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. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    What clues did they find other than that the steel had been twisted and deformed in the collapse and had been exposed to fire? Please explain what additional clues or observations were made with the Freshkills inspection that weren't already made at the collapse sites themselves.

    They did no testing which would have shown the temperatures which were experienced. They did not do a reconstruction to determine a sequence of initiation events or failure modes, which if some of the steel had already been recycled they couldn't do. Imagine that, just two to three weeks after these unprecedented collapses some of the steel wasn't available to investigators!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I know. I have also read a few rebuttals to these questions. It’s certainly quite possible that the tests are flawed. Flawed testing can be indication of lack of competence as well as a conspiracy.

    Photos like this make me think it was not an unreasonable assumption though.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Look at that ejection of debris. Keep in mind how big those buildings are.
    While it is a worthwhile point, on it’s own it does not invalidate the tests. Were the other results consistent?

    The collision dispersed plenty of jet fuel to the opposite side of the building. If enough sfrm was dislodged that would make sense.

    You don't need to remove a lot of fireproofing from a column before the strength is compromised in a 1000C fire.


    No you are too quick to dismiss the theory based on one shot and a lack of video. I presented witness testimony as well. This was enough for you to believe that there was molten steel.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    What should they have done with the steel? Made a large pile of it for a tourist attraction?

    From what I have read most of it was mixed in with the WTC1+2 debris anyway.

    Remember that to those who were there on the day, the collapse was no mystery. Part of a skyscraper fell on the building and it burned away for seven hours.
    It was expected to fall long before it did because the signs were there. It wasn’t a building in pristine condition that magically dropped for no reason, it was a building that firemen wouldn’t go near because it was leaning and they thought it would collapse..

    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Collapse_Expectations
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    Yes thanks headspin.

    What was seen coming out the windows was debris and dust. It could have been caused by air or debris pushing down elevator shafts, stairwells, ventilation systems ect.

    There is testimony of firemen, in the stairs as the collapse started, describing a gale force wind pushing them.

    Explain.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  8. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    I am unconvinced by Jones' claims. Partly because of his track record and partly because when I search the debunking sites they mention other possible sources for the spheres.
     
  9. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    My explanation is that part of the building was in freefall for a small time. :shrug:

    Freefall does not automatically equal controlled demolition.
     
  10. shaman_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,467
    But I was not suggesting that you just needed to destroy one floor to cause a freefall. I was saying that the collapse started at the bottom of the building.

    To say that a single floor failure caused a freefall collapse is not quite correct. You are ignoring what happened to WTC7 before the collapse. Part of a skyscraper fell on it. It burned away for seven hours. Columns/beams were weakened and damaged and affected by thermal expansion. What I am saying is that the collapse (which everyone on the scene could see was going to happen) beginning at the lower floors could conceivably lead to a section of the upper floors being in freefall for a short period of time. I was referring to what initiated the collapse, not the singular cause.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  11. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
     
  12. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    That is why i asked. You spelled it gysum twice and i thought it was something new.
     
  13. Tony Szamboti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    634
    NIST admits that the debris damage did not play a part in the collapse initiation of WTC 7.

    What was it that everyone on the scene saw that led them to believe that WTC 7 was going to collapse?

    The freefall occurred over EIGHT floors. That isn't some insignificant amount.
     
  14. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 1

    This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

    With fireproofing, as well as with essentially no fireproofing as the excerpt provided above from Kevin Ryan's article The short reign of Ryan Mackey makes clear. Regardless of the amount of fireproofing on them, they sagged a bit but they definitely didn't collapse- and this in conditions that were definitely harsher then the actual WTC fires could have gotten.


    Why wouldn't I say it? It's the truth. The fact that the steel -did- reach that temperature and even melted at that temperature points to only one thing as far as I know- thermate.

    What fire tests are those?


    Personally, I think that fire tests done to simulate what happened on the WTC towers is much more on topic then fire tests done to see what happens to steel at temperatures that the WTC fires couldn't have reached, don't you?


    The 1970 and 2004 tests done by UL and mentioned in Kevin Ryan's article excerpt included above.


    Fine. The temperatures in the Cardington tests were way above what the WTC fires were at, but ok.
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 2

    This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

    When has this been 'paintakingly shown' to me?


    Ah, yes, because I have an encyclopaedic memory of what was said hundreds if not thousands of posts ago. Anyway, if the Cardington Fire tests showed that under extreme, nearly blast furnace like temperatures (1000 C was it?), steel starts buckling, I woudn't be surprised. The WTC fires never got that hot ofcourse. The -steel- did, however and even melted at that temperature. This is certainly unusual, but thermate lowers the melting point of steel to around 1000C.


    If by "fire", you mean to include the thermate induced explosions as well, I wholeheartedly agree. The WTC office fires could never have produced the temperatures reached by the steel, as Kevin Ryan and many others have made clear.


    I didn't ask you if it was an inconclusive test. I asked you how many of the core column fragments they analysed. I also asked you if they shipped them all off before they got a chance to do a proper analysis. If you don't know the answer to these questions, feel free to admit it.


    Alright, let's see evidence that the fires alone got the steel to 1000C. This should be good.


