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. #1161
    The intensity of the twin tower fires and the constituent(s) of the falling molten metal, Round 2

    This is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    shaman_, you frequently seem to be of the view that when I disagree with you, I'm being dishonest. You may want to gather some evidence before making such a claim in the future, as not doing so makes it appear as if you have little regard for actually proving your assertions.
    Lets go through this again. You claimed that it wasn’t exactly a 'raging inferno'. To demonstrate this you showed a cropped photo of one section (the coldest) of the WTC. I am making it clear that “to claim that you didn’t see any large fires is dishonest.”

    Your games with photos alone is enough to accuse you of being deceitful. Are you still claiming that the fires were small or not?
    Relative to the building and fires that have engulfed other skyscrapers, yes. I personally know that I'm not being dishonest, but you can think otherwise if you wish. If Headspin, psikey or Tony would like to put in their 2 cents here as to the accuracy of my statement, that would be fine.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Alright, I'll admit that I don't have evidence counter to your claims. I certainly don't think that those claims have gone through the rigour of Steven Jones' claims
    His have not gone through much rigor either.
    What draws you to that conclusion? I've drawn the opposite one.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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)
    Or it could be something he hasn’t listed there such as a mixture of lead from batteries or partly dissolved iron (from temperatures near 1000C) or something else.
    Alright, I'll admit that I don't have evidence counter to your claims. I certainly don't think that those claims have gone through the rigour of Steven Jones' claims, but I personally don't see anything wrong with those possibilities. Do you admit that you don't have evidence counter to the possibility that it was, in fact, "Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)"?
    Except that they don’t lead to a super conspiracy so you won’t want to accept them.
    I would argue that I tend to believe the arguments that fit -all- the data best. Since there is already plenty of evidence that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions, it only makes sense that the molten metal was, indeed, molten iron produced by aluminothtermite/thermite reactions. You, ofcourse, are coming from the opposite side; for you, the evidence is on the side of the official story and so naturally when you see something that doesn't fit with that model, your first idea is to see if said idea can be discarded in favor of one that is supported by the official story.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Do you admit that you don't have evidence counter to the possibility that it was, in fact, "Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)"?
    I have said numerous times that I don’t know what that material is. When you have some reliable evidence for temperatures capable of producing molten iron I will consider that.
    There's lots of it, as I think Headspin has already pointed out.
    Last edited by scott3x; 01-10-09 at 10:49 PM.

  2. #1162
    The intensity of the WTC fires and the evidence of thermite use, Round 2

    This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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.
    No you are still being obtuse. You have the full picture. You can see that the fire is burning away in other areas of the building.

    Of course she was going to the coldest area.
    I don't agree with the 'ofcourse' bit, but I can agree that it's a reasonable assertion. It doesn't change the fact that there still wasn't all that much fire in the rest of the building, relative to the size of the building.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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
    I read it somewhere and it sounded logical. It is not crucial to the point being made. Look at the whole photo wth the woman.
    The point itself is the one that's not crucial. I'm fine with the idea that the woman went to the coldest part of the building. I believe the crucial point is, was there enough fire to bring the skyscraper toppling down at near free fall speeds, when fires that were stronger and lasted longer in other skyscrapers have never managed such a feet? In a word, no.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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.
    Do you think the fireball just caused a little bit of wind?
    No, it generated a bit of heat too, ofcourse, but relative to the building's size, even the official story seems to believe that the initial fire didn't do much. The idea that it did a whole lot more -after- the initiation is a point that they jump through quite a lot of magical hoops in order to get to, but people with their eye on the ball such as Jim Hoffman and Steven Jones have shown up the official story's logical fallacies in this area quite well.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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
    Not hit by planes, different construction, concrete core.
    Alright, now that Headspin has agreed with you, I will allow that there may well have been no concrete core. However, there certainly -was- a core, something that the 9/11 Commission Report denies altogether, claiming the towers' cores were "hollow steel shaft[s]:
    For the dimensions, see FEMA report, "World Trade Center Building Performance Study," undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004. 1
    In point of fact, there was a very strong core. Quoting from 9/11 Research, a source that has always proven to be quite reliable and that Headspin approves of:
    Each tower was supported by a structural core extending from its bedrock foundation to its roof. The cores were rectangular pillars with numerous large columns and girders, measuring 87 feet by 133 feet. The core structures housed the elevators, stairs, and other services. The cores had their own flooring systems, which were structurally independent of the floor diaphragms that spanned the space between the cores and the perimeter walls. The core structures, like the perimeter wall structures, were 100 percent steel-framed.

