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. #1401
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    furthermore you don't believe NIST when they say something that you don't agree with, now all of a sudden you do???
    .
    There are 10,000 pages. Can it all be totally wrong?

    It says there were 200,000 tons of steel. Oddly it doesn't really explicitly say that is the total for both towers. But then it doesn't give a total for concrete. Obviously those people are not consistent.

    Then they tell us the towers were originally designed to have 14 types of wall panels but only 12 were used. If only 12 types were on the building what good does it do to know about the 14. It gives the impression of thoroughness and attention to detail. But then they don't tell us the number and weights of each of the 12 types. Like this makes sense?

    Obviously the NIST data must be approached with caution and analyzed without regard to what THEY CLAIM it means.

    Supplying us with that deflection and oscillation information information without supplying the vertical distribution of mass but saying it is important in analyzing the impact in ONLY one location is certainly schizoid.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0kUICwO93Q

    psik
    Last edited by psikeyhackr; 01-23-09 at 03:11 PM.

  2. #1402
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    listen people, A WITNESS is someone that was THERE.
    steve jones WAS NOT at the debris feild on 9/11.
    this character that headspin alludes to WAS NOT THERE.
    It was NOT NECESSARY for Professor Steven Jones to have been in the debris field on 9/11.

    In order to find unreacted explosives in the dust, it is only necessary to analyse the dust in a laboratory, any scientist or other person with a modicom of intelligence who isn't a liar will confirm this for you.

    Professor Jones has several different dust samples which he has analysed with other scientists.

    Unreacted high tech explosives were found in the wtc dust:
    please watch through to the end, it is only 7 minutes:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfi...eature=related

    as far as NIST goes, not a single investigator thought about testing for bombs? who are you trying to kid?
    NIST did not test for explosives or incendaries. Here are NISTs words:

    12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

    NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

    http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

    you don't believe NIST when they say something that you don't agree with
    That's correct, i don't believe things that I don't agree with.
    now all of a sudden you do???
    That's incorrect, I still don't believe things I don't agree with, (21 scrabble points awarded for wordplay though).

  3. #1403
    believe whatever you wish headspin.
    the fact remains that you people have not provided a single credible witness that was refused access to the debris field nor have you provided a single credible witness that will say they found unexploded bomb debris.
    it's that simple.
    Last edited by leopold; 01-23-09 at 04:05 PM.

  4. #1404
    Registered Senior Member psikeyhackr's Avatar
    Posts
    929
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    believe whatever you wish headspin.
    the fact remains that you people have not provided a single witness that was refused access to the debris field nor have you provided a single witness that will say they found unexploded bomb debris.
    it's that simple.
    .
    But they found the remains of only ONE filing cabinet so there must not have been any others.

    http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1l...-at-the_events

    In TWO 110 story office buildings. YEAH RIGHT!

    But look at what was left of that filing cabinet. What the hell could do that?

    psik

  5. #1405
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    Thermite sounds like a good bet, but I'm not sure, which is why I referred it on to Headspin. Apparently he didn't see it or see fit to respond to it though. Perhaps this time around...
    the explanation of "burning paper" seems to be just another example of implausible conjured speculation. I do not see how burning bits of paper can cause the uniform "corrosion" of so many vehicles in the vicinity in such a consitent manner.

    Thermitic material could explain the effects seen on the cars.

    . vehicles suffered what appeared to be chemical burns on areas only subjected to the dust.
    . some vehicles caught in the dust appeared to spontaneoulsy catch fire.
    . a witness caught in the hot dust cloud reported the dust burnt into their skin and caused a rash. Detritis (thermite microspheres?) oozed from the rash weeks after.

    If the incendary material was aerosolised and crushed to particulate within the dust, then the dust may have had a hot corrosive effect close to the collapse area.
    Thanks Headspin :-)

  6. #1406
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    the fact remains that you people have not provided a single credible witness that was refused access to the debris field
    This conveniently sidesteps an important issue- what good is being given a tourist trip of the debris, after FEMA removes a bunch of it beforehand? You've got to properly analyze it as well. NIST fully admits that it didn't test the steel for thermite residues. It's given some lame reasons for not doing so, which Robert Moore has effectively countered in his paper Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1.


