WTC Collapses

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by scott3x, Nov 14, 2008.

?

How do you think the World Trade Center Collapsed?

  1. Terrorist controlled aeroplanes crashing into them (like on the footage)

    18 vote(s)
    43.9%
  2. Remote controlled aeroplanes to manipulate a war on false grounds

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Demolitions charges rigged by the government to manipulate war

    9 vote(s)
    22.0%
  4. Allah!

    2 vote(s)
    4.9%
  5. People keep flogging a dead horse!

    12 vote(s)
    29.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Kevin Ryan and NIST's 2004 Analysis of Structural Steel Update

    This post is in response to the 9th and final part of shaman_'s post 393 in this thread.

    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/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.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.


    Ofcourse. Much like Astaneh's "tentative conclusions", they still needed working on. 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.


    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. Sorry shaman_, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


    What a curious if vaguely insulting statement. Could you go into further detail as to what you mean by 'backed into the corner'?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    This is a stupid childish game that you play. Are you going to tell me that I have never discussed thermite, witness testimony of bombs, ejection of materials during the collapse, squibs, pulverised concrete, symmetrical collapse, molten metal ect ect ect.. These are points we have been over many times and now you are challenging me to link to each one. Are you really trying to imply that you don’t remember discussing these things?

    You’re probably going to filter out any debunking and claim victory! Are you going to include the comments from this document?

    http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf


    What a stupid question. To finish it off. That thing is a barge and it looks like four stories.


    .. so once again you are implying that something happening for the first time is suspicious. Irrefutable evidence…

    767s haven’t crashed into many high rise buildings either.

    That’s not the point. Your argument is that it must be a controlled demolition because it looks like one. When I say it doesn’t quite look like, you retreat to well its possible. Are you abandoning the “it looked like one” argument?

    At some point (not soon) you are going to have to think about the logic of a master super conspiracy of smashing planes into buildings and then demolishing in such an obvious manner. If they really could get absurd amounts of bombs and thermite into the building they are capable of making it more convincing than that. Why would they need to demolish the damn building anyway? It is absurd.

    I would respect that person more than you. You play games to avoid facing the failure of your argument and those of your heroes.


    You certainly might be in everyday life. When it comes to debating you are not. Deep down you know I am right.



    No you’re not getting it. There were several fishy professions. That was but one of the ones I mentioned. You said “but there is only one of those” as if that matters. There were other dodgy professions padding out the list of ‘architectural and engineering professionals’.



    Well I considering it to be padding out the list when they have people who don’t even work in a relevant field. If they had 500 structural engineers then I might be impressed. They don't. They have architects, electrical and software engineers.


    Don’t you have a memory?

    No I don’t think thermite is as silly as nuclear weapons. Rating the theories I don’t find convincing isn’t really a worthwhile exercise though.

    You only dropped it for the equally absurd flyover theory!



    Just trying to be accurate. Something Ryan should have made more effort to do.

    No you’re not getting it. If the assemblies have been damaged and the fireproofing removed, then the results of their tests are no longer relevant.

    You posted a claim from a truther that the fireproofing wouldn’t be removed as there wouldn’t have been enough energy and I showed you a picture with fireproofing removed……..

    Huh? What have you based this on? The steel on the Madrid tower did more than sag a little. The roof on the McCormick place collapsed in thirty minutes! A steel toilet paper factory collapsed after a fire. A steel toy factory collapsed after a fire. A bridge with steel supports collapsed after a gas tanker crashed. That’s kind of a problem for your theory….


    They weren’t insightful. His letter, which even made mention of melting steel, was trying to establish that the fire didn’t go over 250C! The evidence for higher temperatures is overwhelming. Insightful?




    It’s just an internet nick I’ve used for over ten years. It causes some confusion. I wasn’t an evil-close-minded-psuedosceptic-materialist-wanna-be-debunker when I started using it.



    Do you mean the test done on assemblies with fireproofing!?
    You are in a corner here with nowhere to go. You can try but you cannot avoid the evidence. Do not say again that it is clear that the fires wouldn’t have reached temperatures near 1000C.


    You have not mentioned the other fire tests presented to you either.


    Poor response nanoscott. We are discussing particular issues of WTC. Jumping to different issues of 911 when things get tough is still changing the subject.


    What are you talking about? Which tests were those?