    The exact dimensions, arrangement, and number of the core columns remained somewhat mysterious until the publication of a leaked collection of detailed architectural drawings of the North Tower in 2007. Although the drawings show the dimensions and arrangement of core columns, they do not show other engineering details such as the core floor framing. It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced.


    The steel supports collapsed on the building, just as they did on the WTC. The behavior of the Madrid tower in those conditions only supports the official story.
    No, it doesn't. The reason the Windsor tower in Madrid suffered a partial collapse is because it was framed in steel-reinforced concrete rather than steel. To find out more about why the Windsor tower suffered a partial, gradual collapse, feel free to take another look at the page I've shown you many a time.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    The bowing has been disputed by the alternate theorists.
    Yes they laughably claimed that it was refraction caused by heat. I have pointed out to you a few times the problems with that claim.
    I do remember you producing a counter but I don't remember it and, unlike me, you frequently don't seem to believe in even linking or providing excerpts our counters, trusting I'll remember all the information from the hundreds of posts without a hitch. Fortunately for you, I don't expect so much on your part.

    In any case, Tony has mentioned that there may indeed have been bowing but that it was probably caused by the explosive charges.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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.
    It has been well established that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel.[/quote]

    Perhaps for it to sag a few inches; but that's a far cry from the building collapsing at near free fall speeds.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Also apparently one of the strongest in the world...
    Engineers like Astaneh believe otherwise.
    What I'd like to know is why. None of the evidence I've seen supports anything other then that the twin towers were some of the most resilient skyscrapers ever built; perhaps the very strongest.

    9/11 Research provides some compelling evidence supporting this assertion. Take, for instance, the Richard Toth Telegram, which is mentioned in 9/11 Research's article, "Towers' Design Parameters":
    The Richard Roth Telegram:

    On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5

    THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
    ...
    4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
    ...
    5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...

    They will never construct a skyscraper like the WTC again.
    Maybe, but it'd be for the wrong reasons. In point of fact, the twin towers, set the standard, as 9/11 Research makes clear:
    At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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.
    Considering the McCormick Place
    Yes, let's consider the McCormick Place, by all means.


    the Madrid Tower
    By all means, let's continue to consider that building as well.


    the fire tests
    Pick the fire test and I'll fashion my argument (or, perhaps more likely, link to an argument already well fashioned).


    the buckling in WTC5
    I don't know anything on whether WTC 5 had buckling and what that would or what not mean. However, 9/11 Research goes into some detail as to the reason for -damage- to WTC 5:
    Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. FEMA's report has a number of photographs of Building 5 wreckage, and concludes that fires caused the collapse of portions of this building, without making a convincing case.

    and all the other examples of steel structures collapsing in a fire
    If I recall, you have only cited 2 examples that 9/11 Research hasn't covered. If you mentioned them again, however, perhaps I could google up some interesting points regarding those collapses as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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.
    That is not what I was referring to though, and you know it.
    You were referring to my assertion that thermite accounted for some of the fires. You called it a baseless rationalization, I countered that the molten metal that was clearly not pure aluminum is strong evidence that thermite was indeed being ignited.


    You are now making a half hearted claim that thermite was responsible for some of the fires. So it melts metal, cuts metal
    Thermite does this, yes.

    explodes
    Nanothermite does this, yes.

    softens metal
    Not sure if it can do this, Headspin probably knows.


    and it starts fires as well.
    It can definitely be used as an incendiary, yes.


