WTC Collapses

Why wouldn't I? I'm simply paraphrasing what a firefighter who was actually there said.

Yes, yes, me not knowing about butt joints proves I know nothing about the WTC buildings

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hehe...he said "butt joints"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

....No thank you ...I prefer to smoke them with my mouth.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I had a hunch you'd respond to that, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

Steven Jones

You seem to be forgetting that he's a -physicist- and as such knows a thing or 2 about the conservation of momentum right from the start. What's more, he has made it his business to learn a lot about the WTC collapses and do such things such as conduct an analysis of the WTC debris, finding thermate residues and even unexploded thermate.

In your dreams

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Imagine that we're 2 lawyers in a court of law. I ask you to defend your claim and you say that I should ponder everything you've already said? shaman, I'm not going to make your case for you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, they have.

I'm glad you're having a good time anyway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Oh, I misunderstood you- I thought you were asking if he has creating false evidence. In any case, he has no need to do it himself; there are tons of detractors of his theories out there and he debunked many of their claims.

My point is that Steven Jones isn't the only person who can determine whether or not thermite was used; it's been done in investigations in the past where thermite arson is suspected. I'd advise you take a look at the clip I linked to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM&feature=related

Alright, get me a link and I'll take a look. I believe I've heard about the famous 'light below' one to some extent and his major crime was that he took the picture from another place without making sure that the light wasn't from molten metal. Haven't heard about Erik Schwartz's testimony.

Not this one again. He's a -mormon-. Are you even -aware- that -all- mormons believe that Jesus came to America? If he did indeed write those interpretations, he was simply reinforcing what he already believed. And believe you me, just because he's Steven Jones does -not- mean that I believe that mormons are right on this.

 

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

Bombs in the buildings

I don't mean in the final seconds before they fell down- i mean -way- before they fell down.

Very funny. I'm only suggesting that it's possible that the windsor tower fire may have had some thermite involved. I have certainly heard that it's possible the fire was due to arson, and thermite arson is not unheard of.

If the noise is from a bomb, it's certainly a bomb. If the noise -sounds- like a bomb, it may or may not be a bomb.

Dr. Astaneh also thinks the buildings were "light weight"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

He also quit the investigation due to restrictions he didn't like. Last I heard, he was stating that the buildings themselves were the problem, despite the fact that they were so strongly built.

I believe Headspin once said that thermite could do it, but I personally have never even stated that explosives did any such thing. I do believe, that explosives could have -bent- the steel and there's clearly evidence of some very large bent steel pieces. And they could also hurl steel beams hundreds of feet laterally, as also happened.

 

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires, part 2

On my site, not only do I acknowledge that you have attempted to counter my points, but I have included your counters in the page in question, along with my counters to your counters. However, while I made a lot of counters towards KennyJC, I haven't yet countered any arguments you may have made in the past regarding the twin tower demolition characteristics, so be all means, have a look and get back to me with your commentary.

Ok.

Here's a building that's been demolished from the top down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8

The following clip links that video with the twin tower demolitions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R20V9mt5m54&NR=1

What 'simplest of concepts' is that, Mr. obsessive insulter? While the twin tower demolitions may not have been done in the normal fashion, there is still plenty of evidence that they were, indeed, demolitions.

 

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Part 3

Sigh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Look, just quit bothering me with these baseless insults and personal attacks ok? I've reported you twice already, but nothing seems to happen when I do so. I must admit I'm dissapointed, but that's life.

Then why mention the 'urban activist'?

I already told you I 'get it'. They didn't 'pad it out', however. They're simply including all engineers. I think they probably should have limited it to engineers who actually had something to do with buildings, but it was their choice to make. In any case, a fair amount of people who aren't all that knowledgeable on architecture and demolitions can familiarize themselves with the important concepts if they're willing to spend a fair amount of time on it.