    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    nor have you provided a single credible witness that will say they found unexploded bomb debris.
    There's atleast one credible witness that gave Steven Jones the sample he tested for thermate residue. Did you check out the video Headspin provided? It's really good stuff. Here it is again:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfi...eature=related

  7. #1407
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    believe whatever you wish headspin.
    the fact remains that you people have not provided a single credible witness that was refused access to the debris field
    I already did in post 1398
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...postcount=1398

    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/grou...trictions.html

    maybe you didn't click the reference link and see this:

    "The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating."
    ...New York Times

    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...entmuddle.html

  8. #1408
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    nor have you provided a single credible witness that will say they found unexploded bomb debris
    I did in post 1398 and post 1402, here it is a third time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfi...eature=related

    did you watch it?
    Last edited by Headspin; 01-23-09 at 04:46 PM.

  9. #1409
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    This conveniently sidesteps an important issue- what good is being given a tourist trip of the debris, after FEMA removes a bunch of it beforehand?
    in order for this statement to be valid you must show that people were denied access to the debris field.
    You've got to properly analyze it as well. NIST fully admits that it didn't test the steel for thermite residues. It's given some lame reasons for not doing so, which Robert Moore has effectively countered in his paper Statement Regarding Thermite, Part 1.
    NIST wasn't the only investigators crawling over that pile scott.

  10. #1410
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    I did in post 1398 and post 1402, here it is a third time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCqsIgCcZQ

    did you watch it?
    no, because it doesn't work.

  11. #1411
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    "The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating."
    ...New York Times

    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...entmuddle.html
    what does this have to do with denial to the debris field?
    access to the debris field was available to people.
    the cameramen from camera planet was on site THAT VERY NIGHT.
    so don't tell me people were refused access.

    the site was swarming with people from all over the US the next day.
    everyone from investigators to cops to firemen and construction workers.

    don't you find it a bit odd that the only person to claim denial to the site is steve jones's man?
    Last edited by leopold; 01-23-09 at 04:55 PM.

  12. #1412
    Registered Senior Member Headspin's Avatar
    Posts
    496
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    don't you find it a bit odd that the only person to claim denial to the site is steve jones's man?
    You are making no sense whatsoever, it is clear now you are just trolling, so i will ignore you from this point.

  13. #1413
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    You are making no sense whatsoever, it is clear now you are just trolling, so i will ignore you from this point.
    the truth hurts doesn't it headspin?

  14. #1414
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99
    don't you find it a bit odd that the only person to claim denial to the site is steve jones's man?
    You are making no sense whatsoever, it is clear now you are just trolling, so i will ignore you from this point.
    the truth hurts doesn't it headspin?
    Sigh. Personally I don't think you're a troll and no, I don't think that Headspin is reeling from the official 'truth', but rather not understanding what you meant and concluding (falsely, in my view) that you must therefore be a troll; he may have suffered burnout, I've burned out from this place in the past myself (I go play World of Warcraft on such occassions :-p); I don't understand what you're saying either leopold. I'm guessing you might be referring to 9/11 Research's well researched "Access Restrictions" article. But 9/11 Research is a creation of Jim Hoffman, not Steven Jones.

  15. #1415
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    what does this have to do with denial to the debris field?
    access to the debris field was available to people.
    the cameramen from camera planet was on site THAT VERY NIGHT.
    so don't tell me people were refused access.
    Ah, camera men from camera planet were on site THAT VERY NIGHT? Wow. How silly of me to think that many had access restrictions, that one anonymous photographer even had his images deleted and threatened with arrest if he went back to the site. Imagine. Cameramen. THAT VERY NIGHT. From camera planet. Well, thanks for setting me straight there leopold

    I can easily imagine that you'll never actually check out 9/11 Research's well researched article, so I decided I'd take matters into my own hands and provide an excerpt:
    On September 26th, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani banned photographs of Ground Zero. 6 An account by an anonymous photographer (AP), who took the photographs at the end of the Ground Zero photographs page, describes the treatment of this citizen investigator.

    At the end of this return walk a NYC police officer asked to be shown authorization for taking photographs. AP said there was none. The officer asked how access to the site was gained. AP said I just walked in. Other police officers were consulted, several said this is a crime scene, no photographs allowed.

    A NYC police captain was consulted who directed that AP be escorted from the site but that the digital photos need not be confiscated. The captain advised AP to apply for an official permit to photograph the site.

    A NYC police officer took AP to New York State police officers nearby who asked to examine the digital camera and view the photographs. Without telling AP, who was being questioned by a State police officer, the photographs were deleted from the camera's compact flash memory chip by another State police officer.