    Thermite was originally suggested as the tool for cutting the columns. Now we are seeing it as the cause of everything.
    I contend that perhaps both thermite and nanothermite were used.


    Instead of working to a conclusion based on the evidence you are trying to fit the evidence into the conclusion.
    What we have here is something like a puzzle. You try to fit the pieces together. I didn't start out with the conclusion that the towers were taken down by controlled demolitions. In point of fact, I started out with the official story's version, that the planes and the fires they initiated were the culprits. However, after a careful analysis of the evidence at hand, I found that this story didn't hold water. I also found that the theory that something else did it, such as explosives, had a lot more evidence. This is how I formed that conclusion. Simply because a piece fits doesn't mean that it's wrong. It also doesn't mean that one shouldn't try to ascertain if the premise is false. But you do need to start with premises in order to then test them.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    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.
    No you don’t understand. Metals can become soluble while in a molten metal which has a lower melting point. I am saying that some iron could dissolve while in molten aluminum at around 1000C.
    Yes. It's called an alumino-thermic reaction. And from everything I've seen, you can't just stick some aluminum and some iron together and presto. If memory serves, it has to be prepared as thermite beforehand.
    Last edited by scott3x; 01-10-09 at 10:58 PM.

  3. #1163
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    where is the actual data that shows this in the cardington fire tests?
    I was quoting the figure mentioned in the two sources I linked to. One of them was 911research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    have you verified these numbers are correct from the actual data? I have looked at the data and i cannot find them in the spreadsheets. can you point me to the correct spreadsheet?
    I looked and couldn't see 1150 either. There were however many figures well over 600 and approaching 1000C.

    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    what is the context of those numbers within the data?
    Can you please rephrase that?

  4. #1164
    Kevin Ryan and NIST's 2004 Analysis of Structural Steel Update, Round 2

    This post is in response to the 3rd and final part of shaman_'s post 679 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Alright, I went looking for the original document that I believe Kevin Ryan saw. Kevin Ryan's site, www.ultruth.com, links to an article that includes his letter to NIST. Below his letter are his references. His third one is the following:
    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3Mechanic...sisofSteel.pdf

    Within this document from NIST, it states:
    "Most perimeter panels (157 of 160 locations mapped)saw no temperature T > 250 °C, despite pre-collapse exposure to fire on 13 panels "

    Perimeter panels, not paint samples. I rest my case.
    No you don’t. One of the tests performed on the panels was a paint test!
    So what? The -point- is that most perimeter panels fond saw no temperature beyond 250C. The partial reason for this, ofcourse, is that that panels showing temperatures radically above 250C were generally removed before the official investigators could see them. There is evidence, however, that not all of them were removed fast enough, as evidenced by the articles from James Glanz and Kenneth Chang that claim that WTC investigators Astaneh and Barnett found evidence that some of the steel had vaporized/evaporated.


    That's what I meant. It’s frustrating that I explain something over and over and then on the eleventh time I don’t describe it correctly so you just dismiss it. The figure of 250C came from analyzing the paint on the panels.
    So?


    At no point was it NISTs belief that the steel did not go over 250C.
    The study says that most of the perimeter panels didn't go beyond 250C. For some reason, they don't seem to mention anything else (I think it'd really be interesting to see an analysis of the steel at critical junctures in the building, for instance).


    Very early on they had twisted steel and estimated that parts of the fire were at 1000C.
    I've heard this before. What I'd like to know is why this wasn't included in the interim NIST report that Kevin Ryan saw. Could you cite your source?


    Steel without fireproofing is going to be marginally below that. The conspiracy theorists pick at one part of NISTs findings and then claim that NIST said that was the maximum temperature of the steel. They are taking their findings out of context and ignoring the parts they don’t want to see.
    By all means, show me these allegedly willfully blind conspiracists don't want to see.


    You don’t understand this and you just keep repeating their disingenuous claims.

    Once again hardly any of the samples were from the impact area and few of them were from the core.
    And I believe I will once again ask you, why do you suppose that is?


