View Poll Results: How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

Voters
51. This poll is closed
  • Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    22 43.14%
  • Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 0%
  • Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    10 19.61%
  • Allah!

    2 3.92%
  • People keep flogging a dead horse!

    17 33.33%

Thread: WTC Collapses

  1. #901
    Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 4

    This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    As to whether they're the best experts, I would argue that they are the best experts on certain subjects, particularly the subject of the WTC collapses. For experts on all the subjects that 9/11 brings up, I'd turn to noted authors David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs.
    lol What great additions to your team of experts, the theologian and the ufo guy.
    Yes, David Ray Griffin was a professor in theology and Jim Marrs has written a book that details a lot of information that can lead one to believe that aliens exist and even tries to get to the reason aliens may be here to begin with in his book "Alien Agenda". They've also both written more then one book regarding evidence that can lead one to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I doubt you've read any of those books, however.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    I'd ask you to present his evidence.
    So you agree that Mackey saying it so is not evidence right?
    Indeed. I have never maintained that Kevin Ryan or anyone else saying it is so is evidence either.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    From wikipedia:
    "Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

    So: If his statements help determine the truth, they can be seen as evidence.
    The problem here is that you are quoting Ryan’s comments on steel as if that alone is evidence.
    Kevin Ryan has done more then just comment. He has provided persuasive evidence and has himself quoted some people who certainly should have known a great deal concerning the WTC building steel assemblies.


    I am trying to point out to you that Ryan saying the building shouldn’t have collapsed is not compelling evidence because he was a chemist who worked with water.
    And I am trying to point out to you that he seems to have been the employee in Underwriter Laboratories who dedicated the most time and effort into finding out what really happened on 9/11. You focus way too much on his job description and way too little on what he actually did. You and I don't have official jobs to ascertain what happened on 9/11, but we certainly have spent a fair amount of time on it for some time now. Kevin Ryan has spent more and he was a manager in the company that tested the WTC steel assemblies. He took it upon himself to speak to the various people who certainly should have known a fair amount about the testing of the steel assemblies that UL did and, when he dared to question the NIST report, he was fired.

  2. #902
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
    The fires in the towers and WTC7 should have pretty much been put out by the collapses due to being smothered.
    this is simply false. fires can smolder for days after being buried.
    The fact that fires burned in the rubble is not likely due to the fires that were in the buildings.
    what is it due then? fires from some other part of the state?

  3. #903
    This is in response to John99's post 900 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    As you may know, Controlled Demolitions Inc. was brought in for the cleanup of ground zero. Personally, I find it... interesting that a demolition company would be involved in a cleanup that allegedly didn't involve any actual demolitions.
    Did you read the definition in the previous post?
    I did. I'll quote the definition that applies and add a link to back it up in relation to the twin towers' collapses:
    1 b: to break to pieces : smash

  4. #904
    A smoking gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti
    The fact that fires burned in the rubble is not likely due to the fires that were in the buildings.
    what is it due then? fires from some other part of the state?
    I believe reporter Christopher Bollyn puts it well in his article A RESPONSE TO "CLEARING THE AIR" IN THE VILLAGE VOICE:
    *****************
    It needs to be remembered that extremely hot fires burned beneath "the pile" for more than three months until they were extinguished shortly before Christmas. These hot-spots were evidently hotter than the boiling point of iron (2861 degrees Celsius or 5182 degrees Fahrenheit) and many other metals. Molten iron, in the molten state, was found in the basements of all three towers weeks after they were demolished.

    These hotspots, which the evidence suggests were caused by on-going aluminothermic reactions fueled by massive amounts of Thermite, continuously produced a huge amount of extremely small particles in the nano-size range that rose from the pile in plumes of bluish smoke.


    http://www.bollyn.com/public/Smoke_over_New_Jersey.jpg
    *****************

  5. #905
    i thought the thermite was exploded like bombs.
    isn't that what you or headspin said?

    frankly this is getting old.
    what else can cause those plumes of blue smoke?
    even the source you linked to didn't say the evidence was conclusive.

  6. #906
    That smoke looks photoshopped.