    In one of the Cardington tests, there was a section which wasn’t shielded. It started softening and buckling!



    Now you are really looking a bit sad. Just concede and stop trying to argue the point.

    It has been painstaking shown to you that normal fires can reach temperatures near 1000C. In one of those fires the steel was unprotected and started buckling. You cannot possibly pretend again that you haven’t seen this information…



    .. and yet you make no attempt to even understand what you are bringing up, or why it doesn’t show the maximum temperature of the WTC fire.



    It was an inconclusive test. There is however other evidence which gives a much clearer indication to the temperatures of the fires.

    You fail to understand this and keep bringing up the paint tests as if that is the only evidence of the temperatures. It’s not.


    That was the statement that Mackey was rebutting! You can’t respond to it with the very comment he was responding to!



    It’s probably the government because clearly they are paying him to say these things.


    So I will post the same answers to your pitiful post I did the first time.


    Only in the eyes of a gullible lazy conspiracy theorist. Mackey’s document is pretty much the definitive debunking on all of Griffin’s claims and I think a few others are in there. The crackpots have returned fire with that one page and Mackey has addressed their comments in version 2.1 of his document.

    So no Mackey has not lost any credibility and no you can't just ignore the things he says.


    Where was the good point in that? They are making excuses why they are too scared or inept to reply to Mackey’s essay in entirety and then just whine on that he is debunking them.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    the word "discussed" does not mean "disproven", or "debunked"

    that thread is a perfect example of how the usual crowd use lots of words without actually saying anything, not to mention flat out lie. they were exposed a long time ago.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregory Urich

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Gregory Urich is certainly respected amoung some official story supporters (the fact that you're bringing him up reinforces that) and some conspiracy theorists. psikeyhacker once credited him with giving the most detailed analysis concerning his favourite topic, the distribution of masses and such, but found that more was still needed. However, this isn't to say that some of his claims haven't already been debunked. I'll quote from the above article:
    **************
    1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
    The validity of this claim rests on the definition of “extremely rapid”. NIST provides evidence of growing instability 10 min prior to collapse including smoke expulsions from partial floor collapses and bowing of the exterior wall on the south side of WTC1. ​

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

    All NIST provides is a tweaked out computer model. They don't even model the actual collapse, instead leaving it at 'poised to collapse'; Steven Jones, in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", deals with NIST's "poised for collapse" argument quite well:
    ************
    What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings? What about the observed squibs? What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower? What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well? Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse.” Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without computer simulations that are “adjusted,” perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome.
    ************

    In another part of the same article, Steven Jones comments on the 'expulsions of air' from WTC 7 thusly:
    ******************
    Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

    However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.

    ******************
    Will get to more of his points later...
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    oh, if you read the thread you know full well that it was debunked.

    i know, "everyone is lying", except of course the ones who are making up the tales and unsubstantiated claims.

    neither you, or scott, have answered any questions i (as well as others) have put forth that would end this charade in its tracks.

    dont bother with the coward response of 'where, what questions' read the thread it all there.

    are you here for honest debate, waste time or just spread disinformation?

    if you answer with something intelligent or insightful so be it but don't waste my time because this has gone way beyond monotonous.

    i really dont understand how one person gets perma banned for:

    and you two get away with this consistently. trolling and avoiding posts or glossing over facts is what you came here to do. never participate in any other threads, except for a few but one or two out of a few thousand posts is meaningless.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2008
  9. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    of course you know how to use authority to go crying to a mod when someone calls you a 'bad' name. is that part of your game as well?

    then play with yourself.
     
  10. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    you say "if you read the thread you know full well that it was debunked."
    here are my comments on those jref posts, where was it debunked?
    those jref posts were a total joke:

    post 2
    says nothing, dismissive.

    post 3
    dismissive, redirects to debunking sites.
    lie - "no explosive sounds"
    lie - "no melting of steel"

    post 4
    OP requests the debunkers to tackle the "truther" for him

    post 5
    strawman - pretends the discussion is about thermite, not nanothermite
    trys to derail thread mentioning thermobarics.

    post 6
    falsely implies impossibilty of a thermite device.
    falsely claims nanothermite was not in existence in 2001.

    post 7
    derailing.

    post 8
    derailing

    post 9
    falsely claims the truther is saying the Fire department did 911.
    nitpicks on nuances of words.
    falsely implies the author of nfpa921 and other organisations has investigated the wtc for presence of thermite.

    post 10
    OP asks for clarity on post 9

    post 11
    bluff called, gives websites which is not what the OP asked for.
    tries to answer a question by asking a question.

    post 12
    absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

    post13
    groupthink reinforcement. get in line troops.

    post 14
    speculation and nitpicking.
    falsely implies there were investigators combing the rubble.

    post 15
    3 minutes of hate, bashing "the truthers" to reinforce groupthink.
    lie about what "the truthers" ALWAYS talk about
    bash the truthers.

    post 16
    confused rambling, finish with bashing "the truthers".

