaps it is us that should be laughing at you.

In particular the above, but also the other work such as the discovery of silicate particles resembling microscopic swiss cheese, which is surely indicative of high temperature evaporation which would have needed temperatures much higher than any building or jet fuel fire would have been able to achieve, and the sulphidation of a steel I-beam, which can be produced experimentally with ease by exposing steel to a reacting mixture of thermite and sulphur. ”As mentioned, these claims only from the last year so while I can produce many articles discussing thermite/thermate generally, I can only find a few that mentions them specifically and most are jref forum posts.You are saying you are not able to produce anything to refute or debunk Professor Jones' work, did you forget by now that you said ".. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago…."

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm#Iron%20Spheres
do you think a laundry list of largely absurd possibilities constitues a refutation ?
Do I refute Newton by suggesting that it could be the earth moving towards the apple?

fly-ash in the concrete? concrete samples from the wtc were crushed and tested, these spheres were not found in the crushed concrete samples! the chemical signatures of the spheres do not match fly-ash, and 1.5mm is too big for fly-ash.

printer toner? the spheres were varying sizes up to 1.5mm. have you ever seen printer toner particles? printer toner is practically like liquid!

There is nothing else there that could be considered to debunk or refute Jones' work.

Are you interested in seeing the forum posts?I asked you to show the proof that formed your belief that Jones work has been refuted, and you are pointing me to a forum of political anti-truth fanatics posing as skeptics who are unable to refute Jones' work? is this as good as it gets?

John99

11-22-08, 10:49 AM

and 1.5mm is too big for fly-ash.

No, it isn't.

Headspin

11-22-08, 11:10 AM

No, it isn't.
http://www.quinnpatrick.co.uk/images/pantomime.jpg

psikeyhackr

11-22-08, 12:36 PM

I wouldn't exactly put it that way. Put another way, my guess is that you're an american yes? Do you consider yourself to be part of a 'pathetic joke'?

The problems that face the U.S. and the world are myriad. 9/11, ultimately, is only one of many. I simply have found it to be a good focal point at this point in time in my life. To me, it exemplifies a lot of things that are wrong in North America (I'm Canadian). To this idea that authority figures would never be mistaken and/or lie about such things. In time, I may move on to other issues, but for now it holds my attention.

I was born within the geographic boundaries of the US.

Human beings were born on the planet before nations existed. Nationalism is psychological crap just like religion. Rather like a religion base on geographic boundaries rather than dogma. I can see why the separation of church and state is such a problem for European social-psychology.

Yeah there are bigger fish to fry than 9/11. I started trying to cook one before 9/11.

http://www.spectacle.org/1199/wargame.html

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

So now economists get to talk about bailing out automobile companies even though they have not been talking about the depreciation of that garbage that was designed to become obsolete for the last 50 years.

Like what is the total depreciation of all of the automobiles in the world each year? Shouldn't that be relevant to econometrics? If everyone had been taught accounting and told to concentrate on NET WORTH instead of jobs for the last 50 years what would be the current state of the economy?

psik

shaman_

11-22-08, 12:38 PM

DEBUNK = refute, expose, disprove, to remove bunk.

I was hoping that you were going to show something that "debunks" Professor Jones' work, but when pressed, it seems you can only offer "discussions" of his "original" 911 work, ok. Pathetic. Your response is an indication of the desperate measures you will go to try and defend your pitiful conspiracy. You knew exactly what I was referring to when I used the term ‘discussion’. I was referring to an analysis (debunking) of his work. Jones has made many claims, dozens in fact. You were inquiring about the last one or two. This is either because you are ignorant and don’t know about the other embarrassing claims or you conveniently forget them. I wanted to know if you wanted to see refutations of these claims or the majority of his work. You chose not to answer.

You are saying there has been no refutation of this work, To say that that was my intent makes you a fool or dishonest. You can decide which.

strange then that you stated "a joke that were debunked long ago", (and by the way those discoveries were announced more than a year ago, and Jones' first draft paper was only announced 2 and something years ago) He most certainly brought up the chips this year and I thought he brought up the spheres within the last 12 months. I may be wrong. Be more specific if you intend to correct me.

Using ridicule against someone is not a refutation of a claim. If you are saying you believe his work is bunk because you have seen people laugh at it, then you have only shown that you have a propensity for herd-think.
You do know that laughing at someone is not part of the scientific method, don't you? Once again, there are plenty of refutations of his work. It is somewhat strange that you haven’t come across any yet. Actually it's probably not. I will ask the question that you ignored in the previous post. Do you want to see refutations on his work in general, or do you only want to see refutations of the last of many claims?

You may of course dodge this question and post again ...with large text. Hopefully bigger this time.

As I tried to explain to you, the last of his many claims hasn't been taken very seriously. If you want to assume that there is no debunking because of this you are welcome to. You will only be deluding yourself.

Those sites do not refute Professor Jones work. Yes ...they do.

In case you didn't notice- you didn't actually say anything that refutes or debunks Jones work, you just used a lot of unsubstantiated negative words relating to him and his work, perhaps it is us that should be laughing at you. Because you ignored my question. Perhaps you choose the words from each post that suits you and ignore the rest. It appears to be a conspiracy theorist trait.

Are you not aware of Jones’ original work? Are you only aware of his recent claims of the spheres and chips?

You are saying you are not able to produce anything to refute or debunk Professor Jones' work, did you forget by now that you said ".. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago…." That is the interpretation of someone desperately trying to get out of an argument before it begins.

do you think a laundry list of largely absurd possibilities constitues a refutation ?

Do I refute Newton by suggesting that it could be the earth moving towards the apple?.

fly-ash in the concrete? concrete samples from the wtc were crushed and tested, these spheres were not found in the crushed concrete samples! the chemical signatures of the spheres do not match fly-ash, and 1.5mm is too big for fly-ash.

printer toner? the spheres were varying sizes up to 1.5mm. have you ever seen printer toner particles? printer toner is practically like liquid!

There is nothing else there that could be considered to debunk or refute Jones' work.

I asked you to show the proof that formed your belief that Jones work has been refuted, and you are pointing me to a forum of political anti-truth fanatics posing as skeptics who are unable to refute Jones' work? is this as good as it gets?… and I asked you specifically if you wanted to see debunking of the majority of his claims of just the last one that you kept mentioning. Instead of answering you chose to accuse me of saying that there is no refutation of his work. This is the type of bul#$% I have come to expect from conspiracy theorists. Honesty and evidence means nothing to you people. Just keep the conspiracy religion going with whatever methods possible.

Do you want to see some refutations of Jones' work or are you going to keep playing childish games?

Headspin

11-22-08, 01:21 PM

shaman_.. considering his theories are a joke that were debunked long ago…. ”

I have heard this claim repeated many times as if it were being used in some pavlovian conditioning experiment, but I never actually saw any actual "debunking" of Professor Steven Jones work.

Would you show the proof that formed your belief that his work was bunk?

I am referring in particular to the discovery of the unreacted nanothermite explosive, and also the huge quantity of tiny molten alumino-iron spheres with the chemical fingerprint of thermite all found in the wtc dust.
In particular the above, but also the other work such as the discovery of silicate particles resembling microscopic swiss cheese, which is surely indicative of high temperature evaporation which would have needed temperatures much higher than any building or jet fuel fire would have been able to achieve, and the sulphidation of a steel I-beam, which can be produced experimentally with ease by exposing steel to a reacting mixture of thermite and sulphur.I thought it was clear.

What's with all the insults and abuse? Abu-Ghraib closed for the weekend?

Headspin

11-22-08, 05:40 PM

He most certainly brought up the chips this year11 months ago. Dec 2007 boston conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090
and I thought he brought up the spheres within the last 12 months.18 months ago, May 2007. vancouver conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6psgCNFm6g&e

alaska1976

11-22-08, 06:37 PM

You must think we're made of time or something :-p. Unfortunately, no one here (to my knowledge at any rate) is being paid to do such an in depth investigation. At present, I'm more interested in making it clear that controlled demolition is the most plausible reason for the WTC building collapses. When that is firmly established, I may indeed find it a good idea to investigate the issues you bring up. Ofcourse, you could always jump the gun and investigate the possibility yourself ;-). Another possibility is that you ask in 9/11 truth movement forums, such as abovetopsecret.com (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/), Let's Roll Forums (http://letsrollforums.com/index.php) or Loose Change Forums (http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/)

Actually I did a good amount of research into the demolition issue. If Bush was behind it, not wanting to hurt to many people he would have had the towers brought down as was done, less civilian deaths and building damage. But if a terrorist was really at fault, no one considers the fact they would never have planted the charges to produce a pancake effect. They would have set the charges to topple the towers where they would have done the most and greatest amount of damage as in falling a tree.

Of the possibility that charges were used, there were over forty pillers on each floor making the core that held up each building. Pretend the detonation of just twenty pillers could collapse a floor. Each tower had 110 floors. Pretend every fifth floor had to be sabotaged with charges in order to collapse the entire building.

You can analize the outside to make theories but if you begin from the inside, consider how many people you would need to drill into the posts, plant several charges for each post and refill each hole with cement, figure out the time for when they could do the drilling so security and workers would not wonder why engineers are drilling into multiple posts on multiple floors and figure out how long it would take to complete the work.................I can say when you begin to consider all of that, it looks less and less like charges were even used.

scott3x

11-22-08, 09:01 PM

Actually I did a good amount of research into the demolition issue. If Bush was behind it, not wanting to hurt to many people he would have had the towers brought down as was done, less civilian deaths and building damage. But if a terrorist was really at fault, no one considers the fact they would never have planted the charges to produce a pancake effect. They would have set the charges to topple the towers where they would have done the most and greatest amount of damage as in falling a tree.

Of the possibility that charges were used, there were over forty pillers on each floor making the core that held up each building. Pretend the detonation of just twenty pillers could collapse a floor. Each tower had 110 floors. Pretend every fifth floor had to be sabotaged with charges in order to collapse the entire building.

You can analize the outside to make theories but if you begin from the inside, consider how many people you would need to drill into the posts, plant several charges for each post and refill each hole with cement, figure out the time for when they could do the drilling so security and workers would not wonder why engineers are drilling into multiple posts on multiple floors and figure out how long it would take to complete the work.................I can say when you begin to consider all of that, it looks less and less like charges were even used.

And what if security was the one planting the explosives?

Secrecy Surrounds 9/11 Investigation (http://www.utne.com/2003-02-01/Secrecy-Surrounds-911-Investigation.aspx)

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html?q=911security.html)

What if you could get the Port Authority to do a "Power Down" the weekend before 9/11, then get in a bunch of people to go about doing it?

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down, Wing TV (http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html)

'Power Down' Condition at the WTC on the Weekend Preceding 9/11 (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)

Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down, The Truth Seeker (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2238)

Scott Forbes 9/11 power down: The Elephant In The Room - Youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSXmZVVCMI)

9/11 Review (http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html), a conspiracy debunker site claims that no half smart inside jobber would do something so obvious. To whit:
"It makes no sense that the perpetrators would do something so obvious as powering down half of a tower so shortly before the attack..."

And this is even better:
"Powering down for cabling upgrades is laughable as a cover story for demolition preparation work. Cabling upgrades for data bandwidth do not require interrupting AC power at all."

Ah, but the Bush W.'s administration was an administration misunderestimated. If there was -one- administration that could have done such a foolish mistake in their inside job, I think the Bush W.'s administration would have good chances indeed.

shaman_

11-22-08, 09:25 PM

My knowledge on this issue is lacking. However, the rest of the evidence I have presented makes it clear that the buildings could only have come down due to controlled demolitions.Well you probably shouldn’t post it as evidence if you can’t support it.

I'd say that the evidence regularly presented by the official story is pitiful, but you don't see -me- saying that it's moronic. Or even pitiful, because I don't want to hurt your feelings ;).

shaman, the idea that I am trying to 'forget' parts I don't like is, in my view, insulting. It appears that way though.

Not only am I doing my best to remember everything, I've actually even started a -web site- with arguments from you and others and my refutations. But so far it appears that you have just replicated this forum with certain posts missing. I’m too lazy to put a site together so I’m not criticizing your effort it’s just that I don’t think it will capture the discussion being had here.

Responding to post 27 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090245&postcount=27) in this thread.

Something that should be investigated then, don't you think? Nope. Investigation by who? Even many NGOs rely on the government for funding. Who is independent? Poorly qualified armchair youtube experts and theologians?

The authors of the articles that were cited think so. As I've said in the past, leave perfection to the gods. I think most of the people who wanted that information destroyed were fairly satisfied. As to credibility, if you would have told me all of this on the day 9/11 happened I would have probably been stunned. But as time goes on and you learn more, you start to realize that reality is at times stranger then fiction. As to better targets, by all means, elaborate on what you think inside jobbers would consider to be better targets. Don’t know, but if there was a massive conspiracy and they were capable of paying or scaring off firefighters to deal with their comrades dying, killing off the passengers, making the 100+ people at the pentagon lie, somehow manager to get inflammable explosives on every floor on the WTC to simulate a collapse well then don’t you think they could come up with a much easier way to hide or fudge these files without collapsing the building which didn’t achieve that much anyway. ?

If he built it again, I imagine he did so to make even more profits. But did he really so that well out of the deal? After a long legal dispute he didn’t get nearly enough to even rebuild it. It wasn’t worth the effort. To suggest that his part of the whole massive, implausible super conspiracy involving potentially thousands of people was to make a few dollars is just getting silly.

He did choose to rebuild btw..

I certainly haven't heard that he was under any obligation to do so. However, even if he hadn't, he had -already- made a net profit of about 500 million from WTC 7's destruction, Money he lost when he chose to rebuild. Does 500 million really matter to someone who is able to produce 6.3 billion?

The towers essentially came straight down, but in a mushrooming way, exploading symetrically outwards. Symmetrically outwards? The collapse of WTC1 was not symmetrical. Debris fell out of every side but that didn’t make it symmetrical. You throw in words like that to try and make it look suspicious.

Here's a picture from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Note that WTC 7 was only hit by lighter debris and yet it suffered more damage then buildings that got the brunt of the debris. Those buildings were so damaged that they partially collapsed. The damage was not repairable and they had to be demolished.

