Discussion: How did the WTC buildings collapse?

[scott3x]

Moderator note: It appears that a debate on this topic was started without clear agreement as to the debate format. Readers are warned that the resulting debate does not really fit the format of the Formal Debates forum. It is retained here for those who are interested, although the discussion thread is closed.

Proposal thread. Debate thread. Discussion thread

----

Ok, I'm going to temporarily wait for Macyver to open up the debate part of this, as he has already submitted his opening for it. This discussion is for everyone else to put in their 2 cents.

Please note the following: I may not respond if you people do any of the following things:
Use words such as the f word in all of its permutations, moron, stupid, idiot, bitch, whore or their derivatives (moronic, stupid argument, idiotic, etc.) or any other fairly insulting personal attack.

I am fine with put downs such as lame, obtuse and allusions to flocks and flock mentalities.

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold's post 1451 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2149714&postcount=1451) from the WTC Collapses thread over in pseudoscience.


When did I say that I wouldn't be allowed to confer with others?

post 1445 this thread:
However, MacGyver said he'd only participate in the debate if it was me alone. Since I have found him to be the most amenable of my opponents, I agreed.

What I -meant- was that I would be the only one in the debate thread responding to his posts. At no point in time did I say that I wouldn't be able to confer with my colleagues.

Anyway, I think an apology for the 'dishonest' accusation is in order

dream on.

Hopefully with the above point I made you will now see the error of your ways and in fact apologize :)


edit:
since this isn't the formal debates forum i will however retract the statement.
post deleted.

I've now transferred this discussion into the formal debates forum, so by all means, proceed.

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Q's post 30 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2149777&postcount=30) on page 2 (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90058&page=2) of the "Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse?" thread.


I myself believe that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

That, despite the fact that a multitude of video cameras from a variety of angles showed no such explosions that would result from a controlled demolition?

I suggest you take a look at Gordon Ross's videos, wherein he patiently explains the evidence for the explosive devices used; he includes photographic evidence in his videos. Here they are:
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdtOFNgrkTg&feature=related
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MQtwTvBfVE&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok6OWr-JtrM&feature=related

If you're of a technical mind, you may appreciate this page of his as well:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html


And, the fact that everyone could plainly see the collapse began where the fires were burning at the points of impact by the airliners?

Clearly, the people who did this wanted to make it to superficially -appear- as if the planes had taken down the buildings. However, I would argue that a more thorough examination of the evidence, such as the impressive work of Gordon Ross, proves otherwise.

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Syzygys' post 35 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2149810&postcount=35) in the "Proposal- How did WTC buildings collapse? " thread.

Proposal thread: OP invites anyone or certain posters for a debate. They lay down the rules. Discussion should be limited to this and not to include the actual debate arguments.

Debate thread: Only the invited posters participate according to the rules. Some of these rules are already posted although I think they are a bit too rigid and anal.

Discussion thread: Anybody else can chime in and express their views on who won or extra info related to the topic.

I understood all this pretty much; -however-, I -didn't- know that once the rules for engagement were agreed upon, that any of the parties who were to engage in the debate could actually start it without moderator approval. A silly thing, but it meant that I was partial to essentially starting the debate right here, so we didn't waste time waiting for a moderator ;-).

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold99's post 3 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2149844&postcount=3) in the debate sister thread of this subject.


In the Journal of 9/11 studies, a thoughtful, if anonymous writer had this to say in his letter to this site concerning the jet fuel:

this is exactly why i didn't accept your challenge scott.

I have now included the link to the letter in question. As to why he didn't put his name, perhaps he didn't want to be suspended from his work and/or fired, as Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan were.

[scott3x]

This post is in response to tnerb's post 10 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2151282&postcount=10) in the Let's be honest... (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90056) thread in the SF Open Government (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87) forum.

tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.

Dude. It's 9-11. Long time ago story about planes crashing into the world trade centers. Blowing up and causing them to fall down and many people died. Conspiricy theory or truth about world trade center collapse whatthe****ever. But it's also possibility behind 9-11 that we don't know. Which is easy to figure out. "Did planes cause the buildings to explode or was it a setup?" These are all simple questions.

Simple questions, but not simple answers...


I'd put it in world events. It doesn't belong in psuedo-science.

I agree. However, the admins decide on such things. -However-, it may just be that we can talk in this forum; this forum may actually be better; I'm hoping that the rules for the discussions that I'm putting hold- that is, that certain insults aren't used. I hope that this may lead to a more productive discussion environment.


Then again this forum's quality is that of a to bitten danged mouse sometimes you'd think your thread belongs in "proper" places in which it does not.

However world trade center collapse is a load of bull at least you're still getting your thread to stay open!

:-)

[MacGyver1968]

Scott,

If you haven't been to busy responding to Shaman's posts in the 9/11 thread from 500 posts ago..you might have noticed that I have asked the moderators to close the formal debate thread on 9/11. I figured you probably wouldn't understand, so I thought better explain it to you very simply.

As you stated in your post above, you recently asked for the 9/11 thread to be moved from p.s. to architecture and engineering. You asked this because you thought the 9/11 thread was a respectable scientific argument, and should have it's place in a more respectable subforum than pseudoscience...you were flatly turned down.

So you figured you could move the 9/11 thread to Formal Debates, by proposing a debate thread on 9/11..formal debates has to be better than pseudoscience, right? I guess you were thinking that a formal debate is just like a discussion thread, except everyone is more civil. But a formal debate takes on different form.

I decided to take your challenge because I really wanted to see if you could put together a formal argument about your own position on the collapse.... or if you would do your same old thing and "quote mine" everything...reposting others thoughts that you agree with, and thinking that a response...offering no thoughts of your own.

What worse is the sources that you quote mine from. You will literally quote anyone. Here is your response to my assertion that:

Originally Posted by MacGyver
Thousands of gallons of jet fuel instantly ignited a fire across many floors.

Here is your rebuttal to this point:

In the Journal of 9/11 studies, a thoughtful, if anonymous writer, wrote the following in a letter to the aforementioned site titled Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/e/VisualizationAidsWTCTowers.pdf):


Let's assume that NIST is wrong- that no jet fuel actually went down the elevator shafts and that the full 100% of jet fuel remaining stayed right where it was. This would mean that the impact floors in the south tower had 5.932 gallons, or about 900 cubic feet to work with. A single standard 10'x10' office cubicle filled to 9 feet could house that amount of jet fuel. Approximately 300 such cubicles plus walkways and amenities could have been contained on each of the 110 floors (40,000 square feet) of each Twin Tower.

Here is a picture of a pool that has enough room for 1,017 cubic feet:
http://www.poolsinflatable.com/picturesth210185/56951E.jpg

You offer nothing of your own...just the repost...and it's from an anonymous post from another 9/11 board. You completely lack the ability to understand why a source like this has ZERO credibility. There's no way to know who said it, where it got his data from or anything. When I confronted you with this, you told me "he said he got his data from the NIST report, you should look it up" or something like that. This was your source..it's not my job to prove he's not just some nutjob. This to you is evidence and you can't understand when people tell you it's not. I wasn't even sure what point the author was trying to make or what point you were trying to make by posting this. You mis-quoted the numbers 5.932 instead of 5,932..and I still don't know what point is being made..the author proposes something and doesn't follow through. He proposes that all of the fuel stayed in the impact area, then he gives that quantity in gallons and cubic feet. Then he notes how a 10 x 10 x 9 cubicle could hold this much. Then he gives an estimate on the total number of cubicles on one floor. Then he posts a picture of a swimming pool that hold approximately the amount mentioned before....and that's it! No point is made. What was the purpose of the data given? I said "thousands" of gallons started the fire. You seem to be confirming that with quote that mentions a number around 6000 gallons...which would definitely qualify as thousands.

I specifically set out in the rules that this debate was between you and me. And instead of debating me directly. You took my arguments and asked Tony and the TS guys what they thought..and then reposted their thoughts. I wasn't debating Tony. I was debating you. I couldn't get you to give me the opinion on the color of the sky without you having to ask the TS guys first. When you signed on for this Formal Debate, I guess you thought it would shine a more respectable light on the 9/11. I guess you forgot that you don't know how to formally debate someone.

I'm not going to waste my time anymore with it. You started a formal debate even though you had no pre-thought out argument to present, and no formal debate skills at all. I might drop in on the 9/11 thread from time to time, but this was a complete waste of time.

[scott3x]

This post is in response to leopold99's post 28 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2151572&postcount=28) in the "Let's be honest... (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2151572#post2151572)" thread in the SF Open Government (http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87) forum.


The rinf.com link is dead, but I can get you even more evidence that Gordon Ross isn't the Real Estate Agent you probably hastily googled if you like...

i would like to see his credentials so i could determine his expertise at interpreting what he saw.

don't bother posting them here, i want to see them on his site.

As far as I know, he doesn't post his credentials on his site. However, although some JREF members have apparently decided that no Gordon Ross was born in Dundee since the latter part of the 19th century born, he assures us that he was, in fact, born there, along with his father and great uncle of the name. Seriously, why would he lie about something like that anyway? Some JREFers probably did a mediocre job of looking for Gordon Rosses in Dundee, just as you did a mediocre job of finding out more about Gordon Ross, and came to erroneous conclusions.

Heck, even an official story supporter site (http://newtonsbit.blogspot.com/2007/05/failure-of-truth-movements-engineer.html) that I found from a site that shaman_ frequently likes to quote (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/), has no quibble with saying that he's an engineer in the mechanical field. Do you really think he'd be giving presentations at the Indian YMCA, London if he didn't have some credentials to back up his claims? Anyway, here's another link (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707Ross.htm), this time from prisonplanet.com, with the same video presentation, once again stating that he is, in fact, a Mechanical Engineer.

He's also written a peer reviewed paper (www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf) over at the Journal for 9/11 studies.