    You know, NIST is the one who, in its 2004 interim report, failed to find much evidence of the steel going beyond 250C. Let's imagine, for a moment, that NIST was actually trying to cover up why the WTC towers fell. Let's imagine that they wanted to make it -look- like it was only due to the fires. Knowing that the fires couldn't have gotten much beyond 250C, certainly not beyond 600C, they only found evidence that this was the case. Perhaps this is why they didn't find much steel that had heated beyond 250C. I may be mistaken here, but I think it's something to consider.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 3

    This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

    Sure I can. Mackey's 'debunking' is nothing of the sort. I see that you don't get the point. The point is that flashovers are instant. 120 and 600 seconds, aka 2 and 10 minutes, is way longer then a flashover would take. I can put my finger over the flame of a lighter for an instant and it really doesn't do much. You can torture a man if you put it for longer durations. I really don't want to know what would happen if it was held under someone's finger for 10 minutes. Buildings and the fires needed to 'hurt' them are on a different scale, but the same principle applies; duration can frequently mean quite a bit.


    Really? Could you please present me the evidence for this?


    It's fine that you copy the answers to my post that you wrote the first time. While I have essentially made flow charts for all the posts in this thread, I haven't really gotten far in doing so for the 9/11 conspiracies thread.
     
  17. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    'Normal' office fire tests, Round 5, Part 4

    This post is in response to the 8th and final part of shaman_'s post 542 in this thread.

    Says the man who is frequently too lazy to even reference the evidence for his own claims.


    Personally, I've found that the best thing that Mackey does is, as Jim Hoffman so aptly put it:
    "generating masses of criticism of the targeted information using arguments with superficial plausibility -- the emphasis being on quantity -- , factual distortions, and logical fallacies."


    I don't ignore a fair amount of them. Neither have many others. I don't ignore what you have to say either. Mackey may be a step above you in terms of the wannabe alternate theory debunkers, but you're certainly in the running yourself. In point of fact, I think that while you may have not written any massive document criticizing Griffin's latest commentary, you seem to be more open to investigating certain aspects of 9/11 then he does.


    I quoted the part I find to be most relevant, but on reflection, I find that it has many other good points as well.
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  18. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Backing up claims and explaining one's reasoning

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 583 in this thread.

    What's truly sad is that you won't (can't?) even link to a single post to your (imaginary?) rebuttals.


    And you know this because you:
    (a) read minds?
    (b) truly -do- have a magic 8 ball?


    shaman_, I won't deny that you have tried, in your way, to explain it to me. I'm simply saying that I still don't understand your reasoning. I'm not 'playing dumb', and despite your allusions to the contrary, I am not 'dumb' either. Anyway, if you find that trying to explain it to me isn't worth the trouble, fine.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    The official story's lethal paper

    This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 583 in this thread.

    I'd say it was done by some type of thermite, probably thermate, but perhaps Headspin could weigh in as well. The point is that paper is an unlikely candidate for having caused it, to put it mildly.


    As Tony Szamboti has made clear, the bowing was probably due to the thermite, not the fires. It looks like thermite played even more of a role than I'd previously known.
     
  20. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 1

    This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

    Headspin is the one who mentioned this I believe. I did a little digging, however, and found evidence contrary to his claim. This is what I found:
    ******************
    Here is an email from Chief Daniel Nigro, the fire commander in charge of building 7.



    Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

    The reasons are as follows:

    1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

    2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

    3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

    4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

    Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

    Regards, Dan Nigro
    Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

    He pulled his men back about three hours before the collapse because he as the ranking fireman was worried about collapse.

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

    A response to this email from Daniel Nigro (found here) sounds good:
    ******************
    1. This shows that he is a fire official and he thought the building would collapse.
    2. The building did in fact collapse.
    3. Nothing in his training told him it would collapse, he ascertained that himself.

    Now why don't we (OCTers) believe the (multiple) firemen and police that say there were bombs, that were trained to differentiate between bombs and falling bodies?

    I smell a double standard here.

    BTW, if I was a fireman, and 2 skyscrapers just collapsed in the same complex and I was standing next to a burning skyscraper, I would certainly clear it also. That's strictly from a liability issue. I am not saying this is necessarily what he did, I am just saying almost anyone would have made the same call.

    ******************
     
  21. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 5, Part 2

    This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 634 in this thread.

    I would argue that he is an authority on the WTC steel and the WTC steel assemblies in particular. He was a manager within the company that certified it and he not only had access to the people who would know most about those steel assemblies; he also asked them about it and got atleast one quite remarkable response, as Kevin Ryan writes in his article Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL:
    *******************
    UL’s CEO, Loring Knoblauch, made verbal statements to all staff at UL in South Bend on or about September 27, 2001. These statements included reference to UL having “certified the steel used in the World Trade Center” and that, because of this, employees should be proud of how long the buildings stood.

    After being later asked for formal confirmation of such tests, Knoblauch repeated his statements again, this time in writing.[10]

    “We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on, and it did beautifully.”

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

    The whole issue is a deep embarassment, to put it mildly, for Underwriter Laboratories, who has vainly tried to disassociate itself from ever having tested the WTC steel as the above article makes clear.
     
  22. psikeyhackr Live Long and Suffer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,223
    This is the problem. There are lots of complicated details in the events of 9/11. People can argue around in circles about this stuff FOREVER. Most people will get tired of it and turnoff. Consequently Mackey wins. That is why I try to focus on something simple enough for grade school kids to understand. Distribution of mass ion a skyscraper. The building could not stand without getting that right.

    So why haven't official sources provided that in SEVEN YEARS?

    How does top 15% by volume crush 81% without our being told the distribution of mass. Someone who claims to be a structural engineer on the Richard Dawkins forum just keeps claiming it is irrelevant but he won't explain what is incorrect about my FALL OF PHYSICS.

    http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1611342#p1611342

    He helped get me banned for a month.

    psik
     
  23. Buffalo Roam Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,931
    Gravity, and the fact that only the single floor below the collapse point is meeting the energy of the top 15% of the building, and as that floor is collapsed it adds it's mass and energy to the collapse.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page