WTC7 was heavily damaged when WTC1 collided with it. Look at these photos.
[url]http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_hit_by_debris_.html (http://www.ae911truth.org/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg)

Notice the shape of the debris colliding with WTC7. The straight lines there make it look like there are still walls partially intact colliding with the top of WTC7.

All that was required was a very energetic controlled demolition; the symetry was there, it just exploded outwards more then a normal demolition, which generally tries to keep debris in its own footprint.Nonsensical. You are trying to duck and dodge. The collapses weren’t symmetrical and they didn’t collapse into their own footprint. Move on.

shaman_

11-22-08, 09:41 PM

Once again Scott, you need to stop believing everything you read. Your conspiracy sites are not reliable sources of information.

1. Bush's brother was not associated with Securacom in 2001.

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20050215bushes_2.cfm

“Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
“

2. There are many problems with the “power down” claims..
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

....such as the claims coming only from one person and the claim being made about only one tower!

Even 911 review have doubts about Forbes.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

scott3x

11-22-08, 09:47 PM

This is in response to KennyJC's post 32 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090300&postcount=32).

You’re right; a 10 story building is nothing like a steel framed high rise building. It’s more surprising to me that it would pancake so quickly as it is far lighter than what we saw at the WTC, therefore less kinetic energy.

could you name this 10 story building you speak of? Secondly, I have a strong feeling that your knowledge of how much kinetic energy is necessary to bring down the WTC center is somewhat lacking. Perhaps it was heavier, but you fail to understand just how strong the WTC buildings were.

No steel framed skyscraper has collapsed simply because violent fires are rare on such buildings.

Or atleast that's what you'd like to believe. One of the towers suffered fire that was allegedly more massive in 1975 or so, but there was no collapse there.

Truthers can only point to several examples, and even in one of their examples, a large amount of the building collapsed due to it being constructed of steel.

I believe you would be talking about the Madrid tower there. That argument has already been dealt with in this thread

scott3x

11-22-08, 09:59 PM

Once again Scott, you need to stop believing everything you read. Your conspiracy sites are not reliable sources of information.

A certain title aside, I think they're fairly good.

1. Bush's brother was not associated with Securacom in 2001.

http://www.washingtonspectator.com/articles/20050215bushes_2.cfm

“Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
“

In the case of the one titled "9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush", I regretted the title, as it makes it seem like Marvin was running the show at the time of 9/11. I liked the article for other elements, but the title was admittedly misleading as there is no evidence that he played a part in its security on 9/11.

You taken a good look at the link you just pointed to though? Here's an interesting excerpt:
"Company stock became worthless after the company's de-listing. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000, but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold."

2. There are many problems with the “power down” claims..
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

....such as the claims coming only from one person and the claim being made about only one tower!

Don't you think the claim should be further investigated instead of buried under the rug simply because only one person mentioned it? As to it only being made about one tower, perhaps they only needed to do some last minute touches on that one tower. Trying to second guess why a super secretive inside job team would have done every particular little thing is a next to impossible task. I'm simply pointing out that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.

Even 911 review have doubts about Forbes.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

911 review is a conspiracy debunker site; -ofcourse- they have doubts about Forbes. What I found so amusing, however, is their claims that no inside jobber would have done such a poor job of concealing their tracks. But what if 911 review had misunderestimated the inside jobbers intelligence :D?

John99

11-22-08, 10:02 PM

But what if 911 review had misunderestimated the inside jobbers intelligence :D?

I think you are overestimating it and underestimating your own. Albeit unintentionally.

scott3x

11-22-08, 10:31 PM

This post is in response to the first part of shaman_'s post 138 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2099361&postcount=138) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3xOriginally Posted by shaman_
Originally Posted by scott3x
I agree that it's a bit different. David Ray Griffin has this to say about the issue of scale:
*************************************
If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses, and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height and proportions.
*************************************
http://www.truememes.com/mackey.html

Oh lordy your heroes are dim witted. The strength of a structure does not scale proportionately to its size. Its more than a ‘a bit different’. You cannot demonstrate how a building of 200 000 tons of concrete and steel behaves with an erector set.

My knowledge on this issue is lacking. However, the rest of the evidence I have presented makes it clear that the buildings could only have come down due to controlled demolitions.

Well you probably shouldn’t post it as evidence if you can’t support it.

At times, it's difficult to know what one knows and what one doesn't know. In this type of a case, it's helpful to have someone who doesn't take your word for granted. Clearly, it would be peachy if David Ray Griffin could be here to defend his logic, but he's not and I admit that I can't make his case for him this time around.

scott3x

11-22-08, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
But what if 911 review had misunderestimated the inside jobbers intelligence :D?

I think you are overestimating it and underestimating your own. Albeit unintentionally.

Overestimating the intelligence of the Bush Administration? Nah. Remember that Bush didn't call -all- the shots. His father was former head of the CIA and certainly played his part. And underestimating my own intelligence? That sounds like a compliment. From you? :confused:

alaska1976

11-22-08, 11:20 PM

Scott3x..."And what if security was the one planting the explosives?"

Anything is possible. But if it were possible, you are talking about a really huge conspiricy that would encompass dozens if not hundreds of people.

For the security people to be the charge placers, the people behind the secret plot would have infiltrated each prior security personal one at a time by natural consequence; job loss, sick, fired, retirement, etc. That process would possibly take years. You don't go in and replace all the security personal in a day or a couple weeks with all brand new personal without raising eye brows, especially the eye brows of those getting the boot who liked working security for the towers. Next keep in mind their must of been at least a dozen security personal at night if not more. Many civilians didn't quit working because many went home. You always had night shift workers.
Next lets say the security people were replaced. Who works and who drills? Do you work in your uniform or in over hauls? What about night time workers who are use to seeing the security personal walking around, sitting at desks? Think they won't wonder recognizing a security person drilling a hole into a piller?

Once again, conspiricys are great. I luv 'em. But even when I thought charges were a great probability, I don't see it any more.
This is one fact you will come to understand about the explosives theory...the less involved, the fewer would know. But the fewer to do the work, the longer it would take to place the explosives deep into those pillers.
You are talking about a Bush scheme to topple the trade towers that would have began five to ten years prior to the 9/11 date so when he was futuristicly president he could complete a ten to twenty year old plot to invade Iraq that would have begun with his dad.
Do you see how crazy this thing gets? I don't have any answers but I can rule out how with high probability it did not happen. Bush and cronies did not do this one.

Headspin

11-23-08, 07:52 AM

what does bush have to do with anything?

scott3x

11-23-08, 10:27 AM

Scott3x..."And what if security was the one planting the explosives?"

Anything is possible. But if it were possible, you are talking about a really huge conspiricy that would encompass dozens if not hundreds of people.

I can imagine it encompassed hundreds. But not everyone needed to know everything.

For the security people to be the charge placers, the people behind the secret plot would have infiltrated each prior security personal one at a time by natural consequence; job loss, sick, fired, retirement, etc.

I don't think it has to be that complicated. What if the -owners- of the security company were the crooks? Then they could simply hire the people they wanted to do the job. And they'd have a lot of time to prepare for the demolition day. Perhaps 5 years, as can be deduced from an article from Margie Burns (http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=79&contentid=812&page=2):
**********************
HCC Insurance/ Stratesec Links Marvin Bush & WTC

Bush, George W.'s youngest brother, joined HCC's Board of Directors in 1999, remaining until November 2002.

A company called Stratesec, formerly named Securacom, was a security contractor with the WTC from 1996 to 2001.

Marvin Bush was a director at Stratesec from 1993 to 2000. Stratesec, in turn, was backed by a private Washington, DC, investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corporation (KuwAm), linked to the Bush family since the Gulf War....
**********************

Next lets say the security people were replaced. Who works and who drills? Do you work in your uniform or in over hauls?

I think we don't need to get -that- detailed on a theory as to how they did it...

What about night time workers who are use to seeing the security personal walking around, sitting at desks? Think they won't wonder recognizing a security person drilling a hole into a piller?

Some workers did note some suspicious things, as revealed in an article from Reporter Victor Thorn (http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html):
***********************************
Pre-9/11 World Trade Center Power-Down
by Victor Thorn - April 23, 2004

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Forbes, who was hired by Fiduciary in 1999 and is now stationed at a U.K. branch office, was working on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, and said that his company was given three weeks advance notice that New York’s Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up. The reason: the Port Authority was performing a cabling upgrade to increase the WTC’s computer bandwidth....
***********************************

psikeyhackr

11-23-08, 11:39 AM

what does bush have to do with anything?

A lot of so called Truthers won't separate the physics and engineering of what happened from the who had to be involved if the airliner could not possibly have brought the buildings down. I my opinion they are trying to analyze the problem backwards. :shrug:

psik

scott3x

11-23-08, 02:02 PM

what does bush have to do with anything?

To my knowledge, there is no evidence that W. did anything. However, I definitely believe there's enough evidence in terms of Bush's -family- to warrant further investigation, as I think post 147 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2099892&postcount=147) makes clear.

scott3x

11-23-08, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Headspin
what does bush have to do with anything?

A lot of so called Truthers won't separate the physics and engineering of what happened from the who had to be involved if the airliner could not possibly have brought the buildings down. I my opinion they are trying to analyze the problem backwards. :shrug:

I have spent a fair amount of time analyzing the issue of how the buildings were brought down. However, inevitably people move on to the issue of how the buildings could have been brought down via controlled demolition, as so I have presented them with information which suggests how it may have been done.

Update- btw, I've found a number for how much concrete per twin tower: 90,000 tons. True, others have mentioned other figures, but I trust 9/11 Research more then most sites. Here's the relevant excerpt from The North Tower's Dust Cloud (http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html):
******************************
Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction.
******************************

scott3x

11-23-08, 05:19 PM

This is a response to the second part of KennyJC's post 32 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090300&postcount=32).

It has been argued that the squibs were compressed air and that if it was from explosives, the squibs would be instantaneous like in a regular demolition. It has also been argued that the speed of the squibs is consistent with air being squeezed out by the falling floors above.
This argument has been handily refuted by 9/11 Research:

Look, if you’re going to say these are explosive squibs, then what kind of bomb explodes slowly? A fart bomb?

When did I say that the explosives exploded slowly? 9/11 Research certainly never says anything of the kind:
High-Velocity "Demolition Squibs" Are Visible in the Twin Towers' Collapses (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/squibs.html)

However, if you take a look at the debris, you'll notice that a lot if not most of the upper debris had the texture of dust or at best sand. It has been argued that the top part of the building held together for at least some of the collapse and that just because one can see concrete breaking up doesn’t mean its just a bit of sand and doesn't weigh anything. Ofcourse all matter weighs -something-. Spread out dust, however, doesn't weigh all that much per cubic meter. It has been argued that the top thirty floors of WTC2 were not mostly dust and did weigh quite a lot, but they were pulverized into dust in mid air anyway; these buildings had no need to 'pancake'; even when falling into thin air they spontaneously disintegrate.

...Just because most of what you saw was dust, does not mean that everything that is falling is dust.

I agree, there were certainly some steel girders being ejected out. But in terms of the concrete, it was mostly pulverized, as 9/11 research makes clear (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html).

Just tell that to the recovery folk who far from simply having to hoover stuff up, spent years removing actual solid building-type things.

I believe that 'solid buliding-type' stuff was mainly metal, but by all means, attempt to show me evidence that it was otherwise.

The question has also been asked as to whether concrete can simply be 'pulverized' during the collapse. I believe the answer is no.

Watch any building collapse whether it be controlled or accidental; they produce tremendous amounts of dust. 10 story apartment building appeared to have its concrete completely disintegrated in mid-air as it fell.

You have a video of this supposed no explosives mid-air concrete disintegration?

In any case, the majority of concrete that was used in the WTC was very thin, and thus, very easily broken down.

You have any evidence to support that claim? You may have noticed that psikeyhacker is -very- interested in knowing the precise amount of concrete in the twin towers.

However, given enough explosives, you can certainly make the debris from a symetrical collapse go beyond the footprint. There is a real problem here for those who believe that the majority of the buildings were brought down by their own weight, however; the more debris didn't come down in the footprint of the building, the less debris is around to supposedly crush the rest of the building. From what I understand, even if -all- the debris fell in its own footprint, this wouldn't be possible; this is just making it even more obvious explosives had to have been used to bring down the buildings.

EXPLOSIVES DO NOT EJECT TONS OF STEEL HUNDREDS OF FEET.

If you have powerful enough explosives, sure they can.

Any explosives that can do this would create more than a little rumble and vibrations.

Show me your evidence.

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away It has been argued that this is "obviously false". No evidence for this argument was given.

Actually, I said that it was obviously false as images from ground zero showed that the windows at the top of the buildings were not smashed, but windows at the bottom of the building were smashed.

More explosives would have to be used at the base of the building, because the steel framework is stronger at that point. There -were- loud explosions heard at the base of the towers prior to collapse, btw.

Logic dictates that debris smashed the windows below.

Debris being ejected at explosive speed, sure.

Since “blast waves” would have hit the top of these buildings, then how come only windows at the bottom of the buildings were smashed?

Read above concerning explosive concentration.

I believe the idea that the floors pancaked to begin with has no real evidence. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's assume for a second that they did indeed do so; I have seen no evidence that 'the force of each floor falling on to the other was still enough to nudge the perimeter columns outward' And as to the 'nudge' part; 500 feet does not seem like a nudge. What's more, the debris was being ejected just as strongly right from the beginning, when the length of the fall was still relatively small. The argument has also been made that demolition experts will tell you that their materials do local damage to each beam it is placed on, slicing it like butter. Far from being capable of throwing tons of steel great distances. However, normal demolition experts don't have access to nanothermite, which is capable of packing quite an impressive punch, especially when it comes to iron based metals.

The fact that some debris did fall off to the side is due to the fact that tower was not falling at free fall speed.

The debris wasn't just 'falling off', it was exploding outwards.

If the tower was collapsing at free fall speed, all the debris would have gone straight down. But from watching the collapse, you see loose columns at the top being held up by the slow collapse, and following the path of least resistance fell off to the side and it’s momentum continued in an outward direction. As it fell near 1,000, the drift carried it to other buildings.

If by 'drift' you mean the pyroclastic flow, I'm with you.

The part in bold just made me laugh. How the fuck do you know what nanothermite can do compared to conventional explosions?