[Tnerb]

tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.
ok will do thx

Simple questions, but not simple answers...
Yea. That's where you and I are at a threshold or cross-way. I'm sure there's been numerous threads devoted to the purpose of debating and many of the debates about what happend to the quality of the steel, evidence of set ups, etcetera, but as I see it it's a big hoax, intended for most people to discuss until they see fit. Many people don't like mass discussion (anyone?) about something they already know.

The only thing we're missing is the evidence of possible suspicion to discuss in thread. In which I will read your guidelines.

[Tnerb]

it is in formal debates afterall.

[Tnerb]

and why are you posting your response here?

If I may.

twas because the thread in which you're quoted depends somuch on keeping the real threads safe from harm.

Of course, I'm all down for someone proving 9-11 buildings didn't just blow up kuz planes :bugeye::bugeye::eek:

[scott3x]

This post is in response to Enmos' post 25 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2151558&postcount=25) in the "let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.


He's got a website- whether it's free or pay shouldn't really matter. Are you saying that one's expertise rests upon how much money one has at any given point in time ?

Anyone with a job can afford a website. In fact, unless you're a hobo you can most likely afford a website anyway.

This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.

[Enmos]

This post is in response to Enmos' post 25 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2151558&postcount=25) in the "let's be honest..." thread in the SF Open Government forum.

This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.
Apparently. I didn't draw any conclusions or take sides, I just said what I said ;)

[scott3x]

Scott,

If you haven't been to busy responding to Shaman's posts in the 9/11 thread from 500 posts ago..

Very funny :-p


you might have noticed that I have asked the moderators to close the formal debate thread on 9/11. I figured you probably wouldn't understand, so I thought better explain it to you very simply.

As you stated in your post above, you recently asked for the 9/11 thread to be moved from p.s. to architecture and engineering. You asked this because you thought the 9/11 thread was a respectable scientific argument, and should have it's place in a more respectable subforum than pseudoscience...you were flatly turned down.

Yep. The injustice of it all, sigh :(


So you figured you could move the 9/11 thread to Formal Debates, by proposing a debate thread on 9/11..formal debates has to be better than pseudoscience, right? I guess you were thinking that a formal debate is just like a discussion thread, except everyone is more civil. But a formal debate takes on different form.

I decided to take your challenge because I really wanted to see if you could put together a formal argument about your own position on the collapse.... or if you would do your same old thing and "quote mine" everything...reposting others thoughts that you agree with, and thinking that a response...offering no thoughts of your own.

"thinking that a response... offering no thoughts of your own"? That is definitely syntactically incorrect. In any case, I have certainly offered my own thoughts as well as quoted the thoughts of experts in the field of the WTC collapses.


What worse is the sources that you quote mine from. You will literally quote anyone.

I certainly haven't seen you provide any evidence that that is indeed the case.


Here is your response to my assertion that:
Thousands of gallons of jet fuel instantly ignited a fire across many floors.

Here is your rebuttal to this point:

In the Journal of 9/11 studies, a thoughtful, if anonymous writer, wrote the following in a letter to the aforementioned site titled Non-animated Visualization Aids to Assist in Understanding the Demolitions of the World Trade Center Twin Towers:

Let's assume that NIST is wrong- that no jet fuel actually went down the elevator shafts and that the full 100% of jet fuel remaining stayed right where it was. This would mean that the impact floors in the south tower had 5.932 gallons, or about 900 cubic feet to work with. A single standard 10'x10' office cubicle filled to 9 feet could house that amount of jet fuel. Approximately 300 such cubicles plus walkways and amenities could have been contained on each of the 110 floors (40,000 square feet) of each Twin Tower.

Here is a picture of a pool that has enough room for 1,017 cubic feet:
http://www.poolsinflatable.com/picturesth210185/56951E.jpg

You offer nothing of your own... just the repost...

That's not true. But more important, it's also not the point. Whether I say something or whether someone else does, I think you should be focusing on the evidence presented.


and it's from an anonymous post from another 9/11 board.

It's from a peer reviewed site that has gained a fair amount of respect; if it hadn't, why in the world would even debunkers take the time to write responses to papers written there by the likes of Gordon Ross, as http://911guide.googlepages.com/newtonsbit chronicles.


You completely lack the ability to understand why a source like this has ZERO credibility. There's no way to know who said it, where it got his data from or anything.

MacGyver, I personally found where he got his data in one instance; from the NIST report he said he got it from. I even provided the link and the page number in NIST's report. I could check more of the NIST reports he cites, but I really would like you to acknowledge that the report I checked out -is- valid.


When I confronted you with this, you told me "he said he got his data from the NIST report, you should look it up" or something like that. This was your source..it's not my job to prove he's not just some nutjob.

You are right to some extent, which is why I -did- check out one of the reports he cites. Apparently you didn't notice though...


This to you is evidence and you can't understand when people tell you it's not. I wasn't even sure what point the author was trying to make or what point you were trying to make by posting this.

There were many points made. Please quote something you don't understand and I will try to explain it to you better.


You mis-quoted the numbers 5.932 instead of 5,932..and I still don't know what point is being made..

In the case of the 5,932 gallons of jet fuel, it was how much fuel NIST estimated remained in the South Tower (WTC 2) after 20% of it was burned off in the fireball. The point was that there was a lot less fuel to do all the things this magical jet fuel did then some may have believed.


the author proposes something and doesn't follow through. He proposes that all of the fuel stayed in the impact area, then he gives that quantity in gallons and cubic feet. Then he notes how a 10 x 10 x 9 cubicle could hold this much. Then he gives an estimate on the total number of cubicles on one floor. Then he posts a picture of a swimming pool that hold approximately the amount mentioned before....and that's it! No point is made.

The point is that it wasn't a whole lot of jet fuel relative to the building. When he said that there were about 300 10x10 cubicles on every one of the 110 floors of the Twin Towers, I think that this would be self evident. NIST itself has stated that the precise amount of fuel is rather irrelevant as it didn't seem to make much of a difference in their tests.


What was the purpose of the data given? I said "thousands" of gallons started the fire. You seem to be confirming that with quote that mentions a number around 6000 gallons...which would definitely qualify as thousands.

No one is disputing that they started a fire. The dispute is whether the fires they started could have done much other then burn some office furniture and (unfortunately) people.


I specifically set out in the rules that this debate was between you and me. And instead of debating me directly. You took my arguments and asked Tony and the TS guys what they thought..and then reposted their thoughts. I wasn't debating Tony. I was debating you.

At first, I wanted to have Tony and others directly in the debate. You didn't like this idea. But I made it -very]- clear that I would -not- isolate myself from their knowledge. To do so, in my view, would have been patently foolish.


I couldn't get you to give me the opinion on the color of the sky without you having to ask the TS guys first.

Come on MacGyver, I would expect this type of reasoning from John99 or from shaman_, but not from you. I drew on the knowledge of Tony when I was unsure of some points, that's all.


When you signed on for this Formal Debate, I guess you thought it would shine a more respectable light on the 9/11. I guess you forgot that you don't know how to formally debate someone.

My understanding of a formal debate is this:
That 2 sides agree to certain terms to discuss an issue. I felt that we had done so. I thought that you understood that, though you didn't like it, I wasn't going to isolate myself from people who could advise me if I wasn't sure about something.


I'm not going to waste my time anymore with it. You started a formal debate even though you had no pre-thought out argument to present,

I had many thought out arguments and I presented them in my very first rebuttal; they're here:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/index.html


I might drop in on the 9/11 thread from time to time, but this was a complete waste of time.

Well, I felt that I made many good points, but to each their own.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Leo: I received your complaint about Scott's posts. I wish one of the other moderators would respond who has any interest in this thread. I haven't even been following it.

Nonetheless, after perusing it I'm not inclined to sympathize. Scott has explained why he felt it was permissible to bring material from those other threads here. Why not? They're on topic and it's not like you're being overwhelmed with contributors.

If you're expecting the kind of "formal debate" where people are marked down for not slavishly following the rules, I think you're going to have to join a university debate club. Those debates are not won or lost on the basis of who makes the most compelling case for his side of the issue. It's strictly a matter of who has the discipline to never deviate from the rulebook. That's hardly the kind of arguing we'd like to foster on this website. We want to teach and learn, not keep score.

In any case I don't see anyone here breaking new ground and illuminating the issue with information that was heretofore generally unknown. This reads more like a plain old argument than like a group of scientists trying to discover the explanation for a strange phenomenon.

None of you has brought up the asbestos issue. Halfway through the construction of the WTC, the incredibly bright and caring people who run New York City decided to outlaw asbestos... without grandfathering in projects that were already under construction. It's been estimated statistically that that decision may have prevented three deaths from respiratory damage... over the course of the entire next century. One engineer whose report I saw quoted several years ago claimed that no other insulator is as effective, pound per pound, as asbestos. So in order to avoid overloading infrastructure in the lower floors, they had to settle for an inferior job of fireproofing the upper floors. He said that if the original specifications of the building had been fulfilled, it would not have collapsed, because after all the prospect of an airliner crashing into a building is exactly the sort of risk that a good architect would plan for. It was bound to happen some day eventually and nobody wants to be the guy who gets blamed for skimping on the fireproofing.

People right here on SciForums are asking angrily why they've not heard or read any interviews with the pilots of that plane that just went down in the Hudson River. And nobody died in that one! Tell me how many interviews you've heard or read with the people who procured and installed the insulation on the WTC? Hmm?

I don't know if this is true. Exactly one engineer has told me that it's not, so at this point it's one yes and one no. I would think that if you guys are really interested in this topic you would go to the trouble of tracking this down. I'm not, so I didn't.

[leopold99]

then why call it a "formal debate forum"?
that is one of the reasons i never accepted scotts challenge is because i felt i was not equipped to argue these points formally.

scott,
you can drag my posts over here if you want but i will not respond to them.

edit:
apparently we can use quotes from people we can't even prove exist.