    AP was then escorted to the perimeter of the site by yet another NYC police officer who recorded AP's name, and who issued a warning to stay away from the site or face arrest.

  16. #1416
    Quote Originally Posted by leopold99 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin
    "The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating."
    ...New York Times

    http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wt...entmuddle.html
    what does this have to do with denial to the debris field?
    access to the debris field was available to people.?
    I already mentioned the one example where a man had his digital camera images deleted and threatened with arrest if he returned. But aside from that, there's a big difference between 'tourists' taking a look an an investigation team. One could perhaps argue that it was indeed a crime scene and there -should- be some restrictions. But when there are absurd restrictions on the -investigative team-, that's when you really have to start wondering if perhaps it's more then just a lack of coordination, but rather some highly placed individuals (Rudolph Giuliani, for instance) who don't -want- there to be a proper investigation. Thus, the fast removal of the steel with little real analysis done on it, -especially- in the case of WTC 7, and yes, not allowing amateurs to take a look but -much- worse, not even allowing the investigators to do a proper job.

  17. #1417
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The official story's lethal paper, Round 2

    This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.



    Thermite sounds like a good bet, but I'm not sure, which is why I referred it on to Headspin. Apparently he didn't see it or see fit to respond to it though. Perhaps this time around...


    I haven't heard any other possibilities offered, by either side. Mine would atleast fit in with a lot of other evidence pointing to the use of thermite/thermate. Feel free to offer a different possibility if you have any.
    I have never seen them discussed at all. Unknown does not equal thermite though. I guess the default answer is always thermite until a debunker comes up with one (which will be derided anyway).





    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Sure, if you're thinking of the type of 'softening' that a few well placed missiles can accomplish .
    Your moronic comment here is a dodge. You have dodged it every time. How do you account for the comments made by Astaneh? You know… the guy you try and quote when you think he supports your conspiracy fantasy. He commented on seeing steel which had become very soft from the heat which he estimated around 2000F.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I think a more accurate description would be 'explosively bent' steel...
    What the hell are you talking about? We are talking about Astaneh’s comments. He found no evidence of explosives but found evidence of temperatures high enough to weaken the steel.

    "If you remember the Salvador Dalí paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted -- it's kind of like that. That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot -- perhaps around 2,000 degrees."
    http://chronicle.com/free/v48/i15/15a02701.htm


    ‘Explosively bent’? Explosions don’t just weaken steel. They shatter things with force.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Kevin Ryan's expertise and UL's and NIST's tests of -real- steel

    This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.



    I agree. However, you continue to ignore the fact that he did much more then work with water. He details his research during his time working at Underwriter Laboratories, as well as after. You may want to read about it in his article "Propping up the War on Terror", starting at his sub heading "NIST and Underwriters Laboratories". I'll even give you the intro in the hopes that you will read further:
    In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15


    ...
    More meaningless spam intended to somehow distract from the subject that Kevin Ryan was not involved in the testing of steel assemblies.

    Spamming his text doesn’t increase his qualifications scott.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    I agree that before 9/11 he was indeed not an expert on the WTC steel. This changed, however, when he realized that the company wherein he was a manager was deeply involved in certifying the quality of the steel floor assemblies within the WTC buildings;
    at that point, he began to seriously research the issue and question the relevant people in Underwriter Laboratories concerning this issue.
    None of those things make him an expert on the steel. Your religion is stopping you from comprehending such a simple and small point.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Ratings aside, I have already stated that a test was done with essentially no fireproofing on it. It didn't collapse either.
    You have been shown many examples of steel weakening in a fire that some vague and disingenuous reference to a test with ‘essentially no fireproofing’ is not good enough. Perhaps in your mind it is.


    .5 inches of fireproofing is not ‘essentially no fireproofing’. How was the test set up? What are the details? What didn’t collapse? What were the temperatures?

    In the Cardington tests the unprotected column started buckling when it reached 670C.

  18. #1418
    Registered Senior Member
    Posts
    1,467
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    fluff counters are easily countered and yes, duration does matter

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 882 in this thread.



    That depends. Consider:
    Kevin Ryan says that 2+2=4

    Mackey Ryan says that no, 2+2=17.


    I come in and simply state that Kevin's original answer is right, as it follows the laws of mathematics, where Mackey's clearly didn't.
    Silly examples aside, the point at hand is that you think is that when discussing a particular article, any criticism of that article can be responded to by posting the article again. Can you not see how stupid that is? It completely circular. You go on about civil discussion and yet you don't actually want one.