Research, my friend.

And again, even if this mystical substance does do as you say, where are the ear piercing explosions?

I think I remember hearing somewhere that nanothermite may not make so much noise, but I haven't been able to find that information again, if I did in the past. Another possibility is that more explosives were used and thus, instead of a few sharp blasts, you had many smaller ones, which could be confused as the simple rumble of a building collapsing.

The argument has been made that this is wrong; that the steel core was far from obliterated. In fact, many video and still pictures show that the core in both towers was still standing moments after the collapse. The initial collapse consisted of the floors alone. However, the point is not that there was no claim made that the steel core didn't survive a few moments after the collapse. The point is it was completely destroyed at amazing speed.

The fact is that the steel core was not obliterated. It remained in humungous chunks and was so difficult to remove from ground zero that it had to be cut into smaller sections. This prompted fools like Steven Jones to think that the beams had been cut during the collapse rather than after.

There is evidence that the certain cuts were -not- done after, but I don't have the information to differentiate the 2 on hand at present.

It has been argued that the thermate signature is non-existant when you consider that the materials were already common and present in the WTC for non-sinister reasons. This argument is fundamentally flawed, however, and shows a lack of understanding of what a thermate signature is; a thermate signature, like a hand signature, can only come from one thing: thermate. If it could come from something else, it wouldn't be called a thermite signature.

Except that’s not what Steven Jones says, is it?

Steven Jones says that because he found sodium, barium, aluminum etc. in the WTC dust, that this is a thermate signature. True that these elements may be in thermate, but it is probably in every skyscraper in existence.

Sorry, thermate signature. And my point holds; just because you have certain elements in a building doesn't mean that they can come up with a thermate signature when pulverized. I remember Headspin saying that they'd even found -unexploded- thermate as well.

alaska1976

11-23-08, 06:59 PM

what does bush have to do with anything?

After 9/11 and just before the Bush administration went after Iraq, the administration was setting the blame of the twin towers destruction on the door step of terrorists, then a second theory began to gain momentum that Bush had secretly destroyed the towers to have a reason to invade Iraq and to chase terrorists where ever they fled so the US could geographically expand itself into countries we had never set a military foot print in. Not by invitation at least.
My reply was two fold for the Bush theory and the terrorist theory.

My point remains the same. Attack this equation from the outside going in and you will never prove a single thing. Like the squib debate. Anyone realize that squibs will happen between different floors as a building collapses upon itself regardless if detonations are used or are not used? In doubt? Google building demolitions. Find a nice tall building they are pancaking. Find out which floors had charges and which floors did not. Guess what? Squibs happen on detonated floors and floors not detonated during a pancake collapse. That alone puts a dent in the theory that the twin tower squibs HAD to be caused by demolition charges.

My main point is that any time you plan something on a large scale and you are going to need the recruitment of more then half a dozen people and what is happening is to be held in the strictest of secrecy on threat of death, someone ALWAYS talks. A week later, a year later, five years later, someone talks. And for the amount of people that would have had to of been involved in the 9/11 incident being they home grown terrorists, you can honestly say everyone of them apparently has a will to never tell because none are experiencing guilt?
On the other hand we have terrorists who have taken credit for what was done. There are paper trails the lead many from across the sea to here and for some a paper trail leading back home.

I challenge anyone that loves this so called mystery to begin to assemble your own data begining with the time and man power and how the charges would have been set and to work your theory from the inside out. Which ever camp your in for detonation charges or natural collapse after jet impact, your going to find out building a solid theory from the inside out much more difficult then coming from the opposite direction.
Good luck!

scott3x

11-23-08, 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by Headspin
what does bush have to do with anything?

After 9/11 and just before the Bush administration went after Iraq, the administration was setting the blame of the twin towers destruction on the door step of terrorists, then a second theory began to gain momentum that Bush had secretly destroyed the towers to have a reason to invade Iraq and to chase terrorists where ever they fled so the US could geographically expand itself into countries we had never set a military foot print in. Not by invitation at least.

True.

My reply was two fold for the Bush theory and the terrorist theory.

I liked it anyway :-).

My point remains the same. Attack this equation from the outside going in and you will never prove a single thing. Like the squib debate. Anyone realize that squibs will happen between different floors as a building collapses upon itself regardless if detonations are used or are not used? In doubt? Google building demolitions. Find a nice tall building they are pancaking. Find out which floors had charges and which floors did not. Guess what? Squibs happen on detonated floors and floors not detonated during a pancake collapse. That alone puts a dent in the theory that the twin tower squibs HAD to be caused by demolition charges.

Not so fast. The problem here is that squibs can be seen -way- below the collapse point. What's more, the squibs in the WTC buildings were fast ones and it may be that air alone may not be able to produce those.

My main point is that any time you plan something on a large scale and you are going to need the recruitment of more then half a dozen people and what is happening is to be held in the strictest of secrecy on threat of death, someone ALWAYS talks.

Indeed. Let's assume, for a second, that 9/11 really was an inside job. Do you really think they would mind killing one more to keep themselves out of trouble? A certain source who apparently had foreknowledge that the twin towers would come down 11 months before they did certainly thinks so:
Investigative Reporter Breaks Israeli 9/11 Foreknowledge (http://www.infowars.net/articles/december2006/071206Haas.htm)

scott3x

11-23-08, 11:03 PM

This post is in response to psikeyhackr's post 2160 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2081320&postcount=2160) in the 9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!).

Originally Posted by scott3x
I personally don't find it necessary although it certainly would be nice to have such information; if it would convince one more person that a controlled demolition took place, it would have been worthwhile to find out.

On the other hand, some people have now gotten to the point where they simply don't care who was responsible.

But engineering schools still have to teach physics. That is what I don't get about the so called Truth Movement. Why stand on the street trying to convince regular people? Why not embarass the engineering schools in front of their students that scored in the top 5% on the SAT?

I have to wonder what those kids think of this stuff. Ever heard about the MIT students and Ringworld in 1971?

Well, you make take heart in what one -particular- MIT student thinks about it. He's no longer a 'kid' though ;):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnVIogawlmk

alaska1976

11-24-08, 05:25 PM

psikeyhackr

11-24-08, 06:50 PM

I just had a bit of fun with the JREFers

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4224042

:) :D :)

psik

scott3x

11-24-08, 06:58 PM

"Not so fast. The problem here is that squibs can be seen -way- below the collapse point. What's more, the squibs in the WTC buildings were fast ones and it may be that air alone may not be able to produce those."

I watched many of the movies of the collapsing towers. There were squibs I agree. But what I saw were to few squibs for at least 20 pillers that would have exploded simutaneously or one after another. In one film two squibs were accounted for an entire side.
Squibs don't have a case. Many squibs are normally produced from many charges going off on many floors of a multi-story building that was gutted and pancaked.

I guess in the end we may have to agree to disagree. I don't know how many squibs were on any particular side. All I know is that both Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, 9/11 Research and Steven Jones all concur that the squibs were clear evidence of a controlled demolition and that the arguments that NIST made to explain them away as air are simply false. Steven Jones goes into more detail regarding the squibs on WTC 7in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)":
******************************
4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.
******************************

alaska1976

11-25-08, 11:10 AM

I guess in the end we may have to agree to disagree. I don't know how many squibs were on any particular side. All I know is that both Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, 9/11 Research and Steven Jones all concur that the squibs were clear evidence of a controlled demolition and that the arguments that NIST made to explain them away as air are simply false. Steven Jones goes into more detail regarding the squibs on WTC 7in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)":

http://www.biggerblast.com/
The above is another link for building demolition. The initial blasts ALWAYS comes from the bottom of the building. That is just a simple fact that works with gravity. Not all of the above floors are even set with charges. Demolition companies know that the building will literally destroy itself once it begins to collapse after the initial blasts begin from the bottom going up. There are close ups of the first tower collapsing. They were standing at the base where the biggest blast should have torn them to sherds followed by successive blasts going up the floors. Those blasts were not recorded on any videos. What we have missing in the collapse of the world trade towers that baffel the truth seekers who believe in a conspiricy is that prior to each tower collapse, there were NO huge blasts, working up from the bottom of the towers to their tops. At least no NORMAL explosions that happen in 99% of all building collapses that are as small as ten floors.
The explosion on the bottom floors are the most explosive to cause a collapse of the building upon itself.
In the towers scenairo, a blast of smoke at the bottom happened AFTER the top began to collapse. Debunkos for the truth can't explain that. They try but their explanations really make no sense.

MacGyver1968

11-25-08, 12:15 PM

http://www.biggerblast.com/
The above is another link for building demolition. The initial blasts ALWAYS comes from the bottom of the building. That is just a simple fact that works with gravity. Not all of the above floors are even set with charges. Demolition companies know that the building will literally destroy itself once it begins to collapse after the initial blasts begin from the bottom going up. There are close ups of the first tower collapsing. They were standing at the base where the biggest blast should have torn them to sherds followed by successive blasts going up the floors. Those blasts were not recorded on any videos. What we have missing in the collapse of the world trade towers that baffel the truth seekers who believe in a conspiricy is that prior to each tower collapse, there were NO huge blasts, working up from the bottom of the towers to their tops. At least no NORMAL explosions that happen in 99% of all building collapses that are as small as ten floors.
The explosion on the bottom floors are the most explosive to cause a collapse of the building upon itself.
In the towers scenairo, a blast of smoke at the bottom happened AFTER the top began to collapse. Debunkos for the truth can't explain that. They try but their explanations really make no sense.

Welcome Alaska...We'll have none of that common sense around here! :)

In all of those demolition videos...you always hear the charges go off BEFORE the building starts to collapse. I wonder why we don't hear anything on the video tape of the WTC just before it starts to collapse?...nothing...nada...buttkiss...zip. I'm sure they have an explanation for that one. :)

scott3x

11-25-08, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I guess in the end we may have to agree to disagree. I don't know how many squibs were on any particular side. All I know is that both Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, 9/11 Research and Steven Jones all concur that the squibs were clear evidence of a controlled demolition and that the arguments that NIST made to explain them away as air are simply false. Steven Jones goes into more detail regarding the squibs on WTC 7in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?":...

http://www.biggerblast.com/
The above is another link for building demolition. The initial blasts ALWAYS comes from the bottom of the building. That is just a simple fact that works with gravity. Not all of the above floors are even set with charges. Demolition companies know that the building will literally destroy itself once it begins to collapse after the initial blasts begin from the bottom going up.

Actually, I once saw one where it was started at the top; unusual but it has been done before. I don't have the link for it right now though. However, no one has ever said that it's not possible to start from the top. More complicated, yes, but if you want to fool people into thinking that the planes collapsed the building, quite necessary. WTC 7 was brought down in normal demolition style.

There are close ups of the first tower collapsing. They were standing at the base where the biggest blast should have torn them to shreds followed by successive blasts going up the floors.

Should have according to whom?

Those blasts were not recorded on any videos.

Blast sounds -were- recorded prior to the collapse of the towers. Again, I don't have them on me right now but they certainly exist.

What we have missing in the collapse of the world trade towers that baffle the truth seekers who believe in a conspiracy is that prior to each tower collapse, there were NO huge blasts, working up from the bottom of the towers to their tops.

9/11 Research certainly doesn't think that the towers were brought down by basement explosions. However, while they may not have brought the towers down, there -were- documented cases of basement blasts:
New Eyewitness To WTC Basement Level Explosions (http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/new_eyewitness_wtc_basement_level_explosions.htm)

At least no NORMAL explosions that happen in 99% of all building collapses that are as small as ten floors.

I know of no one who believes that the demolitions of the twin towers were normal demolitions. Only that, while unusual demolitions, they were still definitely demolitions.

The explosion on the bottom floors are the most explosive to cause a collapse of the building upon itself.
In the towers scenario, a blast of smoke at the bottom happened AFTER the top began to collapse. Debunkers for the truth can't explain that. They try but their explanations really make no sense.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here...

scott3x

11-25-08, 01:41 PM

Welcome Alaska...We'll have none of that common sense around here! :)

In all of those demolition videos...you always hear the charges go off BEFORE the building starts to collapse. I wonder why we don't hear anything on the video tape of the WTC just before it starts to collapse?...nothing...nada...buttkiss...zip. I'm sure they have an explanation for that one. :)

It has been argued, and I agree with this argument, that what people think is the simple rumbling of the towers falling down also included the noise of the explosives going off. I agree that it was done in such a way as to be different from normal demolitions, wherein you hear a lot of loud cracks, but the fact that it was quieter just means that they would have had to use quieter then normal explosives.

MacGyver1968

11-25-08, 02:18 PM

Quieter explosives?!?!? LOL!!!! Your too funny sometimes Scott. :)

scott3x

11-25-08, 02:20 PM

Quieter explosives?!?!? LOL!!!! Your too funny sometimes Scott. :)

What's wrong with my theory :-)? Thermate is actually relatively quiet I believe.

alaska1976

11-25-08, 06:39 PM

alaska1976

11-25-08, 06:40 PM

It has been argued, and I agree with this argument, that what people think is the simple rumbling of the towers falling down also included the noise of the explosives going off. I agree that it was done in such a way as to be different from normal demolitions, wherein you hear a lot of loud cracks, but the fact that it was quieter just means that they would have had to use quieter then normal explosives.

Excellent reasoning Scott even if it is a bit out past left field.

scott3x

11-25-08, 08:28 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
It has been argued, and I agree with this argument, that what people think is the simple rumbling of the towers falling down also included the noise of the explosives going off. I agree that it was done in such a way as to be different from normal demolitions, wherein you hear a lot of loud cracks, but the fact that it was quieter just means that they would have had to use quieter then normal explosives.

Excellent reasoning Scott even if it is a bit out past left field.

I admit I'm going a bit out on a limb concerning this particular point. This is one that has puzzled me in regards to the controlled demolition theory. I think I heard that thermate is quieter then conventional explosives, but believe you me, I'd like some confirmation.

However, I would argue that this is but one point. I believe that the vast majority of the evidence would suggest that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition, as I believe I've made fairly clear on my web site:
Controlled Demolition of the WTC buildings (http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/index.html)

Ofcourse, I still have to add material. The thing just takes forever. I finally got past KennyJC's post 32 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2090300&postcount=32) anyway...

scott3x

11-25-08, 09:31 PM

This post is in response to part of shaman_'s post 87 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2094786&postcount=87).