[scott3x]

tnerb, I've moved this over here because there was already a request to move the WTC collapses thread from pseudoscience to Architecture and Engineering in the SF Open Government forum and it was closed. So putting it here where I think it can do fine. To anyone who would like to respond to this post, please take a look at the first post, which sets certain guidelines as to what is and isn't acceptable as responses.

ok will do thx

:-)


Simple questions, but not simple answers...

Yea. That's where you and I are at a threshold or cross-way. I'm sure there's been numerous threads devoted to the purpose of debating and many of the debates about what happend to the quality of the steel, evidence of set ups, etcetera, but as I see it it's a big hoax, intended for most people to discuss until they see fit. Many people don't like mass discussion (anyone?) about something they already know.

What's a big hoax?


The only thing we're missing is the evidence of possible suspicion to discuss in thread. In which I will read your guidelines.

The evidence of possible suspicion? Again, not sure I know what you mean...

[scott3x]

and why are you posting your response here?

If I may.

twas because the thread in which you're quoted depends somuch on keeping the real threads safe from harm.

Yep, they'd say it was off topic in SF Open Government and probably either shut the thread down or cart it off to pseudoscience, where a lot of people seem to think it's just peachy to use foul language as much as they please.


Of course, I'm all down for someone proving 9-11 buildings didn't just blow up kuz planes :bugeye:...:eek:

Woot, another for the truth movement :)!

[scott3x]

This isn't a matter of whether or not one can afford a website- it's whether or not Gordon Ross felt it was worth getting a pay website. Apparently he didn't.

Apparently. I didn't draw any conclusions or take sides, I just said what I said

True. I must admit it's nice being a fence sitter sometimes; just make a small comment here and there while everyone else gets hammered :D

[scott3x]

Leo: I received your complaint about Scott's posts. I wish one of the other moderators would respond who has any interest in this thread. I haven't even been following it.

Nonetheless, after perusing it I'm not inclined to sympathize. Scott has explained why he felt it was permissible to bring material from those other threads here. Why not? They're on topic and it's not like you're being overwhelmed with contributors.

Thanks :-). I simply felt that Stryder would have closed the thread down in the SF Open Government forum; the original topic had to do specifically with the SF forum, but some participants veered off into the WTC collapses issue, and Stryder's already closed a thread on that topic in the SF Open Government forum, so I figured it would be best not to push my luck.


If you're expecting the kind of "formal debate" where people are marked down for not slavishly following the rules, I think you're going to have to join a university debate club. Those debates are not won or lost on the basis of who makes the most compelling case for his side of the issue. It's strictly a matter of who has the discipline to never deviate from the rulebook. That's hardly the kind of arguing we'd like to foster on this website. We want to teach and learn, not keep score.

Sounds good to me :-). Besides, like you said, it's not like we have a plethora of university type debaters in this forum right now :-p.


In any case I don't see anyone here breaking new ground and illuminating the issue with information that was heretofore generally unknown. This reads more like a plain old argument than like a group of scientists trying to discover the explanation for a strange phenomenon.

Aw c'mon :-)!


None of you has brought up the asbestos issue. Halfway through the construction of the WTC, the incredibly bright and caring people who run New York City decided to outlaw asbestos... without grandfathering in projects that were already under construction. It's been estimated statistically that that decision may have prevented three deaths from respiratory damage... over the course of the entire next century. One engineer whose report I saw quoted several years ago claimed that no other insulator is as effective, pound per pound, as asbestos. So in order to avoid overloading infrastructure in the lower floors, they had to settle for an inferior job of fireproofing the upper floors. He said that if the original specifications of the building had been fulfilled, it would not have collapsed, because after all the prospect of an airliner crashing into a building is exactly the sort of risk that a good architect would plan for. It was bound to happen some day eventually and nobody wants to be the guy who gets blamed for skimping on the fireproofing.

There have been tests done on building steel where essentially no fireproofing was used and it still didn't collapse. Apparently NIST even did a test with no fireproofing at all; they claimed it was a 'calibration' test or something and never revealed the results.


People right here on SciForums are asking angrily why they've not heard or read any interviews with the pilots of that plane that just went down in the Hudson River. And nobody died in that one! Tell me how many interviews you've heard or read with the people who procured and installed the insulation on the WTC? Hmm?

I don't know if this is true. Exactly one engineer has told me that it's not, so at this point it's one yes and one no. I would think that if you guys are really interested in this topic you would go to the trouble of tracking this down. I'm not, so I didn't.

I haven't investigated this either because I think there is overwhelming evidence that there's no way in hell that the towers could have come down the way they did with anything other then explosives. However, I fully admit that persuading official story supporters of this is indeed quite challenging.

[scott3x]

then why call it a "formal debate forum"?

Perhaps because people in discussions here actually have rules as to how they will discuss a topic? Like no insults of a certain type, for instance; kind of like a boxing match; no hits below the belt. I know you got frustrated with psikeyhackr over in pseudoscience. I certainly got frustrated with people there as well. Maybe in this forum things could be done in a more civil manner.


that is one of the reasons i never accepted scotts challenge is because i felt i was not equipped to argue these points formally.

Very few people here seem to be university debaters. I agree with Fraggle Rocker; the point is to get progress in a discussion, not follow inane rules of decorum. I'm simply hoping that in this forum, we can form a group that will follow the guidelines that I set out in the OP- that is, that certain insults are to be avoided.


scott,
you can drag my posts over here if you want but i will not respond to them.

Well, that is, ofcourse, your choice. I reiterate that I wouldn't have responded to your post in this forum if I had felt that doing so would have jeopardized the SF Open Government thread it was originally in.

edit:
apparently we can use quotes from people we can't even prove exist.

Are you speaking of someone in particular or is this simply a casual observation?

[Cyperium]

Couldn't they have had bombs with them in the planes, causing them to detonate and being the cause of the bangs heard, and perhaps also the definite cause of the collapse? If they were remote controlled they could have detonated them on the ground even. Or they could have self-detonated because of the fire.

[scott3x]

Couldn't they have had bombs with them in the planes, causing them to detonate and being the cause of the bangs heard, and perhaps also the definite cause of the collapse? If they were remote controlled they could have detonated them on the ground even. Or they could have self-detonated because of the fire.

I've heard of the idea of explosives being on the plane. I personally have no evidence against it. However, according to Gordon Ross, who is a mechanical engineer like Tony Szamboti (who has written several papers on the WTC Collapses and who also happens to post in this forum), the explosives were placed on every third floor; so explosives on the planes simply couldn't have brought the towers down the way they actually came down. Here's his 25 minute presentation that he made in the Indian YMCA, London:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/070707Ross.htm

[(Q)]

I suggest you take a look at Gordon Ross's videos, wherein he patiently explains the evidence for the explosive devices used; he includes photographic evidence in his videos.

Clearly, the people who did this wanted to make it to superficially -appear- as if the planes had taken down the buildings. However, I would argue that a more thorough examination of the evidence, such as the impressive work of Gordon Ross, proves otherwise.

Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.

Impressive work, indeed. He clearly has a poor understanding of the subject matter.

[scott3x]

I suggest you take a look at Gordon Ross's videos, wherein he patiently explains the evidence for the explosive devices used; he includes photographic evidence in his videos.

Clearly, the people who did this wanted to make it to superficially -appear- as if the planes had taken down the buildings. However, I would argue that a more thorough examination of the evidence, such as the impressive work of Gordon Ross, proves otherwise.


Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.

I haven't heard of the terms dynamic buckling or transverse loading. I'm sure Tony Szamboti could deal with these arguments, I'll try to get him in here. I know that Steven Jones and others have dealt with NIST's theories, which are the official ones; perhaps you're simply putting things in a different way that's got me off balance.

[John99]

This is an observation: scott chose formal debates because James is desperate to get any kind of fomal debate going. scott is just a manipulator.

[scott3x]

This is an observation: scott chose formal debates because James is desperate to get any kind of fomal debate going. scott is just a manipulator.

No. I chose formal debates because it seemed the only forum wherein 9/11 issues could be discussed in a forum that (a) looks more serious then the pseudoscience forum (b) wherein you can lay out groundrules, such as no using certain insults and (c) because of the paucity of posters, there would be less complaints of the issue of 9/11 choking other debates.

I think that James likes the idea of formal debates (I certainly do, but by this I mean more civilized debates, vs. the hack and slash that's so frequent in some forums), but I haven't seen any sign that he's desperate to see any. I'm certainly interested in knowing what makes you believe he is, however. Perhaps you feel that you know how James' mind works just as you demonstrated that you 'knew' how insurance works (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2128314&postcount=682)? :rolleyes:

[John99]

Perhaps you feel that you know how James' mind works just as you demonstrated that you 'knew' how insurance works (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2128314&postcount=682)? :rolleyes:

Perhaps i know how con men work and to be honest you sure seem like one to me. That is just from debating with you, could be wrong but it isnt that important.

[scott3x]

Perhaps you feel that you know how James' mind works just as you demonstrated that you 'knew' how insurance works (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2128314&postcount=682)? :rolleyes:

Perhaps i know how con men work and to be honest you sure seem like one to me. That is just from debating with you, could be wrong but it isnt that important.

Please, regale me with more of your unsubstantiated claims :rolleyes:

[John99]

didnt i say it was an observation?

[scott3x]

didnt i say it was an observation?

I don't see much of a difference between an observation and a claim. Perhaps you're trying to say that you just had a 'feeling' regarding me. However, you didn't even back up this 'feeling' with any evidence. You can say you feel the sky is purple, or green. Unsubstantiated claims of feelings are equally easy to make. The hard thing is actually providing evidence for what you feel or believe.

[John99]

i guess your bad habits are rubbing off on me.

[scott3x]

i guess your bad habits are rubbing off on me.

You are now apparently suggesting that I make unsubstantiated claims about you.

Well, if you'd like to provide any evidence for your claim, by all means :rolleyes:

[John99]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AfW6V5EAWY

[(Q)]

I haven't heard of the terms dynamic buckling or transverse loading.