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Ofcourse. Much like Astaneh's "tentative conclusions", they still needed working on.
    He has made it very clear that he believes there were no explosives involved. To try and represent otherwise would be more deception on your part.
    I'm not trying to represent otherwise. I simply believe that if Astaneh is indeed being honest with the public, he simply didn't have the relevant data to realize that controlled demolitions are the most feasible explanation for the WTC build collapses.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    2. If it was an interim report then it probably wasn’t “final” conclusions, was it genius?
    What I'm trying to get across to you, however, is that that's the information that Kevin Ryan was working with at the time.
    But that was years ago! Why do you keep repeating his faulty claims based on insufficient information?! It's not relevant now.
    You asked a question, I answered it. Pay attention.


    Try to actually understand what you are bringing into the discussion.
    I think that remark is best applied to yourself, as I just made clear.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Yes, I did want to see your evidence. Apparently, you want me to believe that on the basis of a few trusses that have apparently lost some fireproofing where they were literally cut (even on those trusses it seems that, away from the cut, the fireproofing was -still on-), the rest of the fireproofing must be all gone as well.
    No the rest of the fireproofing did not have to be removed, just enough from the few impact floors.
    And then magic time eh ? Anyway, how much is 'enough' in official story land?


    The photo just demonstrates that it was possible for the impact to dislodge it.
    Ah, so if it's possible, then it must be so? I believe Kevin Ryan calculated the possibility to be -very- slim.

  5. #1165
    I think ultimately it's about logic. The main problem with a fair amount of the physics is that it's not as easy to understand as you believe it to be. For this reason, most people see all that physics stuff as gobbledygook and move on.
    The intensity of the twin tower fires and the constituent(s) of the falling molten metal, Round 2
    People mostly talk as though LOGIC is based on words but the way reality works does not care about language. Is it LOGICAL to call Europe a continent when there is no water separating it from Asia? Does calling an argument a strawman necessarily make it one?

    This is why I suggested the computer simulation with 5 levels removed for the 60 foot, 44 mph drop. That would be far worse damage than plane and fires could possibly do and therefore eliminate arguments about how hot the fires were and how much damage they did.

    But regardless of how hot the fires got there is still the question of how much steel was on the levels with the fires. The more steel the more conduction the more difficult it would be to heat so the more time it would take. People are assuming it had to be real hot for the buildings to come down that soon. So it comes back to BELIEF because if they entertain the possibility that the fires couldn't do it then they have to look for another explanation. WHICH THEY DON'T WANT TO DO!!!

    So there are THREE REASONS for wanting to know the steel and concrete on every level.

    #1. Computing the energy that went into building deflection because the energy that did structural damage cannot be computed otherwise.

    #2. Assessing the damage the fires could do because the more steel the less damage possible in the available time. There is a 56 minute limit on the south tower and a 102 minute limit on the north.

    #3. Analyzing the impact time of a supposed gravitational collapse from the top. It is the structural damage done by the plane combined with the weakening by the fire that supposedly makes the collapse possible. But the conservation of momentum would be a factor in the collapse time therfore the vertical distribution of steel and concrete must be known to analyze the collapse.

    All of them involve physics.

    But if an analysis done on the 5 STORY GAP says the lower 89 stories would not collapse at all or would take more than one minute to come down then all the debating over the last SEVEN YEARS has a serious problem. We would need to know why the EXPERTS were not explaining to everyone why that information was necessary six or more years ago and how the NIST could make a 10,000 page report that does not even specify the concrete and hundreds of EXPERTS are not screaming about it.

    Getting involved in discussing this on any website is TOTALLY VOLUNTARY. If someone wants to discuss it then they need to be willing to stretch their minds to encompass the problem. If they are not, then why do they bother?

    Even if somone doesn't know how to compute how much steel is necessary to support so many tens of thousands of tons, which I do not, that is no reason to be impressed by people that do. It is not like they figured it out how to do it for themselves. They just went to school and were taught it. Knowledge is not intelligence. The Empire State Building is 77 years old and this ain't rocket science.

    psik

  6. #1166
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    John Skilling's 'missing' analysis and the Journal for 9/11 studies site, Round 2

    This post is in response to shaman_'s post 650 in this thread.