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


    ...trolling means to provoke others into reacting emotionally:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
     
  11. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    WTC 7 didn't fall at free fall speed.

    Free fall speed is different for every thing, a Human body at free fall in the prone position does about 126 mph,

    Bloomfield, Louis A. "What is Terminal Velocity?"How Things Work. University of Virginia. 23 December 1999.

    http://rabi.phys.virginia.edu/HTW/home.html


    http://www.afn.org/skydive/faq/faq.html

    So what is the free fall speed of a building?

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

    Joseph W. Kittinger - USAF Museum Gathering of Eagles. United States Air Force Museum, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

    Freefall speed record.
    614 mph [1][2] (988 km/h or 274 m/s)

    So what is the free fall speed of a building?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2008
  12. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    Gregory Urich has produced a spreadsheet with weights of concrete and steel on every level but I don't know how ACCURATE it is. He admits his perimeter column information is built on interpolation. The WTC perimeter columns were built of 12 different grades of modular panels. I see absolutely no reason why the NIST hasn't been able to tell us the number and weight of each type. But Urich makes excuses for the NIST talking about their limited budget.

    He also doesn't try to explain how the falling top portion could possibly have stayed centered all of the way down instead of getting off center in a random fashion and crushing one side more thus causing it to get more off center and eventually falling off the side.

    He also has a spreadsheet for computing collapse time but I don't see how he computes the energy necessary to crush each level.

    psik
     
  13. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    We are talking about a building coming straight down in its own foot print. Wind resistance does not apply here. Terminal velocity is not free fall it is falling limited by air resistance.

    There is no such thing as "free fall speed". It is free fall acceleration.

    psik
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Gregori Urich, Part 2

    This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

    Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:
    ************
    2. Sounds of explosions and flashes of light witnessed near the beginning of the "collapse" by over 100 first responders

    Surely, there were explosive sounds and flashes of light as there are too many witnesses to deny this. Nonetheless, the only videosof the collapseswith sound do not have any explosive sounds. In the following video, one can hear people talking and the sound of the collapse. In videosof actual demolitionsthe explosive charges are at least ten times louder than collapse sounds.Compare:
    http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/wtc2_south_below.mpg

    to these actual demolitions:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XG-l3N1YfQ&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwMkJmnyDuQ

    This evidence directly contradicts the controlled demolition theory, at least by conventional means. Nonetheless, the witness testimonies should be taken seriously. It is possible that people heard or saw something else, for example, reflections of lights from emergency vehicles or cars exploding.​

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

    This is indeed a good point; the sounds don't hear like demolition charges. I have frequently postulated that this may be due to the fact that thermate simply doesn't sound like a conventional explosive (it certainly isn't a conventional explosive at any rate). Headspin/psikey, what's your take on this?

    However, there is no denying that some heard what sounded like a series of rapid explosions even if they didn't sound like classical demolition explosives.

    ************
    3. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos

    This argument would only favor controlled demolition if the pressures inside the building in a gravitational collapse are not sufficient or cannot propagate fast enough to cause the observed phenomena. To my knowledge, this has not been demonstrated.​

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

    It has indeed been done. By Steven Jones, in his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?", for WTC 7:
    ******************
    Horizontal puffs of smoke and debris are observed emerging from WTC-7 on upper floors, in regular sequence, just as the building starts to collapse. (The reader may wish to view the close-up video clip again.) The upper floors have not moved relative to one another yet, as one can verify from the videos. In addition, the timing between the puffs is less than 0.2 seconds so air-expulsion due to collapsing floors is excluded. Free-fall time for a floor to fall down to the next floor is significantly longer than 0.2 seconds: the equation for free fall, y = ½ gt2, yields a little over 0.6 seconds, as this is near the initiation of the collapse.