Originally Posted by scott3x
Just to make sure that we're arguing about the same thing, here's the relevant excerpt of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."

He is claiming 2 things:
1- NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C.

No he wasn’t.

Ultimately, this particular issue isn't so important, although I would greatly appreciate it if either Headspin or psikeyhacker could confirm your perspective on this.

Originally Posted by scott3x
2- That this is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. If he's claiming this...

No it isn’t. The jet fuel alone is three times that temperature.

It's one thing for the jet fuel to achieve temperatures 3 times as high for a few minutes. It's quite another for the WTC steel to get anywhere near that temperature. This issue is the truly important one.

alaska1976

11-25-08, 09:47 PM

"I believe that the vast majority of the evidence would suggest that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolition,"

I hope Scott that you understand that by believing that controlled demolitions were used and maybe even 'quiet' charges were used, you now have to come back to the origin of the story and re-explain what kind of a terrorist is a 'careful' terrorist? We have Bin-Laden and his crew holding up hands that they did it. We have photos and paper trails of his people mixed in the destruction of the towers from conception to explosion. When have you ever heard of Bin-Laden accepting terroristic responsibility for something he did not do? I know of nothing. If you accept that Bin-Laden did do it, you have to forgo all the theories explaining he didn't do it and that messes with a great mystery.
That would leave the story as the commission left it; jets collided, caused massive destruction, weakened at least several floors and who knows how many more and when the multiple damaged floors could not uphold the weight of the upper floors, it pancaked.

Orrrrrr.....you can go with the 'nice guy' terroristic theory that someone in charge of dozens to hundreds of people working close to a ten year period rigged three buildings to pancake collapse after being hit by jets to do minimal damage so Americans would get pissed and blame would be leveled at Bin-Laden and then a reason to go 'terrorist hunting' would allow a president to do what no president had did before, to set the American military where it has been the most unwelcomed and the most hated in the world.

Headspin

11-26-08, 06:12 AM

This post is in response to part of shaman_'s post 87.
“ Originally Posted by shaman_
Originally Posted by scott3x “ Just to make sure that we're arguing about the same thing, here's the relevant excerpt of Kevin Ryan's letter to NIST's Frank Gayle:
"Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."

He is claiming 2 things:
1- NIST's Frank Gayle, who led the 2004 investigation, is the one who was suggesting that steel temperatures were probably only exposed to temperatures of about 500F/250C. ”

No he wasn’t. ”

Ultimately, this particular issue isn't so important, although I would greatly appreciate it if either Headspin or psikeyhacker could confirm your perspective on this.

Letter sent by site manager Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories (UL certified the wtc steel components) to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigating the wtc collapse:

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
4. http://web.archive.org/web/20031128025514/http://voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
-------------------

page 6
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

"Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels"

page 12 : "Of the more than 170 areas examined on the exterior panels, only
three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel may
have reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC."

the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.

Headspin

11-26-08, 06:28 AM

We have Bin-Laden and his crew holding up hands that they did it. was that the video of bin laden talking in arabic?
"all-el aq ba taqaauaa halal <strokes beard> haqafar mesideina world trade centre al-el paqsi"

We have photos and paper trails of his people mixed in the destruction of the towers from conception to explosion. the passport that survived beautifully intact from a terrorist pocket through the fireball?

When have you ever heard of Bin-Laden accepting terroristic responsibility for something he did not do? when have you heard of a terrorist denying he did it, then later (allegedly) claim that he did?

thecollage

11-26-08, 07:18 AM

it was brought down as a safety measure to avoid any collateral damage. all buildings have that in place. nobody ever talks about it because of the fear factor.

scott3x

11-26-08, 08:24 AM

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

...Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
4. http://web.archive.org/web/20031128025514/http://voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan
-------------------

page 6
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf

"Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped) saw no temperature T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels"

page 12 : "Of the more than 170 areas examined on the exterior panels, only three locations had a positive result indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 ºC."

the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.

Thanks a bundle Headspin :-)

alaska1976

11-26-08, 11:31 AM

scott3x

11-26-08, 01:37 PM

alaska1976

11-26-08, 02:58 PM

I've already seen atleast one flaw in the video, but before I go on about such things, there have been some things I've been curious about concerning yourself.

For starters, why the icon of the goofy looking polar bear :-p? Are you an alaskan born in 1976 fond of watching the furry creatures?

:) lolol.....Thats the way Polar bears cross ice they sense is to thin to walk on. Makes the odds of breaking through much less then walking on all fours. I just like the number 76. I have been an Alaskan since 1977 having relocated from Montana when 19. The long nights suck from November to January but the long day light hours from May to August, nothing beats watching the sun set at 11pm or watching it rise at 3am. ;)

All the films used for theory have flaws. But the one showing actual internal collapse where the side of the tower between floors is actually buckling in wards, you can't get away from evidence like that. It shows metal has weakened from heat and is buckling. That is the metal structure buckling, not the concrete floor.
They said the heat of the fire never got hot enough to melt any steel. Yet there is a video of the second tower before collapsing that shows molten metal running out of a hole on it's very corner in a small river like flow just like you would see it being poured from a bucket at a steel or iron plant.

Headspin

11-26-08, 04:39 PM

"Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel."

I would ask anyone famaliar with the WTC films to watch the films I have a links for. Forget the words of the commentator. He is against any 9/11 conspiricy. But, he has put together much 'factual' photographic evidence for anyone to chew on to make their own opinion upon. Do watch carefully the points of the mathmatics and angles showing the actual weaknesses in the buildings.
Then decide if the steel could not have been weakened sufficiently by the jet fuel and other accelerants especially in building 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8&feature=related
The author of those videos lost all credibility a long time ago, in fact he is regarded as a total joke by most people.
Almost everything he says in his videos are provable falsehoods.
his usual method is to state speculation and unsupoorted assertions as facts, and he frequently disappears from discussions when challenged. The last time I challenged him he said (before disappearing) that the dust clouds from the twin towers knocked off the fireproofing in building 7 :bugeye:

Look at his opening line for a perfect example of how he lies by obfuscation:
"conspiracy theorists attack the official NIST report by insisting fire doesn't melt steel.....this is a straw man argument. The NIST report does not (nor did it ever make the claim that the steel melted.

err, hello!!...the claim isn't that NIST reported melted steel, the claim is actually that the steel did melt and that NIST didn't report it.

"weakened sufficiently by the jet fuel and other accelerants especially in building 7." - eh? there was no jet fuel in wtc7 and the diesel was fully recovered from the tanks. Diesel did not contribute to the fire - even NIST acknowledge this. it seems you have fallen for the old speculation=fact ploy.

alaska1976

11-26-08, 06:51 PM

"weakened sufficiently by the jet fuel and other accelerants especially in building 7."

That was a two part sentence referencing the jet fuel and other accelerants aiding in the fires of the twin towers. The reference to building 7 was the movie showing a partial collapse before the entire collapse of building 7.

When I go to both pro and con sites, I don't accept much of the talk except to see what their opinions are. What I look at is the evidence they both use because of all the evidence out there, one camp won't show certain pictures, films etc., if it is damaging to their theory and vice-versa for the other camp. So I find going to both camps gives me total access to all the evidence a single camp will not always include.
The fact of building 7 is that it had at least three huge containers of diesel fuel to run the building. If you look at how the building was built, you can see the possibility with some intense heat how it POSSIBLY could have fell.
The 9/11 mystery is like the Kennedy assination in Dallas.....their are dozens of theories and of them several good ones but in the end, it always comes down to a single explanation even with questions unanswered.

In this link go to minute 1:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w The camp of 9/11 conspiricy rarely likes to address the buckling issue because they then have to give their own explanations for what a buckling of a couple floors like that would do to hundreds of tons of weight above it and how that upper weight could effect the lower building if a collapse happened. Explaining the normal physics of that factual setting takes a little bit away from the "bomb theory" they claim brought the whole building down.
About the charges again. In building demolition explosions happen three ways...#1. Top to bottom....#2. Bottom to top.....#3. All at the same time. If you view building demolition sites, you will note that close case explosives (big effect, minimal blast) still leave huge plumes of dust jetting from the floors the explosives were set on. In none of the films or pictures of the three buildings that collapsed on 9/11 even remotely produced any explosive plumes except for a squib here and there.

Headspin

11-27-08, 06:54 AM

partial collapse before the entire collapse of building 7.The east penthouse collapse is not in dispute, i do not see how this rules out demolition, nor do i see where it strengthens the case for collapse due to fire.

The fact of building 7 is that it had at least three huge containers of diesel fuel to run the building. If you look at how the building was built, you can see the possibility with some intense heat how it POSSIBLY could have fell.The diesel tanks were located below ground, they were found to be near full during cleanup. The generators and fuel lines could not have provided fuel to cause a fire induced collapse, the air temperatures from such a fire would have caused failure of the generators - therefore no diesel! - page 25:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

The 9/11 mystery is like the Kennedy assination in Dallas.....their are dozens of theories and of them several good ones but in the end, it always comes down to a single explanation even with questions unanswered.
53 witnessess state a shot came from the grassey knoll, none say the book depository. "I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence" - Jean Hill.
kennedy was shot in the face, not the back of the head - watch the darn zepruder footage!
Oswald was military intelligence.
That is all you need.
Endless discussion only suits those who want the facts covered up.

In this link go to minute 1:40. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w The camp of 9/11 conspiricy rarely likes to address the buckling issue because they then have to give their own explanations for what a buckling of a couple floors like that would do to hundreds of tons of weight above it and how that upper weight could effect the lower building if a collapse happened.cause and effect - was the sagging floor the cause of the collapse? or was it an effect of the collapse?

If the sagging floor was the cause of the collapse then how does it explain the inward bowing of perimeter columns?
Before the floor sagged, thermal expansion would have exherted a force outwards on the columns. since there was no bowing outwards, we can deduce that the perimeter columns resisted the thermal expansion of the floors. Thermal expansion is a much greater force than any force due to sagging, so we are asked to believe the columns failed from a weak force (sagging) yet resisted a greater force (thermal expansion). By my crude calculation thermal expansion would have produced 20 inches of expansion at 500C.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-01/msg00079.html

Consider that the sagging and buckling of the perimeter columns was an effect of the collapse. What would happen if the core failed and pulled the tower downwards (the core carried the majority of the load).
Wouldn't that pull in the perimeter columns due to the fact that the core was connected to the perimeter via the floors. Now you have to explain what caused the massively interconnected box column core to collapse. fire?

scott3x

11-27-08, 09:52 AM

...By my crude calculation thermal expansion would have produced 20 inches of expansion at 500C.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-01/msg00079.html

Consider that the sagging and buckling of the perimeter columns was an effect of the collapse. What would happen if the core failed and pulled the tower downwards (the core carried the majority of the load).
Wouldn't that pull in the perimeter columns due to the fact that the core was connected to the perimeter via the floors. Now you have to explain what caused the massively interconnected box column core to collapse. fire?

Thank god you and psikey are here. I do my best, but this math stuff is where I flounder :-).

alaska1976

11-27-08, 07:18 PM

The east penthouse collapse is not in dispute, i do not see how this rules out demolition, nor do i see where it strengthens the case for collapse due to fire.
Reply #1. Of building 7, no blasts, no squibs, no blast smoke was seen coming from the upper floors as it collapsed which would have showed charges brought the building down. Not even in the film of the fireman walking away was a blast recorded coming out of the building, severing the three main trusses that held the building up. They heard a noise, a rumbling and ran.

The diesel tanks were located below ground, they were found to be near full during cleanup. The generators and fuel lines could not have provided fuel to cause a fire induced collapse, the air temperatures from such a fire would have caused failure of the generators - therefore no diesel! - page 25:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
#2. Actually the diesel tanks were below and above ground.

53 witnessess state a shot came from the grassey knoll, none say the book depository. "I saw a man fire from behind the wooden fence" - Jean Hill.
kennedy was shot in the face, not the back of the head - watch the darn zepruder footage!
Oswald was military intelligence.
That is all you need.
Endless discussion only suits those who want the facts covered up.
#3. As I said, many theories but no absolute proof.

cause and effect - was the sagging floor the cause of the collapse? or was it an effect of the collapse?
If the sagging floor was the cause of the collapse then how does it explain the inward bowing of perimeter columns?
Before the floor sagged, thermal expansion would have exherted a force outwards on the columns. since there was no bowing outwards, we can deduce that the perimeter columns resisted the thermal expansion of the floors. Thermal expansion is a much greater force than any force due to sagging, so we are asked to believe the columns failed from a weak force (sagging) yet resisted a greater force (thermal expansion). By my crude calculation thermal expansion would have produced 20 inches of expansion at 500C.
http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2008-01/msg00079.html

Consider that the sagging and buckling of the perimeter columns was an effect of the collapse. What would happen if the core failed and pulled the tower downwards (the core carried the majority of the load).
Wouldn't that pull in the perimeter columns due to the fact that the core was connected to the perimeter via the floors. Now you have to explain what caused the massively interconnected box column core to collapse. fire?

#4. I use to braze. I understand about fire and metal. In the one film I saw where a small river of molten metal was running out of the corner of a tower, onto the street level far below, that told me the metal within the building we could not see in all probability had reached not only a weakening point so the metal was bending but had reached a melting point, finding it's way to lower floors to do more structural damage.
You take 3 to 6 damaged floors, pillars and trusses weakend and damaged and severed and let one or two of those middle floors break apart due to damage with hundreds of thousands of tons above begining to come down and the effect is going to be pretty natural. Depending on how much damage was done to the lower floors (which apparently was alot) would show how the building would possibly fall (as it did). But in consideration of how the top section seemed to disintegrate on it's way down I think reveals more damage was done to the integrity of the two towers of the upper floors and lower floors then was considered by most.
The collapsing of the damaged floors was enough to allow gravity to do the rest.
I would actually like to see the 'terrorists' theory come to be as it would explain much but at present, that is not the case. So I will go the way of the jets till proof positive is shown either way.

KennyJC

11-28-08, 01:21 AM

the passport that survived beautifully intact from a terrorist pocket through the fireball?

How long would it have been in a fireball? I know that you are a truther, but even you must realize that for something to burned, it has to have prolonged exposure.