This from the guy who frequently wants me to make his case for him

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I recently found an article from Steven Jones, in which he counters the idea that nuclear devices were involved. I have yet to take a look, but if I ever get into that possibility again, I think I'll take a look.

 

This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 337 in this thread.

Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Part 3

I personally primarily use logic to test the theories I hear, but people like Steven Jones do things like examine the WTC debris and do tests to determine what thermate can do.

Actually, they do certify steel components that are put together in the form of assemblies. Kevin Ryan explains it best in his article "Propping up the War on Terror":
**************************************
If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.

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

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

Apparently not to you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[snip baseless insulting claim]

Yeah, that's why I keep on countering your claims I'm sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I, atleast, would like the whole thing investigated further; you, on the other hand, seem to want to discard answers you don't like without thinking twice about them :bugeye:

 

what it actually says is that the websites you have plastered all over these threads are ignoring evidence that prove the WTC towers were of rather weak construction, and that you are swallowing their BS hook, line, and sinker.

 

Wow, you figured this all out by the fact that I didn't know about butt joints? Truly impressive

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, if you want to point out evidence that the towers were supposedly of weak construction and attempt to counter the evidence I have shown that the towers were actually very strongly built, be my guest.

Or do you want me to look for the evidence for you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

?

 

you need to start thinking for yourself scott instead of letting others do it for you.

it's apparent that you will disregard anything that doesn't support your veiw so why bother?

 

maybe he thinks this is a core column:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

looks similar but the ones i seen was already loaded on flatbed semis.
they were about 18" to 2 feet wide.
you can't judge dimensions in your photograph.

 

do you have any information to confirm what you say?

here is a thinner core column (from the top of the tower), where is the butt joint? as you can see it has interconnected welded and bolted horizontal beams.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 338 in this thread.

'Normal' office fire tests, part 3

Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

1- I don't believe I've ever seen you acknowledge when I've pointed something out to you before.
2- I'm not 'playing dumb'.

Corus Construction, the company that did the Cardington Fire tests. I've seen people put up the pdf link, but it seems to have been removed. This is the (now dead) link:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section15.pdf

Even with next to no fireproofing, the building wouldn't have collapsed. Here's an excerpt from Kevin Ryan's article The short reign of Ryan Mackey:
************************
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.

There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.
************************

NIST's report is full of absurdities, as many in the 911 truth movement have made clear. I already debunked NIST's claims on the 'raging fires' ages ago in a response to Kenny way back when we were all still in the 'one' thread.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

I think the above quoted and linked to material from notable 911 luminaries have made it clear that this is not the case.

 

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The immense explosions in the WTC towers, Part 3

Yes, I brought them up before- Kenny tried to counter and I countered him right back; it's all clear in the link above.

Yep.

You aren't really serious are you? A lot of people believe there is ample evidence in the videos and pictures of the collapse.

I see you're still in the denial stage

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Part 3

No, you did. I linked to Kevin Ryan's article, "Propping up the war on terror", which is rather large, in post 96. You're the one who decided to focus on the paragraph bringing up this point in your response in post 103.

Yes, he did indeed seem to. We've gone over this ever since post 103. Can we just let it lie now?

I disagree in the case of Kevin Ryan. I'll cite wikipedia's entry on expert in defense of my contention:
********************
An "expert" (Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.
********************

Note the 'can be' in the last sentence. It's not a necessity.

Because I don't agree with that assertion.

I contend that he has done much more research then we have on the subject and that the articles he has written regarding the WTC collapses makes this clear.

Perhaps in certain circles of it. Personally, however, I want to know the truth not whether x or y person has a degree in x or y subject. I believe the saying:
"They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth rather than truth as authority", by Gerald Massey applies well here.

Finally! What took you so long ;-)?

Indeed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

on some DVDs i have. my new computer blew the mainboard and it's going to take at least three weeks to get it repaired due to several factors. when i get it back i'll see if i can capture a few frames of what i'm talking about.

i don't see any in your photograph.