  7. #907
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    i thought the thermite was exploded like bombs. isn't that what you or headspin said?
    Thermite can explode if it's in the form of nano-thermite. It can simply melt metal if it's in the regular form.

    frankly this is getting old.
    what else can cause those plumes of blue smoke?
    I have heard of no possible alternative explanation, but perhaps someone will say 'paper' or some equally absurd idea, as was the case in a link which I found in one of the pages that shaman_ linked to in an attempt to defend the official story. It had to do with the devastation of some of the cars around the WTC buildings; the link within shaman_'s linked page and my counter can be found here.


    even the source you linked to didn't say the evidence was conclusive.
    True, they didn't catch them putting the explosives in the building; this may be due to the power down of the twin towers shortly before 9/11, disabling security and turning the cameras off. However, in reporter Christopher Bollyn, in his article, "Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition", mentions the following concerning this blue smoke:
    ***************
    This smoke laden with toxic nano-particles wafted over New York City for many weeks and went in all directions. Millions of people may have been exposed to these toxic plumes which can carry toxic particles great distances.

    I visited the University of California at Davis in the spring of 2006 to interview Thomas A. Cahill, an expert on airborne particles. Cahill had conducted a study of the particles in the thin bluish smoke that rose from the rubble for nearly 4 months after 9-11.

    Cahill's air sampling was done a few blocks north of the destroyed WTC and began on October 2, 2001 and continued until late December, when the last fires were finally extinguished.

    I asked Cahill why it had taken so long to begin monitoring the air contamination caused by the destruction of the WTC. He said that he had assumed that there were scores of agencies and scientists monitoring the air quality in New York City after 9-11.

    "I assumed it was happening. I could not believe it was not," Cahill said. "It [the Davis DRUM] was all by itself. The EPA did nothing."

    Cahill's air monitoring device revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble. Most of the particles in these plumes were in the category of the smallest ultra-fine and nano-particles: from 0.26 to 0.09 microns.

    For the people who worked or lived near "the pile" of the destroyed World Trade Center these plumes were extremely dangerous.

    IRON BOILED IN THE RUBBLE

    The conditions were "brutal" for people working at Ground Zero without respirators and slightly less so for those working or living in adjacent buildings, [Thomas A.] Cahill, a professor emeritus of physics and atmospheric science, said. "It was like they were working inside the stack of an incinerator," he said.

    "The debris pile acted like a chemical factory. It cooked together the components of the buildings and their contents, including enormous numbers of computers, and gave off gases of toxic metals, acids and organics for at least 6 weeks," he said.

    The DELTA Group's work revealed the presence of extremely small metallic aerosols in unprecedented amounts in the plumes coming from the burning WTC rubble. Most of the particles in these plumes were in the category of the smallest ultra-fine and nano-particles: from 0.26 to 0.09 microns.

    The extraordinarily high level of ultra-fine aerosols was one of the most unusual aspects of the data, Cahill said.

    "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures," Cahill said, "namely the boiling point of the metal."

    While Cahill said he was not aware of evidence confirming the existence of molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, his data showing high levels of ultra-fine particles in the smoke plume prove that incredibly intense hot spots, capable of boiling and vaporizing metals and other components from the debris, persisted beneath the rubble for weeks.

    ***************
    Last edited by scott3x; 01-06-09 at 09:49 AM.

  8. #908
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    That smoke looks photoshopped.
    I have some experience with photoshop; my father is a verifiable expert with it and it's hard to fool me when it comes to pictures using photo editing techniques. What leads you to the conclusion that it was edited? Anyway, in an effort to get yet more evidence, I've now emailed Christopher asking if he could tell me what the source of his photo is.

  9. #909
    it looks like burn tool.

  10. #910
    Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 5

    This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    I know that many in the 9/11 truth movement are critical of Ryan Mackey's work and I am no exception. Nevertheless, his work hasn't been dismissed by the 9/11 movement. Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan and C. Thurston have all debunked various parts of his writings and their debunkings can be seen here:
    Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers
    Mackey’s document on David Ray Griffin's claims is an excellent work of debunking. The truthers have made an attempt to return fire on a few points, and Mackey has been addressing their critiques. So no he hasn’t been 'debunked'.
    Even I can clearly see that some of Mackey's rebuttals are nothing more then more falsehoods.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    You know what the irony is? Few of the core people in the 9/11 movement are even arguing about what NIST says anymore; their work has been debunked a while back. Instead, the debate has turned to -unofficial- supporters of the official theory, such as Ryan Mackey and you for that matter, because the officials in charge of the 9/11 investigation have in essence closed shop.
    NIST did an investigation and presented their findings. It was done, over.
    Yeah, they did a very weak investigation that has led some to suspect that it was a 'half-baked farce', as Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief put it in his article $elling Out the Investigation, back in January, 2002.


    There is no need for them to do another one.
    Personally, I'm loathe to contemplate the idea of the same people doing another half-baked farce of an investigation. What's needed is a truly non-partisan investigation into the matter.