KennyJC

11-28-08, 01:23 AM

it was brought down as a safety measure to avoid any collateral damage. all buildings have that in place. nobody ever talks about it because of the fear factor.

lol, you people are goofy.

KennyJC

11-28-08, 01:28 AM

It's one thing for the jet fuel to achieve temperatures 3 times as high for a few minutes. It's quite another for the WTC steel to get anywhere near that temperature. This issue is the truly important one.

Once again Scott, you are covering your eyes and ears on this issue to keep your pathetic fantasy going.

I have shown you tests in which steel supports reached a temperature of 1000c in 40 minutes. This wasn't in a furnace, but a regular office fire.

So you don't get to pretend like this is a big mystery, because it's not.

Headspin

11-28-08, 05:32 AM

#4. I use to braze. I understand about fire and metal. In the one film I saw where a small river of molten metal was running out of the corner of a tower, onto the street level far below, that told me the metal within the building we could not see in all probability had reached not only a weakening point so the metal was bending but had reached a melting point, finding it's way to lower floors to do more structural damage.how did the fire reach a high enough temperature to melt the steel into a liquid? the consensus is that the steel could not have melted due to the fire. fire experiments confirm this too. steel is melted in a blast furnace with pure oxygen pumped in. these conditions were not possible in the wtc.

I would actually like to see the 'terrorists' theory come to be as it would explain much but at present, that is not the case. So I will go the way of the jets till proof positive is shown either way.Professor Steven Jones has analysed the "dust" and found the chemical fingerprint of thermite at the nano, the micro and the macro level. He has also claimed to have found unreacted nanothermite, a high tech explosive which releases immense heat way above the melting temperature of steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCqsIgCcZQ
further analysis of the red chips has shown the composition of the red chips to be less than 25 nanometers, confirming the substance to be nanothermite.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/Why_Indeed_Did_the_WTC_Buildings_Completely_Collap se_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APCPCS000845000001001006000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

shaman_

11-28-08, 10:47 PM

shaman_

11-28-08, 11:07 PM

The list of architects and engineers, complete with their numbers and addresses is far from meaningless. They can be verified easily enough. All you need is a phone. If they weren't behind it, I sincerely don't believe that they'd risk revealing so much about themselves. As to why they aren't writing papers for engineering magazines, are you sure none of them are? Simply because you or I haven't heard of it doesn't mean they haven't done it. I think it's understandable if few have done so, however. For one, why reinvent the wheel? The founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, Richard Gage, was initially struck by the evidence that noted 9/11 author David Ray Griffin had gathered. Kevin Ryan had also begun to talk to David Ray Griffin and in fact allowed him to publish a copy of the letter that he'd sent to Frank Gayle's NIST before he was fired for writing said letter. Kevin Ryan has worked with Steven Jones on atleast one paper. Architects and Engineers also relies on Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page. In other words, all of these people are essentially working -together-. I know. It is the blind leading the blind.

You must be looking at a list that includes people who aren't architects and engineers. The more then 500 architects and enginers can be seen here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_No check the site. There are more than 500 "architectural and engineering professionals". They have padded those numbers up with software developers, chemists, electrical engineers, urban activists.

psikeyhackr

11-28-08, 11:14 PM

What would happen if the core failed and pulled the tower downwards (the core carried the majority of the load).

Where does that come from?

The NCSTAR1 report says it was a 53% to 47% ratio, almost equal. But the perimeter columns had the higher overload capacity because there were so many of them.

psik

shaman_

11-28-08, 11:15 PM

the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.That is correct. However very few of the samples came from the area of the impacts.

There is still plenty of evidence to confidently say that the temperatures went well over 250C.

The fires in building four caused warping to the steel. Explosives? Thermite?

shaman_

11-28-08, 11:25 PM

A certain title aside, I think they're fairly good.

In the case of the one titled "9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush", I regretted the title, as it makes it seem like Marvin was running the show at the time of 9/11. I liked the article for other elements, but the title was admittedly misleading as there is no evidence that he played a part in its security on 9/11.

You taken a good look at the link you just pointed to though? Here's an interesting excerpt:
"Company stock became worthless after the company's de-listing. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000, but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold." So you think he is implicated in the super conspiracy of bombs and megathermite because he was a shareholder in the security company responsible for WTC? That is a desperate attempt to make a link. Think about it.

Don't you think the claim should be further investigated instead of buried under the rug simply because only one person mentioned it? The claim appears to have no substance to it. No I don’t think it should be investigated.

As to it only being made about one tower, perhaps they only needed to do some last minute touches on that one tower. Trying to second guess why a super secretive inside job team would have done every particular little thing is a next to impossible task. I'm simply pointing out that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. But there isn’t sufficient evidence. Your idea of sufficient evidence appears to be anything that you read on the internet.

But Scott you are missing something very important. The (shaky) claim is that only one tower had the power down. So the other tower which collapsed fell due to the fires and structural damage? If one did then why not the other?

911 review is a conspiracy debunker site; Oh. I’ve never looked at it before.

At times, it's difficult to know what one knows and what one doesn't know. In this type of a case, it's helpful to have someone who doesn't take your word for granted. Clearly, it would be peachy if David Ray Griffin could be here to defend his logic, but he's not and I admit that I can't make his case for him this time around.I’m sure he could contribute to this forum - http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22

psikeyhackr

11-28-08, 11:27 PM

In any case, the majority of concrete that was used in the WTC was very thin, and thus, very easily broken down.

The problem with the concrete is there are so many different stories. Some sources which existed before 9/11 say there were a total of 425,000 cubic yards in the towers. That would come to 280,000 tons of the lightweight type in just one tower. Now obviously they would want to avoid putting a lot of concrete high up in the towers but there had to be a hell of a lot in the foundation and there were SIX basement levels. So why don't we have numbers specified for every level? Why are we supposed to believe that this is difficult information to get?

psik

scott3x

11-28-08, 11:52 PM

alaska1976

11-29-08, 02:28 AM

how did the fire reach a high enough temperature to melt the steel into a liquid? the consensus is that the steel could not have melted due to the fire. fire experiments confirm this too. steel is melted in a blast furnace with pure oxygen pumped in. these conditions were not possible in the wtc.

Your missing the fact that was filmed by the media in a coptor of the second tower that shows melted, liquid, metal, running out of the corner like slow running water from a fawcet.
You can toss any link from any professor you want from either camp that says the metal of the buildings did not melt prior to the towers collapsing. But the footage of the film of the second tower before collapse factually shows the fires had became hot enough to melt the metal used in the structure of that tower prior to it's collapse.
Thus if film footage shows metal from within the tower was melting and running out of it and onto the street below, it is very safe and very logical to believe that the heat of the fires had also weakened the metal framing enough to cause inner dammage so the framing holding up the concrete floors caved in.
That caving in/collapsing was the initial blast heard of the upper floors collapsing onto the damaged floors giving into the destruction caused to them.

Headspin

11-29-08, 06:35 AM

This is for headspin who asked to see some debunking of Steven Jones' claims.

Several documents regarding thermite
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept

Debunks Jones’ paper Why Indeed Did the blah blah
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones%27hypothesesbydavero

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Addresses the early claims of Thermite
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones%27thermitethermateclaims

Jones’ claims in general.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Ryan Mackey’s document is a response to David Ray Griffin, but he repeats most of Jones’ claims. Thermite is brought up many times.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

This is a good summary of Jones claims over the years.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4157113&postcount=1

What does "debunk" mean?
It means to expose as false, to disprove.

None of those links provide anything that disproves Jones work.
I said originally that i have not seen any debunking of Jones work. I cannot find anything in those links that show Jones work to be false. It didn't take long to encounter the usual politically driven rhetoric, distortions and ad hominem arguments.

What you have there is everything that has ever been offered as criticism with no regard to integrity. If you think Jones work is bunk, it should be easy to present a clear case.

shaman_

11-29-08, 06:57 AM

Your missing the fact that was filmed by the media in a coptor of the second tower that shows melted, liquid, metal, running out of the corner like slow running water from a fawcet.
You can toss any link from any professor you want from either camp that says the metal of the buildings did not melt prior to the towers collapsing. But the footage of the film of the second tower before collapse factually shows the fires had became hot enough to melt the metal used in the structure of that tower prior to it's collapse.
Thus if film footage shows metal from within the tower was melting and running out of it and onto the street below, it is very safe and very logical to believe that the heat of the fires had also weakened the metal framing enough to cause inner dammage so the framing holding up the concrete floors caved in.
That caving in/collapsing was the initial blast heard of the upper floors collapsing onto the damaged floors giving into the destruction caused to them.Or it could be aluminium from the planes. There was tons of the stuff in the building.

This is particularly more likely if the flow of molten material is near the impact point. The sagging of the floors would have caused it to flow out.

shaman_

11-29-08, 07:11 AM

What does "debunk" mean?
It means to expose as false, to disprove. . None of those links provide anything that disproves Jones work. Those articles point out just how flawed, idiotic, and at times dishonest, his claims are.

I said originally that i have not seen any debunking of Jones work. I cannot find anything in those links that show Jones work to be false. You read them right? Or like a Christian reading about the mechanisms behind evolution did you just know that they were wrong before reading them… which you may not have actually done.

It didn't take long to encounter the usual politically driven rhetoric, distortions and ad hominem arguments. Some of the articles are more professional than others. Only a few resort to ad hominem.

What you have there is everything that has ever been offered as criticism with no regard to integrity. If you think Jones work is bunk, it should be easy to present a clear case.It’s there if you want to see it.:shrug:

Headspin

11-29-08, 07:21 AM

yes I have read most of them over the last few years. I don't intend to read them again. It is also not necessary to read the entirety of the big documents after one encounters blatant falsehoods.

do you know how many times i have encountered people using the "its like intelligent design" argument without seeming to realise it is not a valid argument.

shaman_

11-29-08, 07:24 AM

do you know how many times i have encountered people using the "its like intelligent design" argument without seeming to realise it is not a valid argument.four times?

scott3x

11-29-08, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Headspin
do you know how many times i have encountered people using the "its like intelligent design" argument without seeming to realise it is not a valid argument.

four times?

I think the conversation has veered just a -tad- off the topic at hand. In the next day or 2, I'll try to update my web site a bit with all the information that people have brought to it regarding particular sub topics atleast. My hope is that I'll be able to present the latest counters (from either side) and we can get back to the meat of the matter. I just realized I've passed the 1000 post mark (yay me :-p).

Cyperium

11-29-08, 09:14 AM

Found a good excerpt that refutes the notion that the planes and fires brought down the twin towers:
*************************
The Strength of Steel Frame Structures

For those who want us to imagine that the Towers "collapsed", the assumption that they "fell" on their own is a critical part of the story. But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own, with or without an office fire, or even from the impact of a falling portion of the same building. If impacted from above, the Towers might bend or distort, but they wouldn't explode, disintegrate in mid-air, or collapse like a house of cards!

Anyone who's ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural members remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted if it falls to the floor, but it will never just collapse into pieces under any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional forces. Buildings that have fallen in earthquakes demonstrate this resistance to disintegration.

http://www.truememes.com/semantics_files/image009.jpg
*************************
http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html

For a more detailed analysis of why collapses had to have been demolitions, feel free to visit my web page on the subject:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/Those buildings weren't that massive compared to the twin towers. Something the size of the twin towers can't tip, it will only collapse upon itself, think about it, if it started tipping at any place of the building it would not be able to maintain structure.

- if reality proves different than your ideas, trust reality.

leopold99

11-29-08, 10:42 AM

the passport that survived beautifully intact from a terrorist pocket through the fireball?

there were reams of paper that were blown out of the hole the plane made, the very same hole that had the huge fireball coming out of it.
quite a few of those pages made their way to new jersey without any signs of being burnt.

shaman_

11-29-08, 10:46 AM

Also found was a seat cushion and a life vest.

http://www.pbase.com/peteburke73/image/1459719/medium

psikeyhackr

11-29-08, 02:08 PM

Perhaps it's not so difficult. I'm a bit confounded as to why you haven't responded to this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2100010&postcount=150).

Some people like Frank Greening try to explain the energy requirement for disintegration with the Potential Energy of the building. I emailed Richard Gage and Greening about that in June of 2002.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

Frank Greening is Apollo20 on JREF I have not seen him respond to that yet.

psik

scott3x

11-29-08, 04:34 PM

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 188 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104871&postcount=188) in this thread.

Originally Posted by Headspin
the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.

That is correct. However very few of the samples came from the area of the impacts.

There is still plenty of evidence to confidently say that the temperatures went well over 250C.

The fires in building four caused warping to the steel.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

Explosives? Thermite?

Perhaps. There's certainly a case for buildings 5 and 6 at any rate:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html

As a matter of fact, WTC 4 holds quite an unreported story, as 9/11 Research explains (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html):
****************************************
WTC 4 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. WTC 4's basement housed precious metal vaults, the apparent disappearance of most of whose billion-dollar contents has gone curiously unreported.
****************************************

scott3x

11-29-08, 05:00 PM

Some people like Frank Greening try to explain the energy requirement for disintegration with the Potential Energy of the building. I emailed Richard Gage and Greening about that in June of 2002.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667265&postcount=316

Frank Greening is Apollo20 on JREF I have not seen him respond to that yet.

psik

It seems you would like to see Jerry Russell's calculations. I have just emailed 9/11 Research asking if they could provide them to me for your sake or atleast provide me with a way to contact Jerry Russell directly.

shaman_

11-29-08, 09:19 PM

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 188 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104871&postcount=188) in this thread.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Actually it was WTC5 not WTC4. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/canofficefirescauselargesteelcolumnstobu

Why would it be such a surprise? It has demonstrated over and over that steel can weaken in normal fires, leading to collapse.

Perhaps. There's certainly a case for buildings 5 and 6 at any rate:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html Oh please. Some dust was seen and there are holes in the roof so explosives must have been used. :rolleyes: Right. 911research is a pitiful source for people not interested in thinking. So they loaded up 4 and 5 with invisible explosives to partially collapse them? Yeah Ok.