    No, I just don't have an encyclopedic memory. I now understand what you're saying, after backtracking 6 posts. Anyway, what evidence does Leslie have that the jet fuel wasn't taken into consideration?
    His word. The opposing comments of the two is something of a stalemate. However as I have said a couple of times, structures have failed before when tested with conditions that they were supposedly designed for. It doesn’t mean it can’t happen.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Even NIST doesn't say that. Instead, it says that it couldn't be found. Funny how all this evidence that might contradict the official story either gets destroyed or goes missing, don't you think?
    ”All this evidence” ? Keep exaggerating. You are referring to one analysis which another designer claims doesn’t even take into account the fuel, and even if it did show up it may be incorrect. As I said, structures have collapsed before when tested by conditions that they were supposedly designed for. You are getting desperate if you think a missing analysis is the proof of a conspiracy.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Well, -that's- certainly a view that the official story would like...
    It is just speculation like yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    No one has denied that Skilling actually did an analysis on the effect a fully loaded 707 would have on one of the twin towers (except you?).
    I was making a point about our baseless speculation. When you read my more recent responses you will see that I think that there was some sort of analysis done.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    For whatever reason, the analysis has apparently gone 'missing'. There is also no evidence that Leslie actually knew whether or not Skilling had taken the jet fuel into account other then his word. Has he even claimed to have -seen- the analysis?
    Don’t know.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Look, you can pigeonhole me as a conspiracist all you want, but at some point in time, I think you may do well to realize that if 9/11 -was- an inside job, the first thing the people in on it would want to do would be to cover their tracks. So when there's evidence that steel was destroyed prematurely
    Steel was at the site for six months. Anyone could have grabbed a piece. The steel at the site was investigated and showed signs of high temperatures. If you were covering your tracks you would not take down the towers in such a manner that the conspiracy theorists claim. You would have evidence lying there for months which anyone could take. If you were really trying to cover your tracks you would just fly planes into the damn buildings without putting bombs or incendiaries in the buildings. It’s such a stupid conspiracy theory.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    and that analysis that looks as though it would have contradicted the official story's account of events dissapears, it's quite reasonable to wonder if perhaps a cover up is indeed taking place.
    When you take all the evidence into account, and actually assess the claims made by the 911 conspiracy theorists then no it isn’t reasonable to think there is a conspiracy. Your only source of information is conspiracy sites Scott and you deeply believe them like a religion even when the flaws have been pointed out. Hey you thought that a missile hit the pentagon and only abandoned that to jump on the absurd flyover theory. Your conclusions are rarely ‘reasonable’

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Sigh. I spent a few minutes on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and found a structural engineer who firmly believes that the collapses were controlled demolitions:
    http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=995879
    Lets look at his personal statement.

    Buildings collapsed all by "controlled demolition" methods. Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physiscs were not suspended on 9/11, unless proven otherwise.


    Wow that poorly informed ramble completely trumps the peer reviewed papers by the engineers who were at the site!


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I bet I could find a few more. Personally I think the whole exercise is rather pointless and find that we could should be spending more time focusing on the arguments of the people involved, not the credentials.
    That’s fine Scott but you said, “sites such as the peer reviewed "The Journal for 9/11 studies"”. Understand that their ‘peer review’ is not by people most qualified to do so.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The cruise speeds of the 707 vs. the 767 and what many experts say about the idea of jet initiated fires taking down the WTC buildings.


    This post is in response to shaman_'s post 551 in this thread.



    Not contesting something is not the same thing as agreeing with it; it's for this reason that I thought that perhaps you were trying to make the same erroneous point again.




    That really had nothing to do with it. It was a simple mistake on my part, as I made clear above.




    I won't contest that assertion. I just wanted to make sure that we were on the same page regarding that issue.




    I doubt it as I now feel that I know your position, whereas before I was merely fairly certain until you mentioned Leslie's statement that seemed to contradict the agreement we had on that point, but you're free to theorize that I will do so.




