WTC Collapses

[leopold]

i guess you'll have to take my word for it . . .

you can't be serious.

. . . or fix your computer then.

my "good" machine fried the mainboard, gonna cost me something like $250 bucks. i'll have it back sometime before the middle of next month.
by all rights my current machine should play videos because it's a 400mhz pentium 2 with a rage turbo graphics card.
i'm beginning to think i have some sort of shared I/O problem with it.

[scott3x]

scott, is that you in this video-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxH39QlRuhg

Lol :-). I remember that song, I'd never seen the video though :-p.

[Headspin]

i liked the green box at the bottom "is being wrong an option" - it has no "yes" pathway

[John99]

Lol :-). I remember that song, I'd never seen the video though :-p.

how could you remember it? you are still in high school.

[John99]

you can't be serious.

sure...he is very trustworthy.

[Headspin]

sure...he is very trustworthy.

i have not lied to you. the government told you that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

so you believe the one that has lied to you, and you distrust the one who has not lied to you. that is fucked up.

[John99]

he did have WMD's. you are right about your lying though. maybe you are not lying and you believe the conspiracy but in this instance i just consider the facts.

[Headspin]

he did not have wmd in 2003. it was common knowledge outside of the US/UK mainstream media. they lied to you. the guy (Kamel) that escaped iraq told the UN that "Hussein had chemical weapons, but they were all destroyed in 1992". the US/UK media removed the last bit and only printed "Hussein has chemical weapons". if it were not for some german friends that showed me this at the time, i'd never have known it either.

[John99]

I dont know if Kamel lied or not but take a look at the times Saddam DID use WMD's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_an...ss_destruction

[John99]

he did not have wmd in 2003.

how do you know?

[leopold]

let's keep this about 9-11 shall we.

[Headspin]

how do you know?

what type of weapons do you think he had in 2003?
he had no weapons production facilities, he was under sanctions for 10 years with UN inspection teams crawling his country - the UN weapons inspectors knew there was no production facility, it would be impossible to hide. any weapons that the US sold to him prior to 1992 had a very short shelf life - a matter of months, so anything he had in 1992 would not work in 2003. Scott Ritter, US marine and UN weapons inspector was consistantly saying this in 2002 and 2003. The fact that none have been found is evidence don't you think? if he had any weapons, he'd have used them in the war don't you think?

let's keep this about 9-11 shall we

ok, sorry.

[John99]

what type of weapons do you think he had in 2003?
he had no weapons production facilities, he was under sanctions for 10 years with UN inspection teams crawling his country - the UN weapons inspectors knew there was no production facility, it would be impossible to hide. any weapons that the US sold to him prior to 1992 had a very short shelf life - a matter of months, so anything he had in 1992 would not work in 2003. Scott Ritter, US marine and UN weapons inspector was consistantly saying this in 2002 and 2003. The fact that none have been found is evidence don't you think? if he had any weapons, he'd have used them in the war don't you think?

ok, sorry.

you are very selective in your information. many countries produce and sell chemicals. he also had plenty of time to move any weapons out of the country.

[scott3x]

The intensity of the WTC fires and the evidence of thermite use.

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

Obviously that woman has moved to the coldest part of the building. The impact hole was not the hottest part because the majority of the jet fuel was pushed to the opposite end of the building during the collision. That was where the fires were hottest.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

You are being obtuse again. Why don’t you think about it? Give it a go. Thinking won’t hurt you.

People will go to the coldest part of the building, not the hottest. Won’t they?

Not necessarily. Where people will go at any given point in time is frequently dependent on a whole bunch of things. Perhaps she felt that she had the best chances of being rescued if she went towards the opening in the building. Regardless, I have never actually denied that she was trying to escape heat, even though I have seen no evidence to support this claim. I -would- like to see some evidence to your claim that the majority of the fuel was not only pushed back towards the other side of the building as well as your theory that anything more then a 'fireball was here' type of thing. That is, that it did anything other then happen briefly, leaving little fire behind and less structural damage.

If you find that same photo but with the whole building in screen you will see the fires.

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

I do actually. Its in this document though. http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf

Found it on page 15. Alright, so there was still a bit of fire left, but I still maintain that it was nothing like this:
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...202130156.jpeg

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

If the floors were visibly bowing and twisted steel was found there clearly it was hot by building standards!