    However, the presence of such “squibs” proceeding up the side of the building is common when pre-positioned explosives are used, as can be observed at http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.html. The same site shows that rapid timing between explosive squibs is also common. (It is instructive to view several of the implosion videos at this web site.) Thus, squibs as observed during the collapse of WTC 7 going up the side of the building in rapid sequence provide additional significant evidence for the use of pre-placed explosives.

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

    On to Urich's point 4:
    ******************
    4. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people –mostly to dust

    This claim is not correct and in no way favors controlled demolition over gravitational collapse. Engineers at Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (STJ911), including Greg Jenkins, Tony Szamboti and Gregory Urich, have demonstrated that the upper bound for concrete pulverized to dust was 15%. We have also calculated that the amount of dust attributable to easily crushed materials like gypsum and SFRM (thermal insulation) was equivalent to 5 lbsper square foot over an area of 200 acres. We have also calculated that no extra energy source would be needed to create this amount of dust. The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?​

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

    On what basis does he say that AE911Truth's claim is not correct? In any case, in regards to the calculations of Urich, Jenkins and Szamboti, I can't respond since it's precisely this calculation thing where I tend to get lost. Perhaps Headspin or psikey...
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2008
  15. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    i think people understand what is meant by "freefall speed" or "speed of gravity".

    I find it difficult to explain in a simple way by including all the negligible variables. "freefall speed" are words that people understand.

    the only thing that matters is a comparison with the timing of a known demolition, since we know that in a demolition, the support structures have all been instantly removed.
    the difference between a skyscraper demolition and a pure physics/mathematical model is negligible.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    scott, that first mpg you linked to is just plain dumb. it is just a building collapsing there are no charges and if it does anything it disproves what you are saying. it directly contradicts what you are saying.

    HS, your post #547 and accusations have no grounds in this thread and you should not call people liars who are not here to defend themselves go there and do it if you are not afraid to.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    the problem is that you are viewing controlled demos that are designed to take a building down and comparing them to a building coming down. of course there will be similarities, what do you expect?
     
  18. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    What the hell does that mean?

    ROFL

    Buildings are designed to stand up. There should be significant if not considerable differences between a controlled demolition and a building coming down for any other reason.

    That is the major problem with this entire mess. Opinionated people that don't know squat about physics trying to pretend that they do.

    psik
     
  19. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    I have just kicked my self in the ass, Hell I have worked with thermite in the military, and it doesn't explode, it burns with a very loud hiss, thermite is not a explosive, it is a flammable.

    The reason that a building that has been prepared for controlled demolition is not a control for a building collapse, is that the building is stripped all windows, doors, and any none supporting structures, and just watch the strings of charges that go off, they are timed, and sequenced to control the fall and flow of debre, it sound like a machine gun going off, ripples of shots.

    A controlled demolition building is a totally stripped building, and WTC 7 was not.
     
  20. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    oh for pete's sake! what fake righteous indignation!
    you have been off the bat calling people "whores" and using all sorts of other provocations, you don't seem to be able to justify your opinions and arguments on the topic, so you make it personal, its an old game you play.
    "When you have no basis for an argument, abuse the plaintiff" - Marcus Tullius Cicero

    you used that thread to claim nanothermite was debunked, you said "if you read the thread you know full well that it was debunked."
    I went through each post and gave you details of each one, nowhere in there was nanothermite debunked, and so again i will ask - where was it debunked? which post did you find convincingly disprove nanothermite?
     
  21. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    what do they do in uncontrolled demolitions?
    what do they do if they bring down a building to deceive people into thinking it came down by fire? do they salvage the doors and pipes to make money on the side prior to the event? i don't think so. non-sequitur.
    did they strip the moscow apartment buildings in 1999, did AQ strip the wtc in 1993?

    thermite can be designed to explode using nano technology.
     
  22. Headspin Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    496
    do we need a calculation? he says "The pressures approached 100,000 psi late in the collapse. How could these pressures not result in humans and other materials being crushed to dust?"
    but what we know is that human remains, 700 very small bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank Building which was 565 feet high.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank_Building
    so any talk of pressures during "late collapse" cannot explain the bone fragments created during the early stages of collapse. Also, the plane crash debris did not spray the roof of the deutsche bank, so these bone fragments came from the early collapse process.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    That certainly bears repeating.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page