    You need to do this because you aren’t actually able to defend or back up the articles that you post so you just keep spamming them.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Frequently, Mackey Ryan's "rebuttal" are nothing more then fluff; sometimes even I can see that.
    No one is convinced that you are able to assess Mackey’s writing yourself. You just spam the same criticism from 911research over and over.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    An assertion based on some sound arguments made by the person he is 'rebutting', yes.




    NIST's workstation tests were clearly tweaked, as Steven Jones and others have made clear.
    I don't think you even know what we are discussing. You just throw the ‘as Steven Jones made clear’ for good measure.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Don't you think it rather curious that the -physical- models of the WTC steel never collapsed?
    The workstation tests did not involve testing steel for collapse scott.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Why do you think that?




    It wouldn't do much to steel on the few floors of WTC building that had the fires,
    Steel is only at about 50% of it’s strength at 600C scott.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    but perhaps to a weaker structure, such as the Windsor Tower in Madrid, it could produce a gradual partial collapse.
    Yes never the mind the CONCRETE CORE!



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The only way NIST could get the WTC buildings to collapse via office fires was to 'simulate' it on tweaked computer models; real steel models of the WTC buildings, which follows the laws of real physics, simply wouldn't comply.

    This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 863 in this thread.



    I'm not pretending anything. Something mentioned 4 times over the course of multiple threads spanning thousands of posts doesn't always leave a mark.
    Ignoring evidence without even commenting four times is a little suspicious don’t ya think scott?


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    The Cardington tests did not simulate the conditions in the WTC buildings. This is something you have failed to note.
    The last test was fueled only by office equipment......





    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    \
    There -were- tests done that -did- simulate what happened in the WTC buildings. The results of these tests were not favourable to NIST's 'office fires' theory, however- none of those steel beams collapsed. The only way NIST could get the twin towers to even -appear- 'poised to collapse' was to tweak a computer model; reality simply wouldn't cooperate. In other words, they did some snazzy special effects on a computer, where cartoon physics can most certainly apply.
    Which tests are you talking about. Explain to me without cutting and pasting.



    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    \
    There is no solid evidence that much of the fireproofing was removed in the WTC buildings prior to collapse. Explosives could certainly have removed it during collapse, however.
    The collapse alone would have removed some. Think about it scott. You see explosives and megasuperdooperthermite as the instant answer for everything.


    But as usual you are trying to deflect from the point at hand. You keep mentioning tests by UL done on complete fireproofed assemblies. Not relevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Alright, I'll assume you're right on that one for now. However, the Cardington tests were not modelled after the WTC buildings
    An office fire is an office fire.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    1000C fires does not equal 1000C steel.
    In the Cardington tests the temperature of the steel was only marginally that of the atmosphere. You guys refuse to accept this.

    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x View Post
    Not to mention the fact that Kevin Ryan has stated that there is no evidence that even the WTC fires reached those temperatures.
    I can't believe you are still saying this. Kevin Ryan saying something does not constitute evidence. What are you doing at a science forum?
    Last edited by shaman_; 01-24-09 at 04:33 AM.

  19. #1419
    Quote Originally Posted by scott3x
    On September 26th, then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani banned photographs of Ground Zero.
    a full 15 days AFTER 9/11 happened.
    plus, banning photographs IS NOT the same as banning people.
    6 An account by an anonymous photographer (AP), who took the photographs at the end of the Ground Zero photographs page, describes the treatment of this citizen investigator.
    anonymous? yes indeed. if you want the truth about 9/11 scott then you can't play the "anonymous" crap.

    regardless, you haven't shown that people were denied access to the debris field.
    you haven't shown that uneploded bomb material was found in the debris field.

    about headspin,
    if he wants to get all bent out of shape over an error on my part then that's HIS problem, not mine. i already told him i couldn't view the video.
    Last edited by leopold; 01-24-09 at 04:47 AM.

  20. #1420
    Quote Originally Posted by Headspin View Post
    I did in post 1398 and post 1402, here it is a third time:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iPfi...eature=related

    did you watch it?
    i've finally been able to view this video.
    nowhere does this man say he was at the debris field, nowhere does he state he was refused access to the debris field.

    if this man was so sure that these "red chips", which we have no idea where they came from by the way, was some kind of incendiary device then why does he wait untill 2005 to publish his findings?????????

    the above video does nothing to prove reliable witnesses was denied access to the debris feild nor does it prove unexploded bomb material was found in the debris field.

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
  •