11-01-08, 02:58 PM #1901
Does this not in the least bit cause some doubt in your mind? The conspiracy is so perfect and so vast that it includes a supreme majority of independent experts?
Also, we should distinguish between 'building' and 'skyscraper'. I can show you a video from YouTube of a 10 story apartment building collapsing due to fire in almost free fall fashion.
11-01-08, 03:55 PM #1902
11-01-08, 03:58 PM #1903
At what temperature does it lose 50% of its supportive strength?
11-01-08, 04:54 PM #1904
1? Your kidding they must have more than 1.
(you don't actually have to sign the petition to see the list).
Originally Posted by scott3xBut I think you yourself are the one who's getting a bit dazzled here. You don't need to be a structural engineer in order to realize that the official WTC collapse theory is full of holes.
Originally Posted by scott3xI believe that a firm grasp of physics will do just fine.
My point is this is a guy who has been frequently peer reviewed, and has even been peer reviewed on such a sensitive subject such as the events that took place on 9/11.
"A member of the peerage, a system of honours or nobility in various countries"
Now, I know that in America, 'nobility' doesn't quite exist anymore per se, but let's be honest; if anyone fits the bill for american nobility, politicians and the mainstream media barons would certainly qualify. And yet, it is these very groups who are accused of malfeasance in 9/11. Surely you see the potential for a conflict of interest in spreading the truth for them if they were guilty?
Pointing to his articles on cold fusion just shows you don’t comprehend what is going on.
Here's a good quote for how things were done back then:
During the Kennedy Administration, Dulles faced increasing criticism. The failed Bay of Pigs Invasion and several failed assassination plots utilizing CIA-recruited operatives from the Mafia and anti-Castro Cubans directly against Fidel Castro undermined the CIA's credibility, and pro-American but unpopular regimes in Iran and Guatemala that he helped put in place were widely regarded as brutal and corrupt. The reputation of the agency and its director declined after the Bay of Pigs Invasion fiasco; he and his staff (including Director for Plans Richard Bissell and Deputy Director Charles Cabell) were forced to resign (September 1961). President Kennedy did not trust the CIA, and he reportedly intended to dismantle it after the Bay of Pigs failure. Kennedy said he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds." Ironically, Dulles was later appointed to the Warren Commission, the official government investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
And another good read, from Michael Rupper's "From the Wilderness" page:
There's a quote often attributed to Allen Dulles after it was noted that the final 1964 report of the Warren Commission on the assassination of JFK contained dramatic inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies, in effect, disproved the Commission's own final conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone on November 22, 1963. Dulles, a career spy, Wall Street lawyer, the CIA director whom JFK had fired after the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco - and the Warren Commission member who took charge of the investigation and final report - is reported to have said, "The American people don't read."
Thank goodness we live in more enlightened times these days, where many prefer to spend more time reading, offline and on, then catching soundbites from television. Don't get me wrong, I like television, but I certainly don't trust it as a news source.
11-01-08, 04:56 PM #1905
I am not releasing documents on the internet (outside the recognised process) like Jones is.
If you are mesmerised by peer reviewed papers then you must have been impressed by the many peer reviewed papers written by structural engineers which support the theory. No? Didn’t read them? No of course you didn’t. You are interested in the conspiracy theory not the truth.
Originally Posted by scott3xI did a little research regarding Gene Corley. Here's a few things I found [rest of my comments concerning Gene Corley and a few others can be found here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...ostcount=1794]
It just makes it clear that there isn’t any point responding and pointing out the problems because you will just post it again next week.
Clearly, some did (or nothing would have fallen out of the building). The surrounding metal may have been softened, but that's something else...What makes you believe this?
Originally Posted by scott3xAs far as I'm concerned, the evidence that the WTC collapses were due to controlled demolitions is overwhelming. Thus, it is my 'working model', if you will. I will certainly try to see if evidence can work with this model. Scientists do this all the time. And just like scientists, if I'm not sure it does or if I find that it outright doesn't, I will certainly take this into account.
I can certainly believe that some of the theories may need a little work. People like Steven Jones have emphatically stated that they would like more research to be done on all of these things. Heck, even Ryan Mackey claims that more research could shed more light on certain issues.
I think you may have seen from Headspin's youtube video on the subject of molten aluminum at 1000 Fahrenheit that molten aluminum when poured at that temperature is definitely silver.
However there were most likely other materials in the aluminium as well.
11-01-08, 05:43 PM #1906
The Report repeatedly makes claims that amazingly high fire temperatures were extant in the Towers, without any evidence. The Report itself contains evidence contradicting the claims.
This could be said to be his thesis.
Next, he goes about making his case. First, he quotes a section of NIST's report:
"Observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 ºC: east face, floor 98, inner web; east face, floor 92, inner web; and north face, floor 98, floor truss connector. Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. " (p 90/140)
He quotes that section to make it clear that what he states next is coming from NIST's own report:
The highest temperatures estimated for the samples was 250 ºC (482 ºF). That's consistent with the results of fire tests in uninsulated steel-framed parking garages, which showed maximum steel temperatures of 360 ºC (680 ºF).