As a matter of fact, WTC 4 holds quite an unreported story, as 9/11 Research explains (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc4.html):
****************************************
WTC 4 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. WTC 4's basement housed precious metal vaults, the apparent disappearance of most of whose billion-dollar contents has gone curiously unreported.
****************************************Here is an analysis of those claims.

scott3x

11-29-08, 09:49 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
As a matter of fact, WTC 4 holds quite an unreported story, as 9/11 Research explains:
****************************************
WTC 4 was demolished as part of the clean-up of Ground Zero. WTC 4's basement housed precious metal vaults, the apparent disappearance of most of whose billion-dollar contents has gone curiously unreported.
****************************************

Here is an analysis of those claims.

I assume you meant of WTC 5. You've certainly made no analysis of WTC 4's missing millions. If you'd like to learn a bit more about that, you can go here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/gold.html

9/11 Research cites publications you probably trust, such as the New York Times.

shaman_

11-29-08, 09:58 PM

Well obviously I forgot to post the link.

http://www.911myths.com/loose_change_2nd_ed._a_critical_review_of_the_gold _story_segment.pdf

alaska1976

11-30-08, 01:36 AM

Or it could be aluminium from the planes. There was tons of the stuff in the building.

This is particularly more likely if the flow of molten material is near the impact point. The sagging of the floors would have caused it to flow out.

Good point. I had to look up information but the melting point of Aluminum is 1220.666 °F. That is plenty hot enough to affect steel and when there are hundreds of thousands of tons of weight above the sections of floor burning the inevitable is obvious.

leopold99

11-30-08, 02:43 AM

i've yet to see any verifiable videos of controlled demolitions where the buildings fell like WTC 1 and 2.
where's the evidence scott?

speaking of evidence,
have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

Headspin

11-30-08, 06:13 AM

i've yet to see any verifiable videos of controlled demolitions where the buildings fell like WTC 1 and 2.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2071575&postcount=1839

Headspin

11-30-08, 06:21 AM

Good point. I had to look up information but the melting point of Aluminum is 1220.666 °F. That is plenty hot enough to affect steel and when there are hundreds of thousands of tons of weight above the sections of floor burning the inevitable is obvious.
molten aluminium is silver, not yellow-orange. it's been dealt with here:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065349&postcount=1745

shaman_

11-30-08, 06:54 AM

Molten aluminum can be orange. Look at that video again. It is glowing as it pours out and when it hits the pan and cools it turns silver.

There were also quite possibly many other materials from the offices mixed in with that river of molten material flowing out of the building. So it is probably not pure aluminum anyway.

psikeyhackr

11-30-08, 09:49 AM

i've yet to see any verifiable videos of controlled demolitions where the buildings fell like WTC 1 and 2.
where's the evidence scott?

What does the word CONTROLLED mean?

In a NORMAL Controlled Demolition the objective is to MINIMIZE DAMAGE to all surrounding structures. This would require greater time and calculation to put the MINIMUM amount of explosive force in EXACTLY the right places. Whoever did this did not give a damn how much external damage was done so that is why tons of material hurled 600 feet into the Winter Garden. That is the flaw in the argument of people saying a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION takes a long time to set up. If you put in 5 or 10 times as much explosive power then placement isn't so critical.

Just because it was not controlled to accomplish the NORMAL objectives does not mean it was not CONTROLLED..

If you see a man drive a car into a tree you assume he was out of control because people don't normally do that. But if he did it deliberately then it was CONTROLLED.

This is one reason I prefer focusing on getting people to understand what an airliner COULD NOT POSSIBLY DO.

psik

scott3x

11-30-08, 11:17 AM

Molten aluminum can be orange. Look at that video again. It is glowing as it pours out and when it hits the pan and cools it turns silver.

I already dealt with that argument:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065357&postcount=1747

There were also quite possibly many other materials from the offices mixed in with that river of molten material flowing out of the building. So it is probably not pure aluminum anyway.

Quoting from 9/11 Research's article Reply to the National Institute for Standards and Technology's Answers to Frequently Asked Questions (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html):
***************************************
NIST's explanation for the orange color of the spout is dubious given that the various materials to whose combustion it attributes the orange glow would have been extremely unlikely to have remained mixed with molten aluminum to the degree needed to produce the homogeneous color seen in the videos.

Physicist Steven E. Jones has performed a number of experiments (http://911review.com/articles/jones/experiments_NIST_orange_glow_hypothesis.html) mixing various combustibles into molten aluminum. In all cases the aluminum exhibited its normal silvery color, while the added combustibles separated.
***************************************

fedr808

11-30-08, 12:54 PM

"Federline" wtf does that mean? Yah ive been on vacation in new york city for thanksgiving and im back. but still you haven't answered my question. How did ur pilots manage to hit where the explosives were placed so accurately. They wouldve had a fraction of a second to aim the plane accurately.

The reason i have the theory of explosives on a plane is this. One as i said above it is impossible to hit that exact spot precisely with human vision.Two, onboard explosives would eliminate the need for aiming the plane. Three, think about it, sneaking a bomb aboard the wtc that is very hard even if ur from government, it is significantly easier to sneak a bomb on a plane, specifically the cargo hold.

scott3x

11-30-08, 01:59 PM

"Federline" wtf does that mean?

Ah, ye of little tabloid knowledge :-p...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Federline

Yah i've been on vacation in new york city for thanksgiving and im back. but still you haven't answered my question.

You made no question in your previous response to me.

How did ur pilots manage to hit where the explosives were placed so accurately. They wouldve had a fraction of a second to aim the plane accurately.

I did actually answer that question, even though it wasn't asked in your previous response. From post 117 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098142&postcount=117):
******************************
"The Global Positioning System (GPS) is a space-based radio-navigation system that generates accurate positioning, navigation and timing information for civil use at no cost."

I'll give you a hint where you should focus your attention: accurate
******************************

The reason i have the theory of explosives on a plane is this. One as i said above it is impossible to hit that exact spot precisely with human vision.

From what I know, there is no evidence which suggests that the plane had to hit a precise spot, but furthermore, with what I've mentioned above, I believe it could have been fairly precise.

Two, onboard explosives would eliminate the need for aiming the plane.

Not unless the explosives on the plane include a nuke of some sort. You can't just take down a steel framed high rise with explosives in only one particular spot unless the blast is from a nuclear weapon. There have been arguments made that a nuclear weapon -was- used, but it certainly didn't go off when the plane hit. Lesser explosives may well have gone off at that time, but not nearly enough to bring the building down.

Three, think about it, sneaking a bomb aboard the wtc that is very hard even if ur from government

I never said the operation was an easy one. But there's a fair amount of evidence that those who had the capability to do it may well have done it:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2099339&postcount=137

it is significantly easier to sneak a bomb on a plane, specifically the cargo hold.

Sure. However, as I mentioned, unless the bombs were nukes, it simply couldn't have brought down the WTC buildings.

leopold99

11-30-08, 02:20 PM

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2071575&postcount=1839
not even close. wasn't steel, high rise, nor similar in construction, nor verifiable.

Headspin

11-30-08, 03:13 PM

i've yet to see any verifiable videos of controlled demolitions where the buildings fell like WTC 1 and 2.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2071575&postcount=1839
not even close. wasn't steel, high rise, nor similar in construction, nor verifiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/440000/images/_441529_brown150.jpg

scott3x

11-30-08, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by leopold99
Originally Posted by headspin
Originally Posted by leopold99
i've yet to see any verifiable videos of controlled demolitions where the buildings fell like WTC 1 and 2.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1839

not even close. wasn't steel, high rise, nor similar in construction, nor verifiable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/440000/images/_441529_brown150.jpg

I believe what Headspin is alluding to is that you're moving the goalpost :). Also, what do you mean that it's not verifiable? Even assuming that that video was faked (is that what you're alluding to), ofcourse it's verifiable. Costly, perhaps, but verifiable. Bulidings are taken down via controlled demolition on a fairly regular basis; it might be more costly to do it from the top down as the video showed, but not impossible.

Seriously, no one to my knowledge has ever said that explosives couldn't have done it; not even NIST. Only that it would so difficult to do as to be unfeasible. Journal for 9/11 studies has a pdf article regarding NIST's "too difficult to do" argument:
Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1 - Robert Moore, Esq. (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200701/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf)

leopold99

11-30-08, 05:32 PM

I believe what Headspin is alluding to is that you're moving the goalpost :).
i haven't moved anything.
i merely stated i haven't seen any verifiable controlled demolitions that fell a manner consistent with WTC 1 and 2. i'm sorry but a wooden barn just doesn't cut it.
i also noticed you haven't responded to this:
speaking of evidence,
have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

scott3x

11-30-08, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I believe what Headspin is alluding to is that you're moving the goalpost .

i haven't moved anything.
i merely stated i haven't seen any verifiable controlled demolitions that fell a manner consistent with WTC 1 and 2. i'm sorry but a wooden barn just doesn't cut it.

You sure that's a 'wooden barn'? Looks pretty big to me. I'm curious how you believe you know that it's wood as well. In any case, it's most definitely a building and not house size either. Thus the reference to moving the goal posts. But perhaps you're unaware of how the term is defined. Wikipedia can perhaps help out there:
***********************
1. Any man-made structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any use or continuous occupancy, or
2. An act of construction.
***********************

i also noticed you haven't responded to this:
Originally Posted by leopold99
speaking of evidence, have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

I can certainly believe that I missed responding to it (many of my own posts have gone unresponded to as well; there are a lot of posts and it's easy to miss a few). However, I'd like to see the context within which this statement was made. Can you cite the post in question?

Headspin

11-30-08, 06:14 PM

i merely stated i haven't seen any verifiable controlled demolitions that fell a manner consistent with WTC 1 and 2. i'm sorry but a wooden barn just doesn't cut it.

It wasn't a barn, and it wasn't wooden.

It was a steel framed multi storey floating casino that was washed inland by hurricane katrina.
http://outhouserag.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/48.JPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

if you imagine that the casino in the above video is the central core of the towers, in what way is it inconsistent ? compare with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUCK5DV9eg

scott3x

11-30-08, 06:22 PM

This post is in response to the first part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
I'm making it clear that [he] wasn't sure that his conclusions were right. Reading his tentative conclusion one can see that not once does even state it is his belief. He only says it is his opinion.

What are you talking about?

Perhaps now that I've added the [he] it makes things clearer.

What’s the point of distinguishing between the two?

If his conclusion is tentative, it's clear that he had reservations about making it.

His opinion, based on the evidence and utilizing his years of experience was that the collapse was caused by the fire.

Don't you think it'd be good to know why he said it was his -tentative- conclusion instead of just his conclusion?

There may certainly be some details he is not completely sure of...

I would be most interested in knowing what details those might be...

...but at no point does he give serious consideration to explosives being responsible, something he makes even clearer in the interview I have linked to.

If memory serves, I believe he said he had no time for Steven Jones' work. Apparently, unlike a good scientist, his mind has already been made up. Either that or he doesn't want to get suspended from his job as Steven Jones did...

Your contention that because he uses the words ‘opinion’ and ‘tentative conclusions’, he’s not sure what happened and it may have been explosions is a hopeless attempt to minimize the damage that this expert does to your pathetic conspiracy theory.

I would argue that, far from damaging the conspiracy theory, he has leant it great credence with his claim of that some of the steel had vaporized. In a way, it lends it even more credence since, despite the fact that he believes that the fires took the buildings down, he still apparently stated this:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

Now I know the argument has been made that perhaps the reporter merely misinterpreted his words. In fact, I even emailed Astaneh concerning this, but he never responded. Don't you believe that this issue should be investigated further?

scott3x

11-30-08, 06:35 PM

This is in response to the second part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Originally Posted by shaman_
Originally Posted by scott3x
What's more:
***************************
Astaneh resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete. Without FEMA's backing, the National Science Foundation team was shut out.
***************************
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/6_APbuilding.html

He resigned because he did not want to sign a disclosure contract. The disclosure contract was to protect the owners of the buildings from having the findings used against them in a lawsuit

Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.

...If the construction of the buildings was found to be faulty then there would be legal implications because people could potentially be held responsible for the collapse. This would be an ugly can of worms.

Indeed. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't hold anyone legally responsible for the collapse. An... interesting conclusion.

In any case, there would be even -more- implications if it were found that the buildings couldn't have fallen down at all without the help of explosives. In a way, perhaps it was fortunate for Astaneh that he quit when he did; he may have found out so much that even he would have found it hard to deny that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition. That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor.

scott3x

11-30-08, 06:58 PM

This is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
True. However, It does warrant a more thorough investigation. Instead, it got a less thorough investigation as Jonathan Barnett made clear in the above mentioned video.

There was an investigation. You just don’t like the results.

To be sure. But I'm not alone in not liking the investigation. Take Jonathan Barnett's statement regarding WTC 7, for instance:
"We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7"

Here's the video where he says it:
http://www.truveo.com/Jonathan-Barnett-forensic-engineer-for-WTC7/id/468939016#

With a religion such as yours, if there was another investigation and it found nothing you would still not believe it.

Personally, I believe I simply go where the evidence leads. Can you say the same?

scott3x

11-30-08, 07:14 PM

This is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Sorry to dissapoint you, but gravity simply couldn't have accounted for the amount of pulverized concrete. 9/11 Research, on its Concrete Pulverization (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html) page quotes 9/11 online researcher plaguepuppy who explains why:
****************************************
The researcher calling himself plaguepuppy articulated the thoroughness of the destruction and its incompatibility with the official explanation[:]

In trying to come to terms with what actually happened during the collapse of the World Trade Towers, the biggest and most obvious problem that I see is the source of the enormous amount of very fine dust that was generated during the collapses. Even early on, when the tops of the buildings have barely started to move, we see this characteristic fine dust (mixed with larger chunks of debris) being shot out very energetically from the building. During the first few seconds of a gravitational fall nothing is moving very fast, and yet from the outset what appears to be powdered concrete can be seem blowing out to the sides, growing to an immense dust cloud as the collapse progresses.

The floors themselves are quite robust. Each one is 39" thick; the top 4" is a poured concrete slab, with interlocking vertical steel trusses (or spandrel members) underneath. This steel would absorb a lot of kinetic energy by crumpling as one floor fell onto another, at most pulverizing a small amount of concrete where the narrow edges of the trusses strike the floor below. And yet we see a very fine dust being blown very energetically out to the sides as if the entire mass of concrete (about 400,000 cubic yards for the whole building) were being converted to dust. Remember too that the tower fell at almost the speed of a gravitational free-fall, meaning that little energy was expended doing anything other than accelerating the floor slabs.