That statement speaks volumes, why would anyone bother listening to your uninformed assertions on the subject matter? Clearly, your opinion is based on sheer belief of others and is entirely irrelevant.

I'm sure Tony Szamboti could deal with these arguments, I'll try to get him in here. I know that Steven Jones and others have dealt with NIST's theories, which are the official ones

So, while one of your so-called experts ignores fundamental issues, you turn to yet another so-called expert for support, and when we find the latter also ignores fundamental issues, will you then turn to yet another?

I'm now convinced beyond a doubt you're making a complete farce of this topic for whatever personal reasons not yet revealed. It's blatantly obvious you and your "Truth" friends have some sort of agenda, most likely in the form of $$$, at the expense of those who had personal attachments with this disaster.

You sir, are a charlatan, a fraud and a scoundrel.

[scott3x]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AfW6V5EAWY

Not sure why you put that link up, but I really liked the first song ;-)

[Tony Szamboti]

Ross completely ignores the concept of dynamic buckling, which causes members to bow under compression under transverse loading. He ignores phase group velocity in compression waves.

Impressive work, indeed. He clearly has a poor understanding of the subject matter.

Q, perhaps you can explain to us how you feel lateral torsional buckling (which is what I believe you actually mean) is applicable here and how it could have made a difference in Gordon Ross' work on the subject.

Where were the columns in the towers under transverse loads? Are you talking about the perimeter columns being bowed inward?

[MacGyver1968]

I don't know about you Tony...but I'm popping popcorn waiting on Q's response...I love me some good technical talk. It's why I participate in these theads..to learn. I just had to google "lateral torsional buckling". :)

[John99]

i used to love debating evolutionists who play scientist for that very reason. not because i care either way but once they start throwing terms around that they googled it become comical. i always leave the discussion thinking - dont you have to finish high school to be a scientist?

[John99]

theyre doin' detective work.

http://www.plyrocktoy.com/salesitems/large/m5.jpg

i am a plastic sergin and i learnt it on the internet.

[MacGyver1968]

i used to love debating evolutionists who play scientist for that very reason. not because i care either way but once they start throwing terms around that they googled it become comical. i always leave the discussion thinking - dont you have to finish high school to be a scientist?

Were you asking me if I finished High school?

[John99]

No.

I caught Tony in some very basic errors and misspellings that led me to believe he cant have any practical experience in the things he is discussing. Take away google and you are left with an empty suit.

[John99]

Most of these people yearn for fame and fortune so bad that they have to go on the fringe and be provocative otherwise no one would ever notice them.

[MacGyver1968]

No.

I caught Tony in some very basic errors and misspellings that led me to believe he cant have any practical experience in the things he is discussing. Take away google and you are left with an empty suit.

Oh cool...(bumps chest twice with fist) I didn't think you were addressing me...just wasn't sure.

[John99]

People are strange though. They have this need to belong to a group and once it has a title (in this case Toofer) then that is all it needs to get to the next level. And all the while trying to convice people of their positions while the real appeal is that they are different or know something that others dont and if that is the case what is the fascination with converting people?

Take some fringe religious movement. The appeal is that they are special\different so they preach and preach and meanwhile if the preaching is successful they are no longer special. So what happens is they need to find some other way to be cutting edge and special. It is a viscous cycle and a character flaw in humans. I attribute this to the base, the base is narcissism.

[MacGyver1968]

Dang...you all cracked open a can of philosophy on us there John...nice work. :)

[John99]

he he he...thank you.

[Tony Szamboti]

No.

I caught Tony in some very basic errors and misspellings that led me to believe he cant have any practical experience in the things he is discussing. Take away google and you are left with an empty suit.

What errors besides the trivial missunderstanding that you meant liters and not pounds in reference to the amount of fuel on the aircraft, as you were using the little used abbreviation for liters and the fuel is most often referred to in pounds or gallons?

I happen to have a degree in mechanical engineering from Villanova University and have worked doing structural design, analysis, and test on antennas and equipment in the aeropace and communications industries since 1990. One of the jobs in my career was at the former RCA broadcast which designed and built the 353 ton and 360 foot tall antenna stack on the North Tower in the 1970's.

I don't appreciate being called an empty suit, or that I should finish high school first, by someone who has written nothing formal on the subject and who I see little substance coming out of on a forum on the subject.

I am waiting to see these errors and the (heaven forbid it occur on a forum) misspellings you say you caught me in John. You really need to start backing up these statements of yours. Otherwise it will be easy to understand if people develop the opinion that your comments are nothing but noise and hot air.

[John99]

I happen to have a degree in mechanical engineering from Villanova University and have worked doing structural and thermal design, analysis, and test on antennas and equipment in the aeropace and communications industries since 1990. One of the jobs in my career was at the former RCA broadcast which designed and built the 353 ton and 360 foot tall antenna stack on the North Tower in the 1970's.


Maybe you do...maybe you dont. could be internet persona but i am not asking you for your personal information, you are volunteering it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=tony+szamboti+villanova&spell=1

you sure get around on this subject and not much else though. that is the extent of my interest.

What errors besides the trivial missunderstanding that you meant liters and not pounds

There was a few technical terms that were misspelled and i thought it was rather funny and l = liters whereas lb = pounds. i deduced that once off script you are lost.

and dont ask me to find the posts because i am not going to go through thousands of posts or rooting through page after page. suffice it to say i am not lying and these are my personal observations.

[Tony Szamboti]

Maybe you do...maybe you dont. could be internet persona but i am not asking you for your personal information, you are volunteering it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en-us&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=1&ct=result&cd=1&q=tony+szamboti+villanova&spell=1

you sure get around on this subject and not much else though. that is the extent of my interest.



There was a few technical terms that were misspelled and i thought it was rather funny and l = liters whereas lb = pounds. i deduced that once off script you are lost.

and dont ask me to find the posts because i am not going to go through thousands of posts or rooting through page after page. suffice it to say i am not lying and these are my personal observations.

No, I am not going to suffice it to say you aren't lying because you are lying. If you want to accuse someone of something at the very least you should produce evidence for what you are saying.

What you are saying here is unsupported, as most of your comments seem to be.

Support what you are saying like a man or shut your big mouth.

[John99]

It is funny because i have a degree in engineering as well. I worked on big projects and with steel and heavy machinery every day but only for three years and then i left that to do something entirely different. before that i was a crane operator and before that a welder. I worked with steel for years. And also been around iron workers my whole life.

The official story is certainly realistic and possible and i really have little interest once people start with lines like 'the jet at pentagon really flew over it' or 'explosives where planted in elevator shafts'

[John99]

Support what you are saying like a man or shut your big mouth.

Ad Hom.:mad:

[John99]

So then you must be over 60 years old.

[John99]

yeah, i have been around steel construction my whole life. most of my uncle (six of them) were crane operators on large building projects.

[John99]

aha....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5815

[Tony Szamboti]

It is funny because i have a degree in engineering as well. I worked on big projects and with steel and heavy machinery every day but only for three years and then i left that to do something entirely different. before that i was a crane operator and before that a welder. I worked with steel for years. And also been around iron workers my whole life.

The official story is certainly realistic and possible and i really have little interest once people start with lines like 'the jet at pentagon really flew over it' or 'explosives where planted in elevator shafts'

I am 52 years old and got my degree when I was 33. Prior to that I was a toolmaker and an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy. So I have worked with metals and mechanical things my entire working life.

However, what you are saying here doesn't answer my request that you produce evidence for the negative comments you made about me a few posts back in this thread, where you said things which evidence could easily be produced for if it were true. You seem to have shrunk from that task. Your earlier comments about me were unfounded and disgraceful, and while your tone seems to have changed, you really should apologize.

If you want to think the present official story is realistic and possible that is up to you. I don't believe it and my research into this catastrophy has shown me that it is not what really happened and that there is a cover-up going on. Since getting involved in this, out of a desire for truth and justice and the real American way (not some form of narcistic need), I have occassionally posted on forum's such as this and joined the debate about it. However, I have never attempted to falsely impugn someone's integrity and credibility or even given a baseless negative opinion about a person to try and discredit them. I try to discuss the issue itself and would only make a claim about a person if there were real substantiated evidence for it. From what I have seen of you on this forum you don't seem to make that attempt and on the contrary indulge yourself in making baseless claims. If you are going to continue in this debate I would think most here would appreciate your having a real basis for what you say.

[Tony Szamboti]

Ad Hom.:mad:

Telling you to shut your mouth if you don't have a basis for what you are saying is not ad hominem and it wasn't undeserved. Your false claims deserved every bit of this.

If you don't have a basis for what you are saying publicly, especially about someone else's abilities, character, or honesty, then by all means you should shut your mouth in those cases.

[John99]

I am 52 years old and got my degree when I was 33. Prior to that I was a toolmaker and an aircraft mechanic in the U.S. Navy. So I have worked with metals and mechanical things my entire working life.

Tony, most people do have degrees and why you mention this in every thread is why i thought you may have been FOS about that. Surely you can understand this, but there is no reason to get all bent out of shape and excited about something said on the internet.

I still dont see how you rationalize being a mechanical engineer and a toolmaker makes you an expert on everything and calling all the EXPERTS who did the ACTUAL investigations liars. To be honest as far as i can tell our qualifications are very similar and i really believe i am more qualified than you are here. A toolmaker? what can that possible add to this? i worked with machinists for years while i was a crane operator as well and i certainly wouldnt take their word on this matter as the absolute truth.

But you seem to take this far too seriously so maybe it is best to cool things off and like i said i never asked you to volunteer information about yourself and frankly there is no reason to. You are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is and i cannot call it an expert one. You are just too sensitive and if conspiracies are your hobby then who cares? But the simple fact is that you are not an expert simply because you have a degree in mech. engineering. why is that so hard to understand? Same for that post you made about JFK, you are not a ballistics expert and have no more information than anyone can get off of the discovery channel. My father was a forensic scientist (for 30 years) and he said that JFK conspiracy is fantasy and makes a good movie but that is about it.