Then, he comes in for the uppercut:
How interesting then, that NIST's sagging truss model has the truss heated to 700 ºC (1292 ºF)., he tells us, and then proceeds to show us that NIST does just that:
"A floor section was modeled to investigate failure modes and sequences of failures under combined gravity and thermal loads. The floor section was heated to 700 ºC (with a linear thermal gradient through the slab thickness from 700 ºC to 300 ºC at the top surface of the slab) over a period of 30 min. Initially the thermal expansion of the floor pushed the columns outward, but with increased temperatures, the floor sagged and the columns were pulled inward." (p 98/148)
He further hammers it in, saying:
Where does NIST get the idea that steel temperatures should be more than 450 degrees Celsius (or 842 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than their own evidence indicates? This passage provides some insight into their experimental method.
Someone here has argued that clearly, there were pieces of the WTC building that got hotter then 250C. And that's certainly true. The problem is how very -unlikely- those temperatures could have been reached due to fire. I have a very strong feeling that some if not all within NIST were well aware of this and were trying to tiptoe around this fact. Perhaps I'm mistaken and the issue here is that they were speaking only of a certain part of the WTC towers and these were the only samples they knew to be from that section. In any case, the samples they took for this part of their report only show indications of being heated to 250C. Good if you want to suppress evidence that anything but office fires took place, but absolutely awful if you want to prove that the fires took the building down.
What to do? Simply heat up the test steel to temperatures that mean business. Perhaps they felt that the report was huge and no one important would notice. Just how much fire was poured on to get the desired effects? Jim Hoffman gets the relevant quote from NIST:
"A spray burner generating 1.9 MW or 3.4 MW of power was ignited in a 23 ft by 11.8 ft by 12.5 ft high compartment. The temperatures near the ceiling approached 900 ºC." (p 123/173)
Jim Hoffman now closes in for the kill:
1.9 to 3.4 MW (megawatts) is the heat output of about 500 wood stoves -- that in a living-room-sized space!
He then sets NIST up, quoting the following section:
"The jet fuel greatly accelerated the fire growth. Only about 60 percent of the combustible mass of the rubblized workstations was consumed. The near-ceiling temperatures varied between 800 ºC and 1,100 ºC. "(p 125-6/175-6)
He now delivers the coup de gras:
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds. Note that this temperature range includes the 900 ºC recorded using the megawatt super-burner, so they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel.
The first section of the Report describing the fires deceptively implies that 1,000 ºC (1832 ºF) temperatures (rarely seen in even momentary flashovers) were sustained, and that they were in the building's core.
The article goes on regarding other NIST report flaws, complete with some good graphics. You might want to take a look:
11-01-08, 06:11 PM #1907
If she stated any different, i.e. thinking that the US government was involved in staging the attacks, then these comments would make the front page and they lose any chance they had of winning the election.
I can't believe I just defended that bitch... look what you made me do you fucking truther!!
By the way... so far as I'm aware, the 9/11 commission was set up not because of conspiracy theory concerns, but to investigate the failures of national security and so on...
I found out a few things about Zelikow. First, that he's Jewish. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love some Jews (Natalie Portman, for instance). But I've read enough to wonder if perhaps Israel had something to do with 9/11. Secondly, he is one of the co-author of the article "Catastrophic Terrorism", which was published in foreign affairs in 1998.
I once postulated that 9/11 may have been done by elements within the government in order to get 'tough on terrorism'. But I now think that perhaps it's terrorism that the government wanted. Zelikow predicted the following would have happened if the 1993 WTC bombing had succeeded (there is evidence that it, too, was an inside job):
"...he speculated that if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949. Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently."
Anyway, here's some links concerning Zelikow and some others.
Last edited by scott3x; 11-01-08 at 06:23 PM.
11-01-08, 06:46 PM #1908
11-01-08, 06:47 PM #1909
11-01-08, 06:52 PM #1910
I think everyone has done a pretty good job of keeping it "above the belt"
11-01-08, 07:08 PM #1911
That is among the weakest and most dismal of all the conspiracy arguments. How many high rise buildings have been hit by 767s?
How many high rise fires have been completely out of reach of the firefighters?
Originally Posted by scott3xHe doesn't specify. In any case, these squibs, in my view, are conlusive evidence that the WTC buildings were, in fact, controlled demolitions.
4. Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.
However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.
The last firefighters out described a gale force wind coming down the stairs when the pancaking started.
11-01-08, 07:16 PM #1912
11-01-08, 07:45 PM #1913
Originally Posted by scott3xIn any case, Kevin Ryan says this:
it is worthwhile to reiterate that nano-thermite materials were very likely used in the deceptive demolition of the WTC buildings, but most certainly played only a part in the plan. However, other high-tech explosives were available to those who had access to nano-thermite materials at the time. Like SDI, several other organizations with links to military, space and intelligence programs (e.g. In-Q-Tel, Orbital Science) have access to many types of high-tech explosives to cut high-strength bolts and produce pyrotechnic events (Goldstein 2006). These organizations also have connections to those who could have accessed the buildings, like WTC tenant Marsh & McLennan and former NASA administrator and Securacom director, James Abrahamson.