    If it makes you feel more comfortable, go for it, laugh :-p.




    Prove it. Right now, the only substantial list that I've seen that in regards to people documented experts on buildings is the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site

    The Architects and Engineers site now has 562 Architects and Engineers who have signed the following petition:
    *******
    Please Take Notice That:

    On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.

    Sincerely,

    The Undersigned

    *******

    Yes, yes, some of the engineers are software engineers. I never said that their list was perfect. But even when you take out those engineers, I'm willing to be that when you compare this list to the list of (generally debunked) 'peer reviewed' papers supporting the official story, you'll find it to be substantially larger.

    Also, you may not have noticed, but people like Steven Jones have certainly noticed that they all seem to have different ideas as to what happened regarding the Twin Towers.

    And then, ofcourse, there's other 9/11 truth organizations, such as the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Firemen for 9/11 Truth. There are also other groups that have declared the official story to be riddled with fallacies.
    .. and we have just seen a good example of how much these people know before they add their name.


    While we are talking about ae911, here is another site for you to read if you are bored one day.
    http://www.ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php

  7. #1167
    Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 2

    This post is in response to shaman's post 680 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Actually, Larry Silverstein made immense profits due to the insurance provisions he had on the WTC buildings against terrorist attacks.
    After a long legal battle Silverstein got 4.6 billion but rebuilding WTC7 cost 6.3 billion. Immense profits?
    Alright, I believe the 4.6 billion was for the twin towers. In the case of the twin towers, it's a little more complex. However, in the case of WTC 7, 9/11 Research, in its article "Controlling Interests" has this to say:
    Don Paul also documented the money flows surrounding the loss of Building 7.
    In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million. 8
    So his profits were clearly around $500 million as the article states. You mention that rebuilding WTC 7 cost 6.3 billion. I'd like to see your source just to confirm this, but it doesn't affect my argument. He was under no obligation to rebuild it. If he did so, it was probably to make even more money in the long run through rents.

  8. #1168
    Nano-thermite is not the same as Thermite

    This post is in response to Buffalo Roam's post 691 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Buffalo Roam View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    and since it went unanswered before i again ask:
    why didn't the "nanothermite" above the impact site explode?
    Perhaps it went unanswered before because I don't know the answer. Headspin is better versed when it comes to issues regarding thermite.
    Headspin knows as much about Thermite and Nano Thermite as a fish knows about being a dog,
    Uh, no.


    and you should have done some research to educate your self on the subject, and answered the question.
    I've probably done more research in the last few months then anyone here; unlike Tony, I'm not an engineer of any sort, unlike psikey I have no strong background in physics and Headspin's been at this way longer then I have. Despite what you think, Headspin actually knows quite a bit about thermite; I see no point in toiling trying to answer your question when Headspin could probably do it with ease.


    Nano Thermight of Thermite is not a explosive, if it is exploded it is scattered and looses it's effectiveness.
    Nano-thermite and thermite are not the same. Nano thermite is, indeed, explosive. Thermite is not.


    Thermite cuts by heat, and to generate enough heat at a given point it needs to be in a pile, or contained at that point, by a stabilizing matrix, or ceramic mold.
    In essence, shaped charges? I'm not against the idea, although I believe I've heard that nano thermite could have been applied like a coat of paint is applied.


    Another problem with Thermite or Nano Thermite it that it has a tendency to weld Steel and Iron together, it is used in a lot of situations to weld steel together, one example is rail road track.
    I believe you're still only thinking of thermite, not nano thermite.

    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR6K90cR8Lg

    Good Videos of Thermite Reaction.
    Sure. Not nano thermite though.

  9. #1169
    This post is in response to John99's post 684 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Laugh :-)

  10. #1170
    Larry Silverstein reaped immense profits due to the WTC attacks on 9/11/01, Round 5

    This post is in response to shaman's post 715 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Some people seem to always want more.
    Oh come on. With his wealth, the amount was not significant and was not enough to even rebuild.
    He was never obligated to rebuild. You seem to be of the view that he had paid for the buildings in full, when in fact he did nothing of the sort. His investment in the WTC buildings was rewarded handsomely.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Then, with a lot of help from the profits he just got from the terrorist attacks, he rebuilt it. That's not a loss of money,
    The point of insurance is to provide you with the money to replace what was destroyed.
    If he had actually paid for the items in full, that would be one thing. But he didn't. So the insurance awards were quite profitable.