However, what you are saying here doesn't answer my request that you produce evidence for the negative comments you made about me a few posts back in this thread, where you said things which evidence could easily be produced for if it were true. You seem to have shrunk from that task. Your earlier comments about me were unfounded and disgraceful, and while your tone seems to have changed, you really should apologize.

If you want to think the present official story is realistic and possible that is up to you. I don't believe it and my research into this catastrophy has shown me that it is not what really happened and that there is a cover-up going on.

what negative comments are you even talking about? and you misspelled catastrophe. All the research you have done does not possibly supersede that of the hands on investigators who ALL happen to disagree with you. That is the truth.

To me i have no hard feelings towards you and i am sorry if you think that a little light hearted fooling around is to be taken seriously. From now on i wont joke around with you. So then i apologize.:cool:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080201164400AAuAxyb

That is a pretty good link on the facts of the qualified agencies who disagrees with you. if you disregard the remark from 'beige almighty goddess of nada'.:m:

and then there is this:

according to http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/n... there are currently 1,370,300 engineering professionals in the workforce.

So, that means that approx. 0.019% of the engineers in the workforce are in agreement that 9/11 was an inside job.

Are you going to tell the other 99.81% that they are wrong, or should I?

[scott3x]

I don't know about you Tony...but I'm popping popcorn waiting on Q's response...I love me some good technical talk.

So do I, although I fully admit that levels can and have been reached where I know longer understand either side ;)


It's why I participate in these theads..to learn. I just had to google "lateral torsional buckling". :)

So did I; I also checked out wikipedia's entry on buckling, which Tony suggested I check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

As I told him, I think it's a good demonstration of why one can't become a mechanical or structural engineer overnight ;-).

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony, most people do have degrees and why you mention this in every thread is why i thought you may have been FOS about that. Surely you can understand this, but there is no reason to get all bent out of shape and excited about something said on the internet.

I still dont see how you rationalize being a mechanical engineer and a toolmaker makes you an expert on everything and calling all the EXPERTS who did the ACTUAL investigations liars. To be honest as far as i can tell our qualifications are very similar and i really believe i am more qualified than you are here. A toolmaker? what can that possible add to this? i worked with machinists for years while i was a crane operator as well and i certainly wouldnt take their word on this matter as the absolute truth.

But you seem to take this far too seriously so maybe it is best to cool things off and like i said i never asked you to volunteer information about yourself and frankly there is no reason to. You are entitled to your opinion but that is all it is and i cannot call it an expert one. You are just too sensitive and if conspiracies are your hobby then who cares? But the simple fact is that you are not an expert simply because you have a degree in mech. engineering. why is that so hard to understand? Same for that post you made about JFK, you are not a ballistics expert and have no more information than anyone can get off of the discovery channel. My father was a forensic scientist (for 30 years) and he said that JFK conspiracy is fantasy and makes a good movie but that is about it.



what negative comments are you even talking about? and you misspelled catastrophe. All the research you have done does not possibly supersede that of the hands on investigators who ALL happen to disagree with you. That is the truth.

To me i have no hard feelings towards you and i am sorry if you think that a little light hearted fooling around is to be taken seriously. From now on i wont joke around with you. So then i apologize.:cool:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080201164400AAuAxyb

That is a pretty good link on the facts of the qualified agencies who disagrees with you. if you disregard the remark from 'beige almighty goddess of nada'.:m:

and then there is this:

Again you just make claims without providing a basis. The investigation by NIST into what happened to the WTC buildings had how much of the actual evidence at their disposal? Answer: 236 pieces out of 50,000 from the towers and NONE from WTC 7. Even more interesting is the fact that the little steel they did get from the towers showed no evidence of having experienced high temperatures.

The reality is we haven't had any real investigations into these matters. Although there is enough evidence to warrant investigating the possibility of controlled demolition there were no tests done for residues on the steel, and no people who had access to those buildings were deposed. NFPA 921 requires testing for exotic accelerants in any fire investigation and this was not done. I have read the NIST reports on the towers and WTC 7. Have you?

You commit two logical fallacies in just the above post alone. First, ad hominem, which is when the person making the argument is attacked rather than the argument. Second is an appeal to authority. I don't see you comment on engineering issues very much at all other than your belief that the fuel and fires could have caused the buildings to come down and that the floor by floor collapses somehow prove demolition couldn't have been a cause.

I think you are either a person who shouldn't be debating this issue as it bothers you, or an indulgent person who feels they can just denigrate people at their whim, without much or any basis. What you said earlier was not lighthearted. However, I will accept your apology and we can leave it at that.

[scott3x]

Support what you are saying like a man or shut your big mouth.

Ad Hom.:mad:

Telling you to shut your mouth if you don't have a basis for what you are saying is not ad hominem and it wasn't undeserved.

I'm afraid I have to agree with John, but it's not like he hasn't been attacking you as well with his unsubstantiated claims that you don't know what you're talking about (he simply didn't say you had a 'big' mouth :-p). The important point, however, is that no one has used any of the insults that I have proscribed for this discussion, for which I am grateful; those insults can be seen in the first post if anyone would like to see them.

[Syzygys]

You can not have a discussion thread with 4 pages when the debate hasn't even started!!
The discussion thread is supposed to discuss the debate with additional info. If you just want to talk about a topic start it in the appropriate forum.

[shaman_]

Even more interesting is the fact that the little steel they did get from the towers showed no evidence of having experienced high temperatures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related

[scott3x]

You can not have a discussion thread with 4 pages when the debate hasn't even started!!
The discussion thread is supposed to discuss the debate with additional info. If you just want to talk about a topic start it in the appropriate forum.

>.<
The debate is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90071

According to MacGyver, the debate has concluded. Since my last post was 8 days ago (thus more then a week), I'm inclined to agree. If another debate is necessary in order to continue with this discussion, perhaps one can be arranged between Tony Szamboti and someone on the official story side. Personally, I would like this discussion thread to continue regardless of whether or not there is another 1 on 1 debate; as a matter of fact, this is the format I wanted to debate- the 2 sides debating, not just 2 people; clearly MacGyver hasn't been persuaded by my arguments and neither have others; thus, I think it makes sense to continue things here.

The reason I don't think this should be moved over to the pseudoscience forum is because I want this to be a -civilized- discussion, without using the words that have been proscribed in my opening post. I also believe that real science is going on here- we are testing theories against the evidence, which is the scientific method.

[Tony Szamboti]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6HWJ476z4&feature=related

Shaman, NIST did microstructure testing to see what the actual temperatures experienced by the steel were. What were the results of those tests?

Deformation is a function of strength, the mechanics involved, and the force applied. Showing a photo of a deformed piece of steel doesn't tell you what temperatures it experienced.

I have also mentioned to you that ASTM A36 structural steel has an elongation of 21%, and will not crack until it is deformed more than that percentage.

[Syzygys]

>.<
The debate is here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=90071

Oh sorry, my bad. I misstook this for the 9/11 proposal thread. Carry on...

[fedr808]

This is my opinion, but im pretty damn sure they collapsed down.

[scott3x]

This is my opinion, but im pretty damn sure they collapsed down.

Sure, but did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by planes and their jet fuel initiated fires, or did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by explosives. This is the fundamental issue.

I suppose I could have framed the question better as:
-Why- did the WTC buildings collapse?

It has been phrased this way in the past, first by the official side and then by the alternate theory side, in Steven Jones' paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)

[John99]

Again you just make claims without providing a basis. The investigation by NIST into what happened to the WTC buildings had how much of the actual evidence at their disposal? Answer: 236 pieces out of 50,000 from the towers and NONE from WTC 7. Even more interesting is the fact that the little steel they did get from the towers showed no evidence of having experienced high temperatures.

Well they could still be investigating steel to this day to satisfy every crackpot on the planet but i dont think that is what investigations are for. And you would never be satisfied anyway. At some point common sense should be the rule.

If someone gets shot and is murdered do the investigators look to satisfy someone who comes up with the theory of a remote controlled bullet? would that be prudent or even logical? maybe someone will claim it was an alien assailant or put forth the theory that the person shot themselves even if no weapon is present at the scene and the victim lost both arms in a farming accident but the could have pulled the trigger with their toes and then a bag lady cam along and took the gun for mongo. So the investigation was not properly done. Then nothing would ever get accomplished and we would be a civilization of imbeciles.

As far as your other points and attempts to shut people up, i debate all kinds of topics here and not much differently than the majority of people do. You happen to be very sensitive and if you are looking for people to walk on egg shells while you incessantly and compulsively discuss provocative issues on the internet then good luck with that.

[(Q)]

Q, perhaps you can explain to us how you feel lateral torsional buckling (which is what I believe you actually mean) is applicable here and how it could have made a difference in Gordon Ross' work on the subject.

My deduction was based on reading Ross' work and cross referencing with this paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

[scott3x]

My deduction was based on reading Ross' work and cross referencing with this paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

While Physicist Steven Jones agrees with one of the things mentioned in Bazant and Zhou's paper (its statement that "The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.") and doesn't seem to address your particular point, he -does- point out many flaws in Bazant and Zhou's paper in his paper "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)". I believe most if not all of it is in his 11th reason for "advancing the explosive-demolition hypothesis while challenging the “official” fire-caused collapse".

[Tony Szamboti]

My deduction was based on reading Ross' work and cross referencing with this paper:

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

Q, Dr. Bazant does not address lateral torsional buckling either nor does he mention anything called dynamic buckling. I think you are getting types of loading confused with types of failure.

Anyway, this paper does not answer the question I asked you. It essentially looks at axial loads and plastic hinge buckling.

[MacGyver1968]

Hey, Tony...we haven't spoken much. Would you might just giving an overview of what you believed caused the collapse?

Thanks,

Mac

[Tony Szamboti]

Hey, Tony...we haven't spoken much. Would you might just giving an overview of what you believed caused the collapse?