Considering the amount of concrete in a single floor (~1 acre x 4") and the chemical bond energy to be overcome in order to reduce it to a fine powder, it appears that a very large energy input would be needed. The only source for this, excluding for now external inputs or explosives, is the gravitational potential energy of the building. Any extraction of this energy for the disaggregation of the concrete would decrease the amount available for conversion to kinetic energy, slowing the speed of the falls. Yet we know that the buildings actually fell in about 9 seconds*, only slightly less than an unimpeded free-fall from the same height. This means that very little of the gravitational energy can have gone toward pulverizing the concrete.

Even beyond the question of the energy needed, what possible mechanism exists for pulverizing these vast sheets of concrete? Remember that dust begins to appear in quantity in the very earliest stages of the collapses, when nothing is moving fast relative to anything else in the structure. How then is reinforced concrete turned into dust and ejected laterally from the building at high speed?
****************************************

That does nothing to explain that gravity wouldn’t be responsible.

Actually, it does...

His assertion appears to be that because the towers were near free fall speed there was no energy left to pulverize the concrete.

Yep...

The towers may have been near free fall speed but they weren’t at free fall speed.

The difference is insignificant.

When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went.

Your theory lacks evidence, sorry. Even NIST's hopelessly flawed computer simulation stops short of simulating the actual collapse. Perhaps NIST figured it was better to be thought a fool then to attempt to simulate the collapse due to fire alone and remove all doubt.

The claim that dust is shooting out the sides of the building at the very start of the collapse is a ridiculous exaggeration.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

He also claims that there is dust when nothing is moving very fast. When the top thirty floors of a building are crushing down on one it doesn’t matter if you have reached a great speed yet. There is an amazing amount of force there.

You can, ofcourse, continue to claim 'amazing' amounts of force did all kinds of things. However, if you really want to get into the math of it all, you may want to take a look at this page:
The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11 (http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html)

It can also be misleading estimating speed when looking at something that large.

Well, atleast you're here debating with me; it seems many architects and engineers have come to the conclusion that the WTC collapses warrant further investigation. While we may not have the power to do the type of investigation that the government can do, we can do a little online sleuthing to attempt to make the truth clearer for everyone.

The mechanism for pulverizing the concrete is no mystery - the building’s weight, gravity and kinetic energy.

What I have heard time and again is that those factors simply weren't enough.

Watch the video, if there were explosions where are the blasts?

As I've mentioned elsewhere, it may be that the blasts were of a quieter nature; either that or it's simply that the camera was further away. In any case, as I've mentioned before, some people who were fairly close to the scene definitely did hear blasts.

scott3x

11-30-08, 07:25 PM

This is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
If that were true, the endless discussions we've had would have never taken place.

Scott, you think nuclear devices might have been involved, you thought a missile hit the pentagon and now think a plane flew over the pentagon instead. You blindly read everything these people write and have shown this time and time again.

I assure you that I'm not reading via braille :-p. I read, but I don't just read. I analyze the reading for logical consistency and if it passes muster, I present what I've read in this forum. At times, after some criticisms here and further analysis on my part, I may come to the conclusion that a particular theory is mistaken or deserves more study before proposing it as what you might call my 'main' ideas. That is, the ideas that I feel most confident about. This doesn't mean that my ideas can no longer be challenged. It's clear that they are still challenged. Nevertheless, the fact that this dicussion has continued for years and, in sciforums' case, for thousands of posts, may make you consider the possibility that perhaps there really -is- something to these alternate theories regarding 9/11.

You are not after the truth, you just want to preach your religion.

Honestly, if I wanted to preach, I would do so in a 9/11 alternate story web site, where the crowd is much more amenable to such things. No, the reason I'm here is not to preach but to educate. And not just others, but myself. For while I have at times rolled my eyes at the official story support stories, I have -also- rolled my eyes at some alternate theory stories. What I tend to find is that the flakier stories tend to do best in environments where they are not challenged.

If you were generally after the truth you would visit debunking sites or the screw loose change guide.

I have actually done both, and done some rolling of the eyes before coming back here. Here, there are certainly official story supporters, but they are tempered by the alternate story supporters.

You will never stray from the comfort of your pitiful conspiracy sites.

Well, you might not like this 'conspiracy site', but I think it's not so bad myself ;)

scott3x

11-30-08, 07:33 PM

This is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
I would have simply referred you to my gurus if you wished to find enlightenment and left it at that.

Your gurus are fools.

I mentioned the 'gurus' tongue in cheek. Listen, clearly I do believe there are certain luminaries in the alternative theory movement. This doesn't mean that I believe that their words are coming straight from God almighty; it simply means that I have read a fair amount of what they have said and found that their arguments to be logically consistent. It also helps if the luminaries in question agree with each other.

Anyway, you can, ofcourse, describe anyone you like as a 'fool'. But it's easy to call someone a fool. It's much harder to prove it.

scott3x

11-30-08, 07:43 PM

This is in response to the 8th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
As it is, I counter your 'conclusive' evidence on a regular basis.

Such is the nature of the internet and the phenomenon that is the desire to believe in conspiracies. There will always be plenty of links to keep you sure there was a conspiracy. Just as long as you don't think too much or accidentally digest the work of the debunking sites.

I could, ofcourse, turn this logic against you. However, I simply don't want to buy into this cartoonish view that you don't want to 'digest the work' of alternative theory sites. To reduce a person to how good their digestion is drastically oversimplifies the matter in my view.

So instead, I will continue to offer my own reasoning and attempt to understand why yours differs from mine.

shaman_

11-30-08, 08:13 PM

I already dealt with that argument:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065357&postcount=1747

That aluminium is glowing as it is poured out. Stop the video as it is being poured and look.

Aluminium can glow when heated enough.
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

With most photos of aluminium being poured out they just take the temperature to melting point because that is all they need to do for the pouring. The fires in WTC were not so precise.

Wouldn’t you say that the drops look silver towards the bottom of this picture? http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

As to Jones experiment, all he did was mix in some wood and plastic and declare it wouldn’t mix. That is not a good replication of what was happening in WTC. There were many materials in there. That flow of material was a soup of everything in the building. The truth is we don’t know exactly what it is. It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point), who knows. However if it is aluminium then it is unlikely to be pure, and it is very unlikely to be steel.

If there were temperatures that high then there would have to have been some molten aluminium. Where was it?

shaman_

11-30-08, 08:15 PM

Seriously, no one to my knowledge has ever said that explosives couldn't have done it; not even NIST. Only that it would so difficult to do as to be unfeasible. ... It is you that is moving goalposts here Scott. You and the truthers claim it was a controlled demolition because supposedly it looked like one. When pointed out that controlled demolitions do not look like that you then switch the argument to "well it is possible isn't it?". Keep dodging.

scott3x

11-30-08, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I already dealt with that argument:
http://67.205.94.94/showpost.php?p=2065357&postcount=1747

That aluminium is glowing as it is poured out. Stop the video as it is being poured and look.

As I said in the post above:
********************
The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.
********************

It's the container that's orange. It stays that way even when the aluminum is poured out. As soon as the aluminum leaves the container, it's clear that its color is silver.

shaman_

11-30-08, 08:43 PM

This post is in response to the first part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Perhaps now that I've added the [he] it makes things clearer. No you are still trying to assert that his conclusion was different from his belief. It is a desperate and dishonest tactic.

If his conclusion is tentative, it's clear that he had reservations about making it. He made it clear that he had not doubt whether fire or bombs brought the building down.

Don't you think it'd be good to know why he said it was his -tentative- conclusion instead of just his conclusion? Irrelevant. There was nothing tentative about his comments on the 911 conspiracies. It’s amusing that conspiracy theorists keep referring to an expert who supports the official story. By all means keep bringing him up.

I would be most interested in knowing what details those might be... The exact details of the collapse. Even now some speculation is involved. However this has absolutely nothing to do with explosives.

If memory serves, I believe he said he had no time for Steven Jones' work. Jones’ work is flawed. He has shown that he is a hack scientist who is led by his belief and not evidence.

Apparently, unlike a good scientist, his mind has already been made up. He actually analysed the steel. He was the one at ground zero. His conclusions are based on the evidence. Your assertion is a foolish one.

Either that or he doesn't want to get suspended from his job as Steven Jones did... Ah still in a fantasy land I see. Jones lost his job for writing a hopelessly flawed paper outside his field of expertise which presented bad science and dishonest investigation. You can speculate that Astaneh-Asl is scared of losing his job but you would be deluding yourself based on your religious belief.

I would argue that, far from damaging the conspiracy theory, he has leant it great credence with his claim of that some of the steel had vaporized. In a way, it lends it even more credence since, despite the fact that he believes that the fires took the buildings down, he still apparently stated this:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B 63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) He was not quoted saying that. Those are the words of the reporter.

So you have an expert that believes that the fires took the buildings down. He made it clear that he didn’t believe the conspiracies. He never actually said the word vaporised. His testimony for the commission and his peer reviewed document supports the official story. Yet you keep bringing him up! Hilarious.

Now I know the argument has been made that perhaps the reporter merely misinterpreted his words. In fact, I even emailed Astaneh concerning this, but he never responded. Don't you believe that this issue should be investigated further?Are you serious?

shaman_

11-30-08, 08:46 PM

As I said in the post above:
********************
The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.
********************

It's the container that's orange. It stays that way even when the aluminum is poured out. As soon as the aluminum leaves the container, it's clear that its color is silver.1. It turns silver when it hits the plate and cools.
2. Aluminum can glow when heated enough. Look at the photos.
3. It was unlikely be pure aluminium flowing out of the building anyway.

scott3x

11-30-08, 09:16 PM

Aluminium can glow when heated enough.
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

I see no evidence that what is being poured is aluminum. The book is about building an oil fired furnace. The metal in the picture could easily be iron.

With most photos of aluminium being poured out they just take the temperature to melting point because that is all they need to do for the pouring. The fires in WTC were not so precise.

I can agree with that; If FEMA's report is to be believed, the fires should never have even reached the temperature to melt aluminum. Apparently, however, NIST managed to get the numbers higher, using some highly questionable methods.

Wouldn’t you say that the drops look silver towards the bottom of this picture? http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

Not really. Try this out- take a piece of orange paper. Cut it bigger and smaller pieces, then put them against a grey background. I have found that smaller pieces tend to look more grey then the bigger ones; the eye essentially averages the colors in a given area. It may also be that the smaller bits cooled a bit more then the larger flow. But people may forget that the metal didn't just drop and then dissapear. Apparently a video was made of the metal -on the ground-. Here's a frame from the video:
http://maxphoton.com/images/81199-71081/WTC_Explosives_x_020_0004_copy_640x640.jpg

And here is the video where the frame was taken, from 5:04 to 5:23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0

As to Jones experiment, all he did was mix in some wood and plastic and declare it wouldn’t mix. That is not a good replication of what was happening in WTC.

What more would you have him do? And surely you realize that official story supporters didn't do anything more? And that the results they got from the only test I know of were just as bad for the official story? Perhaps -that's- why they didn't do any more testing on the matter?

There were many materials in there. That flow of material was a soup of everything in the building. The truth is we don’t know exactly what it is.

The most likely explanation is that it was molten iron. Steven Jones' logic, is, in my view, unnassailable on this count.

It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point), who knows. However if it is aluminium then it is unlikely to be pure, and it is very unlikely to be steel.

Well, I'm glad you are atleast considering that it had some iron in it.

If there were temperatures that high then there would have to have been some molten aluminium. Where was it?

In the building itself I would imagine. The real issue, in my view, is the whole issue of thermate signatures and unexploded thermate. Seriously, I don't understand why you can't contemplate the possibility that thermate is what brought down the buildings.

scott3x

11-30-08, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
I would argue that, far from damaging the conspiracy theory, he has leant it great credence with his claim of that some of the steel had vaporized. In a way, it lends it even more credence since, despite the fact that he believes that the fires took the buildings down, he still apparently stated this:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies

He was not quoted saying that. Those are the words of the reporter.

And yet, Astaneh never said that he had been falsely interpreted.

So you have an expert that believes that the fires took the buildings down. He made it clear that he didn’t believe the conspiracies.

Except the official one, ofcourse...

He never actually said the word vaporised.

Prove it. The New York Times article makes me believe he may well have said just that. I find it doubtful that the reporter is the one who chose the word.

His testimony for the commission and his peer reviewed document supports the official story.

And yet there is a lot of evidence which shows that his belief on this count is mistaken.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Now I know the argument has been made that perhaps the reporter merely misinterpreted his words. In fact, I even emailed Astaneh concerning this, but he never responded. Don't you believe that this issue should be investigated further?

Are you serious?

I am.

Headspin

11-30-08, 09:29 PM

That aluminium is glowing as it is poured out. Stop the video as it is being poured and look.no the aluminium is not glowing orange when it is poured. It maybe reflecting some of the orange glow from the container as a mirror or mercury would reflect the surrounding environment, but when it exits it very quickly changes to silver. it hits the pan silver. if you are going to claim that the heat is removed by the pan immediately and sufficiently for it to cool to a silver state, then bear in mind the stuff pouring from the wtc was flowing over a floor surface and between steel perimeter beams before falling from the window, yet it still exits into daylight and remains yellow on the way down.

Aluminium can glow when heated enough.of course it can if the temperature is high enough so that its very low (compared to other metals) 5% radiance outshines its very high (compared to other metals) 95% reflectivity. You will not get this glow in the orange spectrum in any kind of daylight though. In daylight any glow will be in the white spectrum and only when the temperature is way above what was possible in the wtc.

http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

Those pictures are not aluminium, they are iron! Whoever is putting out that information is simply lying to you.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinformation-by-brian-vasquez.pdf

With most photos of aluminium being poured out they just take the temperature to melting point because that is all they need to do for the pouring. The fires in WTC were not so precise.this is a fair point but doesn't apply with the experiment i have shown you, this experiment heats it to 1800F (1000C), way above the melting point of aluminium (1200F). it still pours out silver!