Originally Posted by scott3x************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...and_Nano-1.pdf , page 5
Perhaps effective, but I'm not so sure it would have been cost effective. You must consider the fact that most companies don't have the types of budgets that the U.S. military has, especially when you consider their 'waste' which could easily be a very large black budget. Donald Rumsfeld said this had to be addressed the day before 9/11, as can be seen here:
"Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001: The Pentagon cannot account for $2.3 TRILLION"
That’s the contradictory nature of your super conspiracy. You believe that they could pull off the most intricate and expensive conspiracy of all time yet you accuse them of making it obvious.
11-01-08, 07:58 PM #1914
The other fires which caused steel to weaken and collapse are precedents which prove it can happen.
Originally Posted by scott3xAs to the twisted steel:
The company named Controlled Demolition Inc., the market leader in the blow up and removal of multi-floor buildings, was chosen to remove the rubble from the WTC buildings. (Such as the twisted steel columns at the base of the structures) This carefully collected material (remember the police guards always surrounding the site for months?) was then ordered to be sent promptly to China where it was melted.
11-01-08, 07:59 PM #1915
If you put 10 tons of steel into a furnace set at 1800 degrees how long will it take the CORE TEMPERATURE to rise to 1800 deg F?
If you put 100 tons of steel into a furnace set at 1800 degrees how long will it take the CORE TEMPERATURE to rise to 1800 deg F?
Won't it take 100 tons longer than 10 tons? So why don't we know the TONS OF STEEL on every level of the WTC after SEVEN YEARS?
How could enough steel weaken in less than 1 hr and 45 minutes?
11-01-08, 08:26 PM #1916
Perhaps they are all in on it.
Even NIST has let go of the theories for the collapse of the first 2 "peer reviewed" articles there, as Steven Jones' "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" the makes clear:
In the case of the first one, there's even a site complete with a bunch of refutations of its claims:
The next 3 don't have links.. I think I'll leave it at that for now.
11-01-08, 08:51 PM #1917
Astaneh-Asl, one of the lead WTC investigators, certairnly wasn't happy with the amount of time he was given to analyze the steel. He was also unhappy about other things concerning the investigation, as I detail in the post I mentioned:
It was enough to determine what happened.
The evidence was clear and left no room for doubt. Unfortunately later on the tinfoil hat brigade put together their pathetic claims.
Originally Posted by scott3xFiremen were hit with a gag order...
From reporter Randy Lavello, who was apparently the first reporter to hear about it:
Paul Isaac repeated his claim on September 11, 2005:
11-01-08, 08:54 PM #1918
If they are not a bunch of corrupt bastards, why didn't they even check to see if explosives were used? What moron of a scientist would predetermine explosives were not used before even initiating investingations.
11-01-08, 09:25 PM #1919We are not talking just jet fuel. It is common for normal office fires to reach 1800F with or without jet fuel.
There would still be the 20% oxygen problem.
Sounds like a strawman to me. The steel in the WTC was spaced out, and not clumped together.
Strawman confirmed. Assuming steel is thin enough and spaced out enough and in direct contact with high temperatures, it will lose its strength and easily reach the atmospheric temperature of the fires around it.
That would have been the next logical thing to do.
But if they did that and it DID NOT FAIL IN TIME then they would have egg all over their faces.
They have a report where they show the oscillation of the south tower and say it oscillated for FOUR MINUTES after impact and the building deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor even though that was 130 below the impact point. The kinetic energy of the plane had two effects. Structural damage in the impact zone and oscillating the entire building. But in order to compute the energy that did structural damage then the energy that deflected the building must be computed and subtracted. But to compute that energy the distribution of mass must be known. Where is that calculation ever done?
There are only two places in the entire 10,000 pages where they say the distribution of weight/mass must be known for the analysis. One is about wind design and the other is in a report about shocks to suspended ceilings. LOL
11-01-08, 09:48 PM #1920
Suppose we short circuit all this talk about fire and temperatures.
Imagine we had the north tower in its original condition.
Imagine we could magically and instantaneously remove 5 levels, 90 to 94 inclusive. That would leave 16 stories in the air without support. They would fall 60 feet impacting the intact lower 89 stories at 44 mph. Now I think everyone would have to concede that removing 5 stories is more damage than the plane and fires could do.
Now to analyze what would happen after impact we would need at least have to know the TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE on every level of the building. How can conservation of momentum be computed without that? So why don't we have a table with such simple information after SEVEN YEARS? Why shouldn't people on both sides of the issue expect the OFFICIAL "WORLD RENOWNED EXPERTS" to provide such simple information?
A skyscraper must get stronger and heavier going down to support its own weight and resist the wind. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes may give the correct impression for distribution of volume but it has to be wrong for distribution of mass.
By Jozen-Bo in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 08-02-08, 03:09 PMReplies: 81
By Tnerb in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 07-16-08, 02:06 PMReplies: 33
By Thoreau in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-09-07, 12:19 PMReplies: 18
By Lord Hillyer in forum The CesspoolLast Post: 11-13-07, 02:33 PMReplies: 11
By Orleander in forum Site FeedbackLast Post: 10-27-07, 11:45 PMReplies: 16