The bowing has been disputed by the alternate theorists. However, there has been no categoric denial. However, the evidence that there was aluminothermic reactions even before the collapse points to the possibility that this was quite possibly due to thermite or a derivative.

Yes, small fires, relative to the size of the building.

Stop and think about that comment. It may have looked like only a small percentage of the building was on fire but that is misleading due to its size. The building was one of the tallest in the world.

Also apparently one of the strongest in the world...

Only one floor had to fail for the collapse to begin.

Only in NIST's tweaked computer simulations could someone even imagine such a possibility. Perhaps some members of NIST realized that simulating the actual collapse instead of leaving it at 'poised for collapse' would have stressed their tweaked model beyond endurace.

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.

Oh come on Scott that is a baseless, desperate rationalization.

The falling molten metal is not a baseless, desperate rationalization. It's a fact and you know it. I believe that the most likely explanation is that it was molten iron from an aluminothermic reaction. However, as I have mentioned in a previous post I can't yet disprove your assertions that it was, say, lead. I am pleased that you atleast admit the possibility that molten iron was involved. What you may not have realized is that by admitting this possibility it logically follows that you should admit to the possibility that aluminothermic reactions indeed took place before the collapse.

You are trying to shoehorn thermite into every explanation.

No, I'm trying to point out to you the very real possibility that it was used and not just used during the collapse, but also before the collapses took place.

[John99]

Thermite: Developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

[scott3x]

Thermite: Developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite_welding

You really should be a little more careful with your excerpts there John. Let's take a look at that excerpt in context:
Thermite welding is the process of igniting a mix of high energy materials, (which is also called thermite), that produce a molten metal that is poured between the working pieces of metal to form a welded joint. It was developed by Hans Goldschmidt around 1895. For non-ferrous welding, or other uses of the thermite-type reactions, see the main thermite article.

You may also want to take a look at the following article:
The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nano-Thermites by Kevin Ryan

[John99]

What are you trying to say?

[John99]

plus this has already been discussed. read this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130225

[scott3x]

Ryan Mackey vs. Kevin Ryan

This post is in response to the 8th part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

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]

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

Which is blatantly wrong. Mackey addresses this several times through the document I repeatedly quote.

Here are a couple of excerpts....

I'm going to add a bit to your quotes to give it more context...

Ryan Mackey writes:

Continuing onthe same page of Dr. Griffin’s book, Ryan and Dr. Griffin err further in presenting an energy argument:
there was, as Ryan points out, “simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. ... 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 ..., the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.”

This is a mystification of the NIST summary of findings presented on page 273 of NCSTAR1-6A.

Kevin Ryan counters this in his paper, "The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey":

Mackey says this is a “mystification of the NIST summary of findings”, when, in fact, my point that no energy was available was not taken from NIST at all, but from calculations done by Tomasz Wierzbicki and other engineers at MIT.[3] These calculations show that all of the kinetic energy available from the impact of the aircraft was consumed in the crushing of the floors and columns in the WTC towers, and in destruction of the aircraft itself. Mackey would have known this if he had referred to the references of the book he was criticizing. For his future reference, hopefully to be read before another 200 page paper is produced, he can find other details at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[4]

Ryan Mackey continues:

Here NIST reports that SFRM would be completely dislodged “by direct impact with solid objects that had a kinetic energy … approaching 104 to 105 ft-lb / ft2 (105 to 106 J / m2).” Mr. Ryan has disingenuously used the upper end of that scale, incorporating the full extra factor of 10.

Kevin Ryan counters:

"Mackey suggests that I “disingenuously used the upper end” of the scale of energies supplied by NIST. In fact, in tables C-2 and C-3 of the shotgun appendix, the energies are estimated for each of the shotgun blasts, with more than half of these values at 0.9 MJ/m2 and with a top end value of 1.2 MJ/m2. So when I used 1 MJ/m2, I was not at the upper end at all and was, in fact, representing NIST’s given energies very well. Apparently Mr. Mackey is not capable of reading these simple tables, or is, himself, being disingenuous."

Kevin Ryan counters a bunch more of Ryan Mackey's claims. If you'd like to take a look at his counters, feel free to read the above linked article. I don't pretend to understand their discussion; it's a step beyond me at this point.

[John99]

Now were back to thermite, when a few hundred posts ago you were espousing nano-thermite:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108091