 

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 4

Groan. Just read this.

I think it would be best if you read the whole thing. It's only about 2 pages worth.

The title of the article is "The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core". Why not take a look at the article itself?

Sigh. From the same article:
***********
The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
***********

Perhaps you are referring to the interior core columns? If so, the article I mention states that they only supported 30% of the load as I stated above.

You honestly think an 18 second video is going to persuade me that the twin towers had no concrete core? In all truth, I would like more evidence then the one article I have but the article I quoted seems to know what they're talking about.

Yes. You want me to quote you passages from his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" where he does so?

Several of which Steven Jones has debunked.

Yes, freedom of the mainstream presses belongs to those who own them.

You must be relying on Ryan Mackey again. From what I heard, atleast one of the publications where he paid was a peer reviewed publication.

I wait with baited breath

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even NIST apparently admitted that an analysis -was- made. No, not by the junior WTC engineer Leslie Robertson, but by John Skilling. As Kevin Ryan states:
In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."

Kevin Ryan also states in the aforementioned article:
"...NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26"

Read through a bit. Looks like I may have an idea as to where you got the idea that 707s were 'slow flying'

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That's certainly my impression.

 

This post is in response to the 4th and final part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 5

I have.

Many believe it was most likely to be iron. It certainly wasn't pure molten aluminum. I can't currently counter your idea that it was a combination of the 2, but even if it was, the office fires could not have accounted for the iron part. Thermate would have done quite a good job of it, though. Steven Jones deals with 4 possibilities in his paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", which you can currently download from NIST itself.

Those possibilities are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted and is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with
added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)

Of those, he establishes that the only one that is credible is the 4th. You may wish to take a look at his paper, pages 17 and onwards (the pdf ends at page 28)

You sure you're not the one who's misrepresenting the truth? You and others have presented your photos as well and I have remained unpersuaded.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Do you have such a picture? I'd actually like to see it.

Hot by building standards and by human standards are 2 very different things.

Yes, small fires, relative to the size of the building. That was an awesome picture though. I believe I remember reading somewhere that thermite may have been used to create some of the fires in the towers as well.

Yes, I know about NIST's flimsy 'plane knocked off the fireproofing' theory. Here's an excerpt from an annotated debate between Steven Jones and Leslie Robertson:
*************************************
[Leslie Robertson:]
"Now, if you look at a good example would be perhaps surrounding buildings where debris from the Trade Center struck the building and if you went to those areas, you found that the impact of the debris had shaken off the fire protection materials. It wasn't scraped off, it was taken off by the impact I feel, probably the vibration of the structure due to the impact of the, of the aircraft."

GR: He “feels.” He’s trying to head off the push for a serious scientific investigation, which scientists, engineers, and millions of citizens agree have never been done, because of his feelings. He says he read the NIST report, but it doesn’t sound as though he remembers NIST’s inability to establish fireproofing loss by forces of vibration.

That inability led NIST to make an absurd attempt (a “shotgun approach,” if you will) to prove that the impacts must have dislodged large amounts of fireproofing material directly. According to Kevin Ryan, fired whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories:

The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed. This did not deter NIST, as they simply proceeded by filling their computer model with vague, sweeping assumptions like suggesting that the fireproofing was completely removed wherever the office furnishings were damaged (i.e. if a cube wall fell or a pencil was broken, thousands of square meters of fireproofing must have been sheared off too).23

...there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically. Also, there is no indication that fireproofing was stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of their story, NIST depends on this....

To put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft itself. But NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in question, more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface, the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.24 [emphasis added] ​

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

I'm talking about their 2004 interim NIST report, which is the one that Kevin Ryan was looking at at the time. In that report, they state that most of the steel hadn't gone beyond 250C.

Perhaps now that I have presented more evidence you wish to change your tune?

5 trusses where the plane crashed into the building? That all you got?