    Quote Originally Posted by shaman_
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    I guess I should have said "can you excerpt your source and link to it". Anyway, there's no mention of 120$ million a year in that article.
    “As leaseholder of buildings One, Two, Four and Five, Silverstein had the legal right to rebuild the buildings, including the Freedom Tower at the World Trade Center site which would later be designated as building One, and while the site remains unoccupied, he continues to pay $10 million per month in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey."
    Ah, missed the $10 million per month bit.

  11. #1171
    Possible causes for the explosions before the collapse of the twin towers

    This post is in response to leopold99's post 716 in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    you mean to tell me that the websites you have been plastering all over these threads have not listed the possible reasons for the explosions that were heard??
    doesn't that say anything about their objectivity?
    I believe they made it clear that the most likely possibility is that they were from explosives.

    now you know why i told you to start thinking for your self.
    I think for myself, despite what you seem to think.


    and yes, a fire on the 50th floor can indeed cause an explosion on the ground level, any ideas how?
    Magic jet fuel?


    it's a safe bet you'll not find the answer on the websites you post.
    I've heard the magic jet fuel explanation, which is apparently supported by NIST (they just don't admit the jet fuel would have to be magical).

  12. #1172
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    This post is in response to John99's post 684 in this thread.

    Laugh :-)
    Must be a Canadian band.

  13. #1173
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Must be a Canadian band.
    rush is a canadian band. in my opinion one of the best bands ever to be conceived.

  14. #1174
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    rush is a canadian band. in my opinion one of the best bands ever to be conceived.
    I agree. i saw them in the 80s. I have a very rare bootleg demo tape somewhere, recorded before the release of their first album. (sorry, off topic)

  15. #1175
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    rush is a canadian band. in my opinion one of the best bands ever to be conceived.
    no doubt

  16. #1176
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    rush is a canadian band. in my opinion one of the best bands ever to be conceived.
    I agree. i saw them in the 80s. I have a very rare bootleg demo tape somewhere, recorded before the release of their first album. (sorry, off topic)
    Well, sometimes talking so long about 9/11 can get a bit tiring. Been thinking of taking a World of Warcraft break myself. Anyway, never seen Rush live but one of my mexican musician uncles let me see a dvd with them; pretty good stuff :-).

    I like a lot of groups. Right now I'm listening to Mazzy Star's "fade into you". Not really a fan of a lot of her other songs, but I really like that one.

  17. #1177
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    where have i said fall of physics was a strawman? show it to me.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1104

    What does your use of "as well" mean in that post?

    If YOU have something thing to say about anything being incorrect in FALL OF PHYSICS then why don't you just explain what it is?

    psik

  18. #1178
    Quote Originally Posted by John99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    This post is in response to John99's post 684 in this thread.

    Laugh :-)
    Must be a Canadian band.
    Ah yes, that's the John I know; always quick on the draw with an unsubstantiated assumption ; you may be able to make it on the WTC collapses since you're an engineer, but when you -don't- know much about something, it just looks silly
    http://music.yahoo.com/ar-295375-bio--OK-Go

  19. #1179
    never mind.
    Last edited by John99; 01-11-09 at 01:44 PM.

  20. #1180
    Quote Originally Posted by psikeyhackr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    where have i said fall of physics was a strawman? show it to me.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1104

    What does your use of "as well" mean in that post?

    If YOU have something thing to say about anything being incorrect in FALL OF PHYSICS then why don't you just explain what it is?
    I suppose only leopold knows; perhaps he was alluding to others here calling you names, perhaps he was, in fact, referring to himself. No evidence either way really .

    Wondering if perhaps you missed my post in response to leopold:
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1159

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
  •