Thanks,

Mac

Mac, I am not sure if you know that the collapses initiated in the floors just above the impact damage, on the 98th and 82nd floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 respectively. So it wasn't aircraft impact damage that caused it. There is also no physical evidence that was kept to show that fire caused the columns to get very hot.

I think the initiation was done by taking out the outer core columns with the use of incendiaries and this steel could not be kept for NIST to examine, as it saw much higher temperatures than what fire could have caused. The reasons I have for this are the sudden onset and the flowing molten metal coming out of the damaged corner of WTC 2 just prior to collapse and the large amounts of molten metal found in the rubble of not only the towers but WTC 7 also. This molten metal was only found in the rubble of the three collapsed buildings. It was not found in the remains of WTC 5 and 6, both of which burned fiercely and had a lot of debris damage but did not collapse. The removal of the outer core columns would also cause the perimeter columns to be bowed inwardly via the floor trusses with the core columns falling. So the NIST is right that the floor trusses pulled the perimeter columns inward but it wasn't because of sagging. It was because the outer core columns were being cut. The floor truss fire tests done at Underwriter's Laboratories did not produce much sagging.

In addition to removal of the outer core columns taking down the towers would require softening up the perimeter corners since they formed a stiff structural element with support in two orthogonal directions. The removal of the outer core columns would also explain why 60 to 70 stories of inner core columns were left standing. This would occur once the column welds on the inner core columns were large enough to withstand the pull of the outer core columns and cause the beam connections to break first.

After the initiation I think explosives were used as the sound would be masked by the collapse and they could also be tamped to keep the noise down. Once the collapse was moving the explosives would only be necessary in key areas for reliability and to ensure complete collapse occurred without toppling. The use of some level of explosives would also explain the squibs coming out of the corners, once the collapse was underway.

The NIST has been forced to acknowledge freefall for the first 2.25 seconds or 100 feet of the collapse of WTC 7. There is only one way that can happen and since charges couldn't be put in place on Sept. 11, 2001 they had to be pre-positioned. This lends credence to the notion that charges could have been pre-positioned in the towers also.

While none of these things are total proof when taken separately, when looked at in an overall sense it seems only one general conclusion can be made. I wrote a paper on this in May of 2007, and updated in Feb. 2008 due to new column and mass information being available, which is published at the Journal of 911 Studies. If you are interested it is only eleven pages and can be found at http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypoth esisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

[MacGyver1968]

Once the collapse was moving the explosives would only be necessary in key areas for reliability and to ensure complete collapse occurred without toppling. The use of some level of explosives would also explain the squibs coming out of the corners, once the collapse was underway.



Thank you for your response.

Why would it be necessary to place charges to ensure compete collapse? How would a complete collapse differ from a partial collapse? And why would they insiders take extra measures to ensure a complete collapse?

[Tony Szamboti]

Thank you for your response.

Why would it be necessary to place charges to ensure compete collapse? How would a complete collapse differ from a partial collapse? And why would they insiders take extra measures to ensure a complete collapse?

A partial collapse could have led to a topple. A topple would have caused even more serious problems than the complete collapses. The towers were over 1/4 mile high. Even though it was quite significant, the complete collapses confined the major damage to a much smaller zone.

A partial collapse would have also been easier to investigate and the evidence harder to hide, and with a complete collapse it would be easier to get rid of the evidence in a cleanup. It was just all scrap at that point.

[MacGyver1968]

A partial collapse could have led to a topple. A topple would have caused even more serious problems than the complete collapses. The towers were over 1/4 mile high. Even though it was quite significant, the complete collapses confined the major damage to a much smaller zone.

A partial collapse would have also been easier to investigate and the evidence harder to hide, and with a complete collapse it would be easier to get rid of the evidence in a cleanup. It was just all scrap at that point.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just set charges in the basement? That would have ensured a complete collapse. Why would the insiders make things harder than they had to be?

[Tony Szamboti]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just set charges in the basement? That would have ensured a complete collapse. Why would the insiders make things harder than they had to be?

What makes you think setting the charges only in the basement would ensure a complete collapse?

To take a building down via controlled demolition one needs to develop enough kinetic energy so that the impact between the intact portions causes them to crush each other and crumble. The demolition of WTC 7 required eight stories or 100 feet to be removed to develop enough kinetic energy to crush the upper thirty-three floors and the lowest six floors. How many stories of the towers do you think would need to be removed near the ground or basement to develop the kinetic energy required to crush the remaining upper part of the building?

Taking out too many low columns of high aspect ratio buildings, like the towers, would probably cause toppling.

Additionally, setting charges only in the basement would also not work if the objective was to make it appear that the collapses were caused by the aircraft impacts and fires.

[shaman_]

Shaman, NIST did microstructure testing to see what the actual temperatures experienced by the steel were. What were the results of those tests? You have been made aware that very few of those samples came from the impact areas and few of those from the core.


Deformation is a function of strength, the mechanics involved, and the force applied. Showing a photo of a deformed piece of steel doesn't tell you what temperatures it experienced.

I have also mentioned to you that ASTM A36 structural steel has an elongation of 21%, and will not crack until it is deformed more than that percentage.Have you seen the steel bent like a horseshoe?

[fedr808]

Sure, but did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by planes and their jet fuel initiated fires, or did they collapse in such a way that one would be inclined to believe that they were brought down by explosives. This is the fundamental issue.

I suppose I could have framed the question better as:
-Why- did the WTC buildings collapse?

It has been phrased this way in the past, first by the official side and then by the alternate theory side, in Steven Jones' paper, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)

No Scott im pretty sure i gave the best answer ANYONE in this thread has given. An answer EVERYONE agrees on, that the buildings collapsed downwards, because you guys cannot decide on anything else.

[(Q)]

I believe ...

Yes, we know, now shut up.

[(Q)]

Q, Dr. Bazant does not address lateral torsional buckling either nor does he mention anything called dynamic buckling. I think you are getting types of loading confused with types of failure.

Anyway, this paper does not answer the question I asked you. It essentially looks at axial loads and plastic hinge buckling.

*sigh*

I suspected you'd toss it off without reading it. Oh well. :shrug:

[scott3x]

No Scott im pretty sure i gave the best answer ANYONE in this thread has given. An answer EVERYONE agrees on, that the buildings collapsed downwards, because you guys cannot decide on anything else.

Fine, congratulations for stating the obvious :rolleyes:. The fact that they collapsed downwards, however, is something that is interesting to note, considering that the only times that high rises have suffered complete collapses in the past was through earthquakes- and in those cases, they toppled over. As a matter of fact, one of the top part of one of the WTC buildings -did- begin to topple over before disintegrating in mid air. To me it's obvious that only explosives could have made the top part disintegrate.

[(Q)]

To me it's obvious that only explosives could have made the top part disintegrate.

Only from an uninformed position of belief would one make such a claim.

[fedr808]

I thought it was pretty funny, how he managed to support his arguement from something that had little to do with it.

[scott3x]

To me it's obvious that only explosives could have made the top part disintegrate.

Only from an uninformed position of belief would one make such a claim.

Do you actually have an alternative explanation?

[scott3x]

I thought it was pretty funny, how he managed to support his arguement from something that had little to do with it.

Actually, the fact that the towers came straight down or 'telescoping down', as even an official story supporter described it, is something that is perplexing even to some official story supporters and is one of the strong arguments supporting the controlled demolition theory.

[John99]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just set charges in the basement? That would have ensured a complete collapse. Why would the insiders make things harder than they had to be?

All that had to happen was the planes flying into the buildings which would have rendered them unusable for years and caused a good number of casualties in and of itself.

[(Q)]

Do you actually have an alternative explanation?

Alternative to what? Your ignorant and uninformed conspiracy assertions?

[(Q)]

Actually, the fact that the towers came straight down or 'telescoping down', as even an official story supporter described it, is something that is perplexing even to some official story supporters and is one of the strong arguments supporting the controlled demolition theory.

No, it is not. It is an uninformed assertion based on ignorance.

[scott3x]

Alternative to what? [insults removed]

Re-read my post. My question really wasn't that hard to understand.

[scott3x]

All that had to happen was the planes flying into the buildings which would have rendered them unusable for years

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

[Tony Szamboti]

*sigh*

I suspected you'd toss it off without reading it. Oh well. :shrug:

No, I have read the Bazant and Zhou paper several times. It does not discuss lateral torsional buckling or lateral loads. It does discuss dynamic loads but that isn't what you said and there is a big difference.

I asked you a fair question as to why you feel lateral loads are applicable and how they would change Gordon Ross' analysis.

I am also now going to ask why you chose Dr. Bazant's paper to explain yourself, when it doesn't address the subject you brought up.

[Tony Szamboti]

You have been made aware that very few of those samples came from the impact areas and few of those from the core.

You had to admit that the results of the NIST microstructure tests, on the little steel they did get, did not show that the steel experience high temperatures. In fact, in 98% of the areas they tested it did not even get hot enough to lose any strength at all.

Now for the next part of this odyssey. Please ask yourself the questions below.

What legitimate investigation would not have looked at the steel from the areas where the collapses initiated? The mere fact that it wasn't kept for the NIST to analyze says volumes. Anyone with a clear mind can see there was manipulation of the steel evidence if they DID NOT analyze the steel from the collapse initiation areas.

Why didn't the NIST get that steel Shaman? Why?

Have you seen the steel bent like a horseshoe?

I have explained to you several times that deformation is not a complete indication of the temperature experienced by the steel. Deformation is a function of the yield strength of the material (which can be reduced by heating), the mechanics involved and the loads involved in the mechanics. A lot of steel is cold formed at room temperature. The steel you are talking about was ASTM A36 structural steel and I explained repeatedly that ASTM A36 structural steel is quite ductile and will not crack until it elongates more than 21%. To give you an example of what this means, you can take a 12 foot long x 2 foot wide I-beam of A36 structural steel and bend it into a 3.5 foot radius at it's centerline and it won't crack. The outside edge has elongated to 14 foot but the 2 foot stretch divided by the original 12 feet is 16.67%. Your horseshoe was probably deformed by loads alone without any help whatsoever from heat.