    Debunkers however may continue to release material. Somehow you think that is irony?
    What I find ironical is that the official story is now defended by people who don't claim to be financed by the government for their work debunking 9/11. The disadvantage is obvious- they lack credibility even more then the government financed operation, because they aren't really accountable to anyone. There is a hidden advantage, however. If their work is shown to be fallacy rich, the government can always claim that they had nothing to do with the debunkers' claims. However, on the whole of it, I believe that official story upholders are fighting a losing battle; the government's original story was found to be full of holes that needed to be addressed, but in many ways, many unofficial debunkers frequently come up with even more fallacy rich material and can thus add fuel to the fire of the crumbling official story.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    When have I ever said that all of Mackey's work should be ignored?
    I said, ‘it is something you seem to be trying’. Every time I refer to Mackey’s work you can’t respond so you just claim that Mackey has been debunked as if that somehow a good enough response. It's not.
    I can't always counter Mackey. However, I have done so at times, and so have others in more depth, such as Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan and C. Thurston as I've mentioned before. Sure, Mackey has issued counters to truth movement counters, but I myself have already shown that on atleast one occassion, his counter missed an important point and was thus a fallacy. As Jim Hoffman has said, Mackey offers a lot of fallacy rich material but is very light on actually providing evidence for many of his supposed 'debunkings'.

  11. #911
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    it looks like burn tool.
    As I have said, my father is an expert; he can make fake pictures look so real that even I can be fooled (and I've seen a lot of his top notch stuff; hard to pull one on me). So I will grant you that it -could- be a fake picture. I sincerely doubt that it is, however, simply because this issue is serious and I sincerely doubt that his reputation as an honest reporter wouldn't fare well in such a situation. I have now gotten an automated error response from Christopher's email address, so looks like I won't get a response from him. However, I went on google and found the following article, titled EYE ON GROUND ZERO, which seems to be showing the same thing, but from a different angle:
    ****
    Mark Brender, of GeoEye, which specializes in the high-resolution satellite imagery, sent me this little-known image, taken on Septmeber 12, 2001, by the company's IKONOS spacecraft. The satellite was orbiting 423 miles above the planet, sweeping across the Eastern seaboard at 17,000 miles an hour.

    http://davidfriend.net/wtc_smoke_plume.jpg
    PHOTO COURTESY OF GEOEYE

    A subsidiary of his firm, Space Imaging, is mentioned in the book, in describing how the Internet proved unmatched as a receptacle for posting and archiving stores of 9/11-related information, much of it visual. "Space Imaging company, for instance, which maintains what it calls the only 'high-resolution commercial imaging satellites...in orbit on that fateful day,' created a month-by-month photochronology of the Pentagon and Ground Zero sites as viewed from beyond our atmosphere."

    ****

    I think the former picture makes the blue clearer, since it wasn't against the backdrop of the see, but I still think that the smoke is a very light blue in this picture.

  12. #912
    yes it is serious and if you can tell what is in smoke from an aerial photo then where is your magic 8 ball?

  13. #913
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    yes it is serious
    Indeed.

    and if you can tell what is in smoke from an aerial photo then where is your magic 8 ball?
    Laugh :-). The person claiming to know what was in the smoke isn't me- it's Thomas A. Cahill, an expert on airborne particles, as I made clear in post 907.

  14. #914
    Doesnt matter anyway.

  15. #915
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    and if you can tell what is in smoke from an aerial photo then where is your magic 8 ball?
    Laugh :-). The person claiming to know what was in the smoke isn't me- it's Thomas A. Cahill, an expert on airborne particles, as I made clear in post 907.
    Doesnt matter anyway.
    Actually it does. Christopher Bollyn, in his article "Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition" makes it clear why:
    ******************
    "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures," Cahill said, "namely the boiling point of the metal."

    While Cahill said he was not aware of evidence confirming the existence of molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, his data showing high levels of ultra-fine particles in the smoke plume prove that incredibly intense hot spots, capable of boiling and vaporizing metals and other components from the debris, persisted beneath the rubble for weeks."

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

    This would add further weight to the claims of certain New York Times reporters who claimed that investigators such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett had found evidence of vaporized/evaporated steel.

    The reason that evidence that steel was vaporized/evaporated in the WTC buildings is so important is because not even the official story is claiming that the fires were hot enough to melt steel, let alone vaporize it. Explosives, on the other hand, can do so handily.

  16. #916
    No, i meant explaining things to you. It is smoke alright.