Wouldn’t you say that the drops look silver towards the bottom of this picture? http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
you have small orange material droplets moving fast over a uniform grey background, mpeg compression works by blending in frames of data and blurring sharply contrasting colors. I would conclude those droplets are still orange. some are even orange despite mpeg color loss.

As to Jones experiment, all he did was mix in some wood and plastic and declare it wouldn’t mix. That is not a good replication of what was happening in WTC. There were many materials in there. That flow of material was a soup of everything in the building. The truth is we don’t know exactly what it is. It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point), who knows. However if it is aluminium then it is unlikely to be pure, and it is very unlikely to be steel.how do you know it is unlikely to be steel? or residue from a thermite reaction (as would be more accurately claimed by the other side of the debate)? why unlikely?
are you arguing from personal incredulity? or do you have actual evidence that it is unlikely? What Jones experiment has done has disproven (debunked) NISTs speculation of what it was.

If there were temperatures that high then there would have to have been some molten aluminium. Where was it?You presuppose that the extreme temperatures would have been caused by the office fires (and you conclude there would have been molten aluminium). You did not consider that the extreme termpature was a highly localised event (chemical reaction/thermate) that did not melt any aluminium. In any event, if there were molten aluminium in the vicinity it would have flowed away from the heat source at its melting point and still remained silver, way before managing to magically glow orange.

scott3x

11-30-08, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
As I said in the post above:
********************
The fact that it -appeared- orange when it was in the container validates what I had read somewhere; that it's the -container's- color that is giving it its orange color, a color that dissapears once it is outside of its container.
********************

It's the container that's orange. It stays that way even when the aluminum is poured out. As soon as the aluminum leaves the container, it's clear that its color is silver.

1. It turns silver when it hits the plate and cools.

I believe it was always silver and the only thing that was orange was the container it was in.

2. Aluminum can glow when heated enough. Look at the photos.

I have heard that it can, yes. But it has to be heated a lot and because of its low emissivity, it can only be seen as orange in dark conditions.

3. It was unlikely be pure aluminium flowing out of the building anyway.

Steven Jones couldn't make aluminum look that way even with impurities. I haven't seen any official story supporter do so either, despite an attempt I saw on youtube.

leopold99

11-30-08, 09:35 PM

However, I'd like to see the context within which this statement was made. Can you cite the post in question?
post 209.

headspin,
where are the squibs that are clearly visible in your video?
the structure in your video is not surrounded by any other building.
also, if we "imagine" that this was the steel core columns then how did the outer walls come down?
and if you want to "imagine" things let's "imagine" aliens did it.
i'm not going to argue these points with you any further.

scott3x

11-30-08, 09:45 PM

This post is in response to leopold99's post 209 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2105654&postcount=209) in this thread.

speaking of evidence,
have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

I think I have. Why?

leopold99

11-30-08, 10:07 PM

I think I have. Why?
then you have surely seen how some of those columns were butt jointed together. this type of joint is not exactly the strongest there is.
it doesn't take much effort on my part to question the entire construction.

in one of the links you posted the firemen were asking for a blue ribbon investigation for that very reason.

scott3x

11-30-08, 10:14 PM

This post is in response to Cyperium's post 199 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2105089&postcount=199) in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Found a good excerpt that refutes the notion that the planes and fires brought down the twin towers:
*************************
The Strength of Steel Frame Structures

For those who want us to imagine that the Towers "collapsed", the assumption that they "fell" on their own is a critical part of the story. But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own, with or without an office fire, or even from the impact of a falling portion of the same building. If impacted from above, the Towers might bend or distort, but they wouldn't explode, disintegrate in mid-air, or collapse like a house of cards!

Anyone who's ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural members remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted if it falls to the floor, but it will never just collapse into pieces under any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional forces. Buildings that have fallen in earthquakes demonstrate this resistance to disintegration.

*************************
http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html

For a more detailed analysis of why collapses had to have been demolitions, feel free to visit my web page on the subject:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

Those buildings weren't that massive compared to the twin towers. Something the size of the twin towers can't tip, it will only collapse upon itself, think about it, if it started tipping at any place of the building it would not be able to maintain structure.

Actually, the top of one of them -did- tip but then disintegrated in mid air.

scott3x

11-30-08, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by scott3x
Originally Posted by leopold99
speaking of evidence,
have you seen any pictures of the steel core columns as they were being removed from ground zero?

I think I have. Why?

then you have surely seen how some of those columns were butt jointed together. this type of joint is not exactly the strongest there is. it doesn't take much effort on my part to question the entire construction.

in one of the links you posted the firemen were asking for a blue ribbon investigation for that very reason.

I believe you're referring to this page:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

In any case, while Manning is definitely right that the official 9/11 investigation was a half baked farce, they're mistaken on the cause of the collapses. 9/11 Research, in its article 7 Wrold Trade Center- Mysterious Levelling of Building 7 (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc7/index.html), puts it this way:
*************************
WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
*************************

I suspect that the case is much the same in the case of the twin towers.

leopold99

11-30-08, 10:51 PM

. . . , they're mistaken on the cause of the collapses..
even though videos that exhibit the characteristics of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse cannot be found?
even though there is photographic evidence of butt joints (one of the weakest joints known) being used in the steel core columns?
they are mistaken????

alaska1976

11-30-08, 10:53 PM

I use to braze steel and aluminum. Aluminum has a pale yellow color when first melted. Then it cools to a hard silvery mass. I know this because we use to melt it into forms for fun. On the south tower where the rivers of molten metal are running out is the area where a large chunk of jet stopped. you will see molten streams of that high yellow color and of an orange yellow color which is the color of melting steel. Mix the two together and you have a yellowish orange flow.

shaman_

11-30-08, 11:22 PM

This is in response to the second part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Indeed. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't hold anyone legally responsible for the collapse. An... interesting conclusion. .You are being obtuse. If those that built the towers were found to be negligent in their duties then potentially the families could try legal action against them.

There are people who have been held responsible for the collapse and there is a long trail of evidence which points to Al Queda members.

In any case, there would be even -more- implications if it were found that the buildings couldn't have fallen down at all without the help of explosives. Even though many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone……

In a way, perhaps it was fortunate for Astaneh that he quit when he did; he may have found out so much that even he would have found it hard to deny that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition. More silly speculation .. He investigated the steel and made his conclusions that no explosives were involved.

That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor. You don't have any insight as to what the professor is thinking. He has made his position clear though and you should accept it and move on.

This is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

Actually, it does...

Yep...

The difference is insignificant. .Of course it is significant!

Your theory lacks evidence, sorry. Okay so explain to me what part of “When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went” is wrong and why.

Even NIST's hopelessly flawed computer simulation stops short of simulating the actual collapse. Perhaps NIST figured it was better to be thought a fool then to attempt to simulate the collapse due to fire alone and remove all doubt. I think you are referring to pancaking being the cause of the collapse. I am not specifically talking about that I am talking about the collision of the floors on the ones below.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Watch a video of the collapse.

You can, ofcourse, continue to claim 'amazing' amounts of force did all kinds of things. However, if you really want to get into the math of it all, you may want to take a look at this page:
The Number ONE Smoking Gun of 9/11 (http://letsrollforums.com/number-one-smoking-gun-t16540.html) No that something of a dodge. You can't refute defend your stance so you post links. I'm not interested in spending a lot of time trying to analyze the mess that is truther physics.

Well, atleast you're here debating with me; it seems many architects and engineers have come to the conclusion that the WTC collapses warrant further investigation. While we may not have the power to do the type of investigation that the government can do, we can do a little online sleuthing to attempt to make the truth clearer for everyone. You avoided the point again. Your expert was claiming that the building wasn’t moving fast so there isn’t much force involved.

As to your architects and engineers, I have shown you that those numbers have been filled out with irrelevant professions. Check the site.

If they really are qualified then they should be able to do their own investigation and flood the engineering journals with peer reviewed papers. Strangely this doesn’t seem to be happening. Hrm.

What I have heard time and again is that those factors simply weren't enough. You have heard that from people who are after a modern religion, not the truth.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, it may be that the blasts were of a quieter nature; either that or it's simply that the camera was further away. In any case, as I've mentioned before, some people who were fairly close to the scene definitely did hear blasts.No you are still being obtuse. Explosives don’t just magically turn concrete to dust unless they blast it. Where are the blasts? Where are the waves of force? There aren’t any. The dust is seen as the floors pound on each other.

Don’t even think about trying to bring up your usual distortions of witness testimony.

This is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

To be sure. But I'm not alone in not liking the investigation. Take Jonathan Barnett's statement regarding WTC 7, for instance:
"We were surprised that the building [WTC7] collapsed, we being the team that investigated what occurred on that day. There was some damage to the Tower 7 caused by debris that hit it from Tower 1 but the damage was certainly not similar in scope or magnitude to that caused by the aircrafts hitting Towers 1 and 2. Normally when you have a structural failure you carefully go through the debris field looking at each item, photographing every beam as it collapsed and every column where it is on the ground and you pick them up very carefully and you look at each element. We were unable to do that in the case of Tower 7"

Here's the video where he says it:
http://www.truveo.com/Jonathan-Barnett-forensic-engineer-for-WTC7/id/468939016#
The investigation was probably far from perfect. However this doesn’t imply that bombs were involved. Barnett’s team did not find any evidence for explosives or any evidence for ridiculously high temperatures. Maybe you can read through their report and search for the word tentative.

Personally, I believe I simply go where the evidence leads. Can you say the same?Ok, I’ll admit that was pretty funny.

Oh you weren’t joking.

Scott you seem too ready to believe everything 911research says. If you were actually interested in evidence you would read the rebuttals or visit the debunking sites to get both sides. I have actually read both sides of the story. Can you say the same? You just want to maintain the 911 religion and spread the word.

shaman_

12-01-08, 01:08 AM

This is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 125 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2098543&postcount=125) in this thread.

I assure you that I'm not reading via braille :-p. I read, but I don't just read. I analyze the reading for logical consistency and if it passes muster, After your proclamation that the evidence points to a missile hitting the pentagon or your theorizing that nuclear devices may have been involved in 9/11 I don’t have much confidence in your analysis.

I present what I've read in this forum. At times, after some criticisms here and further analysis on my part, I may come to the conclusion that a particular theory is mistaken or deserves more study before proposing it as what you might call my 'main' ideas. That is, the ideas that I feel most confident about. This doesn't mean that my ideas can no longer be challenged. It's clear that they are still challenged. Nevertheless, the fact that this dicussion has continued for years and, in sciforums' case, for thousands of posts, may make you consider the possibility that perhaps there really -is- something to these alternate theories regarding 9/11. The ‘something’ is a human fascination with conspiracy theories. People want to believe in them just as people want to believe in ESP, religion and alien visitation. The evidence isn’t there but that doesn’t stop people believing in it.

Honestly, if I wanted to preach, I would do so in a 9/11 alternate story web site, You don’t want to preach to the converted, you want to proselytize.

Well, you might not like this 'conspiracy site', but I think it's not so bad myself ;)You don’t get your information from here. You bring information here to defend your story.

I see no evidence that what is being poured is aluminum. The book is about building an oil fired furnace. The metal in the picture could easily be iron. Apparently it is. I swore I saw aluminum on the page when I read it. I have posted other pics of aluminum being pored and will find them when I respond to Headspin

I can agree with that; If FEMA's report is to be believed, the fires should never have even reached the temperature to melt aluminum. Apparently, however, NIST managed to get the numbers higher, using some highly questionable methods. You are again being intellectually dishonest but I am used to you playing dumb. There is ample evidence that the office fires went well over 250C and none of it is questionable. You just ignore the evidence you don't like and pretend you never saw it.

Not really. Try this out- take a piece of orange paper. Cut it bigger and smaller pieces, then put them against a grey background. I have found that smaller pieces tend to look more grey then the bigger ones; the eye essentially averages the colors in a given area. It may also be that the smaller bits cooled a bit more then the larger flow. I will see if I can find a better photo.

But people may forget that the metal didn't just drop and then dissapear. Apparently a video was made of the metal -on the ground-. Here's a frame from the video:
http://maxphoton.com/images/81199-71081/WTC_Explosives_x_020_0004_copy_640x640.jpg

And here is the video where the frame was taken, from 5:04 to 5:23:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0 I’m still not sure about that one. When I looked at the video I thought it was sunshine on orange dust. I asked someone else and they said the same. Due to all the dust around the video is probably after one or both of the collapses and that probably isn’t WTC1 or 2. If that is molten material, why would the truck just drive over it? No there are some problems with that claim.

What more would you have him do? A better test than that before declaring the matter solved.

And surely you realize that official story supporters didn't do anything more? And that the results they got from the only test I know of were just as bad for the official story? You are referring to the test when they poured a little of the aluminum off the top and declared it didn’t mix. That also doesn't simulate the river of molten material flowing out of WTC.

Perhaps -that's- why they didn't do any more testing on the matter? It is not an easy test to simulate.

The most likely explanation is that it was molten iron. This is where you are making an enormous leap of faith. You see molten material so it must be iron. All the accumulated evidence points to temperatures near 1000C. There has yet to be any evidence of molten steel/iron. There have been many claims but none appear to be reliable.

Steven Jones' logic, is, in my view, unnassailable on this count. I know.

Well, I'm glad you are atleast considering that it had some iron in it. Yes but not caused by temperatures of 1500C+.

In the building itself I would imagine. The real issue, in my view, is the whole issue of thermate signatures and unexploded thermate. Seriously, I don't understand why you can't contemplate the possibility that thermate is what brought down the buildings.Because the evidence that the structural damage and the fires could do it is overwhelming. Several steel structures have collapsed due to fire alone and they did not need bombs, megathermite, jet fuel or 757s colliding with them. The fact that WTC buildings were taller than these other examples is irrelevant. In fact you could say that the taller buildings are more prone to collapse. Either way it is clear that these buildings did not need help to come down.

Then there is the problem of the evidence for ultrasupermegathermite. All you have is Jones’ who has already made stupid, incorrect or dishonest claims so far. Now he is claiming that there is a chemical signature of an incendiary, but he is not taking into account that the materials in the building could be responsible, nor is he able to prove that the signature wasn’t caused by the clean up or even the construction. When you look at his body of 9/11 work it is clear that he is not applying a strict methodology to his work and is led by belief not evidence.