[(Q)]

Re-read my post. My question really wasn't that hard to understand.

The question was easy to understand.

The below observation was not an insult, it was a point in fact.

"Your ignorant and uninformed conspiracy assertions?"

[MacGyver1968]

What makes you think setting the charges only in the basement would ensure a complete collapse?

To take a building down via controlled demolition one needs to develop enough kinetic energy so that the impact between the intact portions causes them to crush each other and crumble. The demolition of WTC 7 required eight stories or 100 feet to be removed to develop enough kinetic energy to crush the upper thirty-three floors and the lowest six floors. How many stories of the towers do you think would need to be removed near the ground or basement to develop the kinetic energy required to crush the remaining upper part of the building?

Taking out too many low columns of high aspect ratio buildings, like the towers, would probably cause toppling.

Additionally, setting charges only in the basement would also not work if the objective was to make it appear that the collapses were caused by the aircraft impacts and fires.


I'm not the structural engineer..but I'm pretty sure if you put shaped charges on the 48 core columns in the basement, it would cause the whole building to collapse. It would look a lot different than original collapse..the "snowball" would be at the base, while the building lowered itself into it...and there probably would be some toppling and spreading out of debris..it might even topple over in one big piece...but the end result is the same...a pile of rumble and dead bodies. I wasn't clear in my post about this, I was referring to bombs going off in the basement, without planes hitting the building. The insiders had a blank page to work with when they started the designing of their plan. It just doesn't make sense to me with all of the options and resources available to them, they would choose this plan of using both planes and explosives. If your going to go to the trouble of rigging the building for explosives capable of collapse..why even bother with planes? Terrorists have used bombs in the basement before, so it would be very easy to believe they did it again...but this time they were more successful. (p.s. this a part of my idea on the best way to take down the towers :) )

The intent of the people that committed the crimes of that day (be they terrorists or insiders) was to "shock" America. Mission accomplished. I remember my own reactions from that day...after I watched the second plane hit...and I instantly went from wondering if it was an accident to KNOWING it was an attack...I was pissed..I wanted revenge..I was ready to crack open a can of whoop ass on the perps right then... It was only necessary to create a large disaster that would be viewed on live national television. Complete collapse was not necessary.

Why would they intentionally create a "Rube Goldberg machine" of a plan, instead of something much less complicated and risky? Why design a plan that would intentionally put your explosives in the direct path of a plane crashing at 500 mph? That's super duper risky..you could only HOPE your charges survived the impact. Why intentionally create that much risk and more opportunities for failure, when much less risky options were available. While the planes impacting the building did provide some serious shock value...equal amounts of shock could be accomplished by calling in a bomb threat, then setting off of "were not kidding bomb"...wait 10 or so minutes for the news cameras to gather...hell...with insider clout, you could even arrange a "media event" of a different nature to be going on..so the whole thing is broadcast. Then before god and everyone, blow the charges.

Point I'm trying to make...People...if given a choice...will choose the easiest and safest way to do things. It's the reason we walk around brush piles instead of climbing over them. The insiders were subject to these same human nature tendencies, why would they make things so hard for themselves?

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm not the structural engineer..but I'm pretty sure if you put shaped charges on the 48 core columns in the basement, it would cause the whole building to collapse. It would look a lot different than original collapse..the "snowball" would be at the base, while the building lowered itself into it...and there probably would be some toppling and spreading out of debris..it might even topple over in one big piece...but the end result is the same...a pile of rumble and dead bodies. I wasn't clear in my post about this, I was referring to bombs going off in the basement, without planes hitting the building. The insiders had a blank page to work with when they started the designing of their plan. It just doesn't make sense to me with all of the options and resources available to them, they would choose this plan of using both planes and explosives. If your going to go to the trouble of rigging the building for explosives capable of collapse..why even bother with planes? Terrorists have used bombs in the basement before, so it would be very easy to believe they did it again...but this time they were more successful. (p.s. this a part of my idea on the best way to take down the towers :) )

The intent of the people that committed the crimes of that day (be they terrorists or insiders) was to "shock" America. Mission accomplished. I remember my own reactions from that day...after I watched the second plane hit...and I instantly went from wondering if it was an accident to KNOWING it was an attack...I was pissed..I wanted revenge..I was ready to crack open a can of whoop ass on the perps right then... It was only necessary to create a large disaster that would be viewed on live national television. Complete collapse was not necessary.

Why would they intentionally create a "Rube Goldberg machine" of a plan, instead of something much less complicated and risky? Why design a plan that would intentionally put your explosives in the direct path of a plane crashing at 500 mph? That's super duper risky..you could only HOPE your charges survived the impact. Why intentionally create that much risk and more opportunities for failure, when much less risky options were available. While the planes impacting the building did provide some serious shock value...equal amounts of shock could be accomplished by calling in a bomb threat, then setting off of "were not kidding bomb"...wait 10 or so minutes for the news cameras to gather...hell...with insider clout, you could even arrange a "media event" of a different nature to be going on..so the whole thing is broadcast. Then before god and everyone, blow the charges.

Point I'm trying to make...People...if given a choice...will choose the easiest and safest way to do things. It's the reason we walk around brush piles instead of climbing over them. The insiders were subject to these same human nature tendencies, why would they make things so hard for themselves?

You forgot to add that they do the easiest way that actually works. With shaped charges on the 47 core columns in the basement the building wouldn't just come down with a snowball at the bottom. There would be no maybes about toppling as the aspect ratio was just too great. There was a 1/4 mile of building above those basements.

The reason for the aircraft impacts would have been shock value and the ability to take the buildings down without a topple while being able to easily blame outsiders. The bombs in the basement would be hard to pull off the deception with, in my opinion. You would need huge amounts of explosive to even make a dent in the columns down there. In 1993 it was a 1200 lb. bomb that went off in a Ryder truck and it didn't do much damage to the nearby columns, so how would insiders come up with a cover story for the amount of explosive needed and how do they explain the security lapse? With the aircraft hijackings and impacts there isn't a whole lot to explain.

It would not be that hard to rig ten floors around where the aircraft impact would occur and there were probably homing devices to zero in on a specific area. Once knowing precisely where it hit the collapse sequence could be adjusted for the floor just above the major damage. The aircraft didn't actually cause as much damage as you seem to think either and you seem to be forgetting that the collapses actually started above the impact damage. Take a look at the NIST report for the actual amount of damage on the 97th floor of WTC 1, it isn't very much. NIST doesn't even show the little damage to the 98th floor, where the collapse initiated in WTC 1. It was hit by all of five foot of the end of one wing. Additionally, fires can't set off thermite. That is another reason I believe the collapses were initiated with incendiaries.

[scott3x]

The question was easy to understand. [repeated insults removed]

Apparently not for you :cool:

[John99]

All that had to happen was the planes flying into the buildings which would have rendered them unusable for years and caused a good number of casualties in and of itself.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Common sense.

[John99]

I'm not the structural engineer..but I'm pretty sure if you put shaped charges on the 48 core columns in the basement, it would cause the whole building to collapse. It would look a lot different than original collapse..the "snowball" would be at the base, while the building lowered itself into it...and there probably would be some toppling and spreading out of debris..it might even topple over in one big piece...but the end result is the same...a pile of rumble and dead bodies. I wasn't clear in my post about this, I was referring to bombs going off in the basement, without planes hitting the building. The insiders had a blank page to work with when they started the designing of their plan. It just doesn't make sense to me with all of the options and resources available to them, they would choose this plan of using both planes and explosives. If your going to go to the trouble of rigging the building for explosives capable of collapse..why even bother with planes? Terrorists have used bombs in the basement before, so it would be very easy to believe they did it again...but this time they were more successful. (p.s. this a part of my idea on the best way to take down the towers :) )


Mac, doesnt matter. You have to just take it from where it comes.:crazy:

The building came down in a fashion that entirely supports the official story and is impossible in the Toofer fantasy. I said weeks ago that charges would need to be set at each corner on every singly floor to come down the way the buildings did.

Ask for the example Col. Kurtz gave me of the building demolished with jacks and it is good for a laugh that this person would be so simple. He links to a video that completely contradict his BS. I dont remember where that link is but it is pretty comical.

[shaman_]

You had to admit that the results of the NIST microstructure tests, on the little steel they did get, did not show that the steel experience high temperatures. In fact, in 98% of the areas they tested it did not even get hot enough to lose any strength at all. Which is completely understandable considering where the samples came from!

Now for the next part of this odyssey. Please ask yourself the questions below.

What legitimate investigation would not have looked at the steel from the areas where the collapses initiated? They did look at the steel from those areas. I have shown you Astaneh commenting on steel which he believed was softened by the extreme heat. He estimated that the steel had to be approximately 2000F to produce what he saw. You have posted a quote of his where he was discussing the same subject. The investigation teams believed that they had plenty of evidence of high temperatures.

This is a the contradictory nature of the many claims (Not necessarily addressing you Tony). Truthers repeatedly point to evidence of high temperatures when they think it confirms an incendiary while at the same time claim the evidence points to no high temperatures.


The mere fact that it wasn't kept for the NIST to analyze says volumes. Anyone with a clear mind can see there was manipulation of the steel evidence if they DID NOT analyze the steel from the collapse initiation areas.

Why didn't the NIST get that steel Shaman? Why? They were able to identify where every single piece came from so they probably chose pieces in the best possible condition. Those would be the pieces unaffected by the fire.

As I have conceded several times now it is disappointing that these were the pieces that received the metallurgical microanalysis. If you want to make a point of the biased or flawed selection then that is fine. But you don't do that. You present that 229 pieces were analyzed with none showing temperatures over 600C knowing full well that very few were from the area actually expected to experience high temperatures. That is what I take issue with.

If it were implausible for fires to get hot enough to weaken steel to the point of such a collapse then perhaps I would be more suspicious of these results. However it is completely reasonable that the steel reached those temperatures and is entirely consistent with previous examples of building fires, several fire tests, observed bowing(testimony not the photographs), computer simulations, reports from the scrapyards ect ect.


I have explained to you several times that deformation is not a complete indication of the temperature experienced by the steel. I have been skeptical of your claims as they are in direct contradiction to those of Astaneh, who has experience investigating buildings affected by fires, natural disaster and terrorist attacks. I'm at work and I won’t challenge you on it at this stage.

[Tony Szamboti]

Shaman, the notion and other evidence that incendiaries were used to initiate the collapses is not inconsistent with the fact that none of the steel that the NIST tested had experienced high temperatures. This would be precisely why NONE of the fire affected area steel was saved for the REAL testing. Astaneh did no testing at the landfill and he really couldn't tell what temperatures were experienced other than if there was melting or not. As I have shown you, deformation is NOT an indication of temperatures experienced.

Some people may not articulate the above argument very well but that does not diminish it. When it is presented cogently it makes perfect sense.

The fact that the steel from the fire affected and collapse initiation areas was not saved would appear to be a lot more than biased selection, especially in light of the fact that orange yellow flourescing molten metal was seen emanating from the collapse zone of WTC 2. It would be like a four story apartment house having a serious fire that started on the first floor, where witnesses also saw flashes emanating from, and the initial investigators only saving the evidence from the fourth floor. This kind of thing just does not happen by accident, especially not on all three buildings, as it violates standard investigatory protocol, and there were a lot of expert type people saying there was a need to save the steel to determine the actual causes of the collapses. Let's not forget that NONE of the steel from WTC 7 was saved. That certainly can't be called biased or flawed selection.

It is blatantly obvious that the steel from the fire affected and collapse initiation areas was deliberately recycled and not saved for analysis and testing due to it's bearing evidence of something other than fire heating. If you don't understand this it only means you don't want to, as it is clear as day.

[fedr808]

Scott can you please stop referancing the fact that the steel was not vaporized or whatever? I mean seriously, considering the amount of rubble you could never positively prove which steel bars came from what parts of the building. And maybe, just maybe, the pieces of steel that were vaporized, are vaporized and no longer in identifiable existance, and the ones that you show us pictures of that are un vaporized, just werent in the right part of the building.

[scott3x]

Scott can you please stop referancing the fact that the steel was not vaporized or whatever? I mean seriously, considering the amount of rubble you could never positively prove which steel bars came from what parts of the building. And maybe, just maybe, the pieces of steel that were vaporized, are vaporized and no longer in identifiable existance, and the ones that you show us pictures of that are un vaporized, just werent in the right part of the building.

The office fires couldn't have even melted the steel, let alone vaporize it; this is why I keep bringing it up. This means that something else had to have done it; the most likely explanation is explosives.

There are ways of determining where different pieces of steel came from; NIST definitely knows this.

[Tony Szamboti]

The office fires couldn't have even melted the steel, let alone vaporize it; this is why I keep bringing it up. This means that something else had to have done it; the most likely explanation is explosives.

Or incendiaries which reach temperatures beyond the boiling point of steel.

There are ways of determining where different pieces of steel came from; NIST definitely knows this.

Many of the structural elements in the twin towers had their locations directly embossed on them. The sizes of the columns and wall thicknesses in any given location were also known. These sizes changed as the towers ascended and on any given floor most of the columns are different. In an investigative sense these buildings could have been put back together like what is often done with an aircraft wreck. I don't mean to say they could have been placed on top of one another again but the structural elements which went together could have been laid out in a field and examined for cause and effect etc.

[scott3x]

The office fires couldn't have even melted the steel, let alone vaporize it; this is why I keep bringing it up. This means that something else had to have done it; the most likely explanation is explosives.

Or incendiaries which reach temperatures beyond the boiling point of steel.

Nods. However, are you saying that explosives weren't needed to bring down the towers, only incendiaries? From what I've heard from John Gross, thermite was used to start things off (thus the famous molten metal coming out from one side of one of the twin towers), but after that, explosives were used on every third floor.


There are ways of determining where different pieces of steel came from; NIST definitely knows this.

Many of the structural elements in the twin towers had their locations directly embossed on them.

I thought that was the case, but wasn't sure :-).


The sizes of the columns and wall thicknesses in any given location were also known.

Isn't this the type of thing that psikeyhackr is always asking for? I mean, couldn't you ascertain the distribution of mass with that information?


These sizes changed as the towers ascended and on any given floor most of the columns are different. In an investigative sense these buildings could have been put back together like what is often done with an aircraft wreck. I don't mean to say they could have been placed on top of one another again but the structural elements which went together could have been laid out in a field and examined for cause and effect etc.

Yeah, that sounds similar to what Jonathan Barnett said was usually done in investigations of this nature and what was clearly -not- done with WTC 7, which is what he investigated.

[Tony Szamboti]

Nods. However, are you saying that explosives weren't needed to bring down the towers, only incendiaries? From what I've heard from John Gross, thermite was used to start things off (thus the famous molten metal coming out from one side of one of the twin towers), but after that, explosives were used on every third floor.

I believe incendiaries were used to start it off to keep noise levels down and so it would seem like fire did it. I do think explosives would then have been used for reliability once the collapse was underway with it's inherent noise masking the noise from the explosives. This explains the focused ejections. Tamping may have been used for noise abatement also.


Isn't this the type of thing that psikeyhackr is always asking for? I mean, couldn't you ascertain the distribution of mass with that information?

All of the sizes and locations would have been known to the NIST people, not the public at the time. There has been a certain amount of information released on the core column sizes and concrete distribution by the NIST.

I think psikeyhackr has a beef to a degree, as the actual construction drawings have not been made public. However, we did get the core column data and since the contracts for the steel were in the NIST report we can estimate the perimeter column wall thickness'. From the Engineering News Record articles we also have an idea of what strength steel was used where on the perimeter. We also know what the thickness, area, and density of the concrete was on each floor from the NIST report. With this information we can do some reasonable estimates.

[scott3x]

Nods. However, are you saying that explosives weren't needed to bring down the towers, only incendiaries? From what I've heard from John Gross, thermite was used to start things off (thus the famous molten metal coming out from one side of one of the twin towers), but after that, explosives were used on every third floor.

I believe incendiaries were used to start it off to keep noise levels down and so it would seem like fire did it. I do think explosives would then have been used for reliability once the collapse was underway with it's inherent noise masking the noise from the explosives. This explains the focused ejections. Tamping may have been used for noise abatement also.

Cool :-). These types of issues have gone on for -so- long in sciforums, laugh :-).


Isn't this the type of thing that psikeyhackr is always asking for? I mean, couldn't you ascertain the distribution of mass with that information?

All of the sizes and locations would have been known to the NIST people, not the public at the time. There has been a certain amount of information released on the core column sizes and concrete distribution by the NIST.

I think psikeyhackr has a beef to a degree, as the actual construction drawings have not been made public. However, we did get the core column data and since the contracts for the steel were in the NIST report we can estimate the perimeter column wall thickness'. From the Engineering News Record articles we also have an idea of what strength steel was used where on the perimeter. We also know what the thickness, area, and density of the concrete was on each floor from the NIST report. With this information we can do some reasonable estimates.

Cool. I guess the reason no one has done so is that even without estimates of this nature, it's clear that the towers couldn't have come down without the help of incendiaries and explosives. What do you think?

[Tony Szamboti]

Cool :-). These types of issues have gone on for -so- long in sciforums, laugh :-).




Cool. I guess the reason no one has done so is that even without estimates of this nature, it's clear that the towers couldn't have come down without the help of incendiaries and explosives. What do you think?

I guess I don't understand what you are saying here, as there has been several estimates on conservation of momentum done. In the Missing Jolt paper we used energy of deformation and conservation of momentum to show what the velocity reduction would have had to be to continue a collapse past the first collision between floors, if it were a natural process. The fact that this velocity reduction is not observed proves it wasn't a natural process.

The science has to be done to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the information we have, is sufficient to do that.

[scott3x]

Cool. I guess the reason no one has done so is that even without estimates of this nature, it's clear that the towers couldn't have come down without the help of incendiaries and explosives. What do you think?

I guess I don't understand what you are saying here, as there has been several estimates on conservation of momentum done. In the Missing Jolt paper we used energy of deformation and conservation of momentum to show what the velocity reduction would have had to be to continue a collapse past the first collision between floors, if it were a natural process. The fact that this velocity reduction is not observed proves it wasn't a natural process.

The science has to be done to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the information we have, is sufficient to do that.



Ok. I just meant that knowing the distribution of mass isn't necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and few if anyone besides psikeyhackr thinks it's all that important. Is this right?

[Tony Szamboti]

Ok. I just meant that knowing the distribution of mass isn't necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and few if anyone besides psikeyhackr thinks it's all that important. Is this right?

You are sort of mixing apples and oranges here.

It is important and we do have a reasonable estimate of the distribution of mass with Gregory Urich's mass analysis study, and have used it.

psikeyhackr is somewhat rightfully complaining about full transparency and divulgence of all information so that exacting figures can be used. I know his argument annoys some people, but it is true that it seems like there has been an attempt to minimize the publicly available information. With that being said, we do have enough information, cobbled together from various sources, including the NIST report, to do the work.

[scott3x]

Ok. I just meant that knowing the distribution of mass isn't necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt and few if anyone besides psikeyhackr thinks it's all that important. Is this right?

You are sort of mixing apples and oranges here.

It is important and we do have a reasonable estimate of the distribution of mass and have used it.

psikeyhackr is somewhat rightfully complaining about full transparency and divulgence of all information so that exacting figures can be used. I know his argument annoys some people, but it is true that there has been an attempt to minimize the publicly available information. Having said that, we do have enough information to do the work.

Ok, thanks for explaining that :-)