  17. #917
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by John99
    and if you can tell what is in smoke from an aerial photo then where is your magic 8 ball?
    Laugh :-). The person claiming to know what was in the smoke isn't me- it's Thomas A. Cahill, an expert on airborne particles, as I made clear in post 907.
    Doesnt matter anyway.
    Actually it does. Christopher Bollyn, in his article "Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition" makes it clear why:
    ******************
    "Ultra-fine particles require extremely high temperatures," Cahill said, "namely the boiling point of the metal."

    While Cahill said he was not aware of evidence confirming the existence of molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, his data showing high levels of ultra-fine particles in the smoke plume prove that incredibly intense hot spots, capable of boiling and vaporizing metals and other components from the debris, persisted beneath the rubble for weeks."

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

    This would add further weight to the claims of certain New York Times reporters who claimed that investigators such as Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and Jonathan Barnett had found evidence of vaporized/evaporated steel.

    The reason that evidence that steel was vaporized/evaporated in the WTC buildings is so important is because not even the official story is claiming that the fires were hot enough to melt steel, let alone vaporize it. Explosives, on the other hand, can do so handily.
    No, i meant explaining things to you. It is smoke alright.
    Well, I'm glad we agree that prodigious amounts of smoke were coming out of ground zero well after the event. You seem to be unphased concerning the ultra fine particles in the smoke and what such findings mean. If that won't phase you, I really don't know what will

  18. #918
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    That smoke looks photoshopped.
    especially the shadow on the ground beneath it.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    While Cahill said he was not aware of evidence confirming the existence of molten metal in the rubble of the WTC, his data showing high levels of ultra-fine particles in the smoke plume prove that incredibly intense hot spots, capable of boiling and vaporizing metals and other components from the debris, persisted beneath the rubble for weeks.
    even the source you link to won't confirm molten metal in the pile.
    do you realize what that means scott?
    it means that cahill himself doesn't consider his findings as evidence of molten metal in the fire.
    Last edited by leopold; 01-06-09 at 07:50 PM.

  19. #919
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    fireman asked the iron worker photographer, who is now dying of cancer, for more information, he said this:

    “He said access to the garages was extremely restricted. I asked him if he saw any molten metal, he told me there were pools of molten metal under the pile and in the basements. He even said that there were spots that water had pooled up and was just bubbling like a pot of boiling water with molten metal underneath, like in the Nat/Geo movies of underwater volcanic lava flows.”

    http://www.911blogger.com/node/15847

    how does molten metal exist under water without it being an exothermic (thermite) reaction?

  20. #920
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    The shock wave is evident in this picture so why would it cease? just because it is obscured by dust?

    Accelerating....meaning that it is gaining speed?.....till it reaches maximum speed of gravity acceleration, which means the shock wave would move further out in front of the event.

    http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_collapse4.jpg

    Accelerating at 75% of the rate of gravity, exactly, a continuos acceleration for the collapse, from event initiation to cessation, not a free fall, or a controlled demolition.

    Some were it was posted that the whole Tower weight in a 100,000 tons,

    The top third then would weigh in at 33,000 tons, moving at 7.5 meters per second, that is approximately 17 miles per hour, at 17 mph, a Train that weighs 33,000 tons in a full emergency stop brakes fully applied takes a mile to stop, so how would the top of a building at 75% acceleration of gravity be brought to a stop from resistance in 700 feet? less than a 1/4 mile.
    The columns in the building could support four times the weight above them. The only way a natural collapse could occur is due to an amplified load.

    None of what you have said here has anything to do with it. It appears that you might not understand why deceleration is required to produce an amplified load. A continuous acceleration means no impulse and no amplified load. Something else is going on.

    You have not shown that the upper block of the building had a severe impact with lower stories.

    Not that it matters to the issue here as the columns were proportional to the mass of the building, but for the edification of anyone who doesn't know, the twin towers weighed approximately 317,500 tons each. The top twelve foors weighed approximately 34,000 tons, which was the size of the upper block in the North Tower, where the collapse initiated at the 98th floor.
    Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-06-09 at 08:46 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience Archive
    Last Post: 01-21-09, 01:23 AM
    Replies: 2517
  2. By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & Technology
    Last Post: 08-07-07, 12:14 AM
    Replies: 5
  3. By duendy in forum Free Thoughts
    Last Post: 04-19-06, 08:20 AM
    Replies: 381
  4. By Brian Foley in forum World Events
    Last Post: 04-02-06, 05:11 AM
    Replies: 10
  5. By Raven in forum World Events
    Last Post: 01-05-06, 07:27 AM
    Replies: 1

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •