Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Talking Turkey


  • Please log in to reply
900 replies to this topic

#121    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,695 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM

View PostQ24, on 12 August 2012 - 04:05 AM, said:

No, let’s not confuse different threads of the discussion.  The mention of extremists was in response to your suggestion that those responsible were ‘in it for the money’ or would have some unspecified reason to ‘turn on one another’.  It also answers the question of how those responsible for planning the operation knew who was ‘faithful to the cause’ – those extermists were charged with the implementation.  This is all discussed in my post #78, response to your final quote box, to which you did not respond, other than to state you disagree with my analysis of these peoples’ psychological makeup.  The mention of extremists had nothing to do with scientists, the media or a few hundred million citizens.


Again, I think this is just confusion of us simultaneously discussing possibilities at the same time as the evidence for your theory;  I was just summarizing that I was objecting to the faith you have in your ability to know how people think, both in the separate cases of the extremists and of the population as a whole, which I agree is confusing.

Quote


I’m not sure you understand – the implementers are selected specifically because they are extremists who think the way I have described.  I’m not trying to guess anyone’s thoughts here; extensive psychological profiling is carried out prior to the operation, with implementers chosen on that basis.  One of these guys is going to need a complete meltdown to blow the operation.


Depends on what you mean by 'blow the operation'.  As noted in my previous comment, this extensive profiling either inexplicably missed that these five dancing Israelis were morons, or they knew that and risked it anyway, even though the discovery that Israeli agents were involved in 9/11 definitely blows the operation as far as trying to pin the blame on AQ.

Quote


Well did Port Authority staff strap on a harness and pop up the elevator shafts to examine Turner Construction’s progress?  I’m not sure that’s to be expected.  And if they did, chances are they would never see the charge with each device installed and concealed quickly: firewall removed, place charge, firewall replaced.  And if they did see that non-descript box, why do you expect it would cause panic?  It’s just a toolbox... obviously.  Where is the risk?


Well, since I can't find any reference or precedent for thermite charges with the capability to cut through the steel at WTC that are only the size of a toolbox, and the main thermite demolition from 70+ years ago involving over 1000 lbs of explosives, I'm not sure you're being realistic about what evidence there actually was to find.

Quote

To the second imagined ‘risk’ – a bomb threat – there is no full sweep of the building in each case, nevermind searches behind firewall inside the elevator shafts.  In fact, warnings no more specific than, "there's a bomb in the building” were ignored altogether.  It’s going to require a bomb threat specifically stating “there’s a bomb behind the firewall in the elevator shaft”.  It’s not going to happen.  So where is the risk?


It's that difficult to walk some bomb-sniffing dogs through the building?  In addition, I think you are also trying to smuggle in the unrealistic idea that the conspirators thought they could foresee every potential risk, which I see no reason to believe, especially in a heavily-trafficked building and with millions of people watching the event occur.

Quote

I have never looked in detail at the WTC7 simulation since its release.  After determining the methods used for the twin tower simulations, released earlier, I didn’t have to.  I know that NIST’s simulations do not necessarily compare to reality.

Again I will say I have confidence in the physics, material science, computer modelling and the results derived from them (though it is imperative to understand exactly what NIST is simulating).  What I do not have confidence in is NIST’s impartiality or narrative conclusions.

I guess I'm confused; the NIST simulations do not necessarily compare to reality but you have confidence in the computer modeling and their scientific background.  Not saying your inconsistent, it's just not clear to me; I think you are saying, yes, they did fine work analyzing the collapse but their conclusions do not follow from that analysis because they are not impartial.

Quote


Perhaps if I describe NIST’s method of simulation and conclusion in case of the twin towers this will explain what I mean more…

Ok, NIST began with a “best estimate” for the most important variables.  This included factors such as the aircraft weight and speed, angle of attack (to impart more or less energy to the core structure) and building material strength, amongst others.  The “best estimate” for these factors did not produce a collapse in the simulation – that impact and damage scenario left the tower standing.  NIST also simulated a “severe case” whereby the factors were altered, within measurement errors, to increase damage to the building.  It resulted that the “severe case” caused approximately twice the damage to the core structure and more readily led to collapse in the model.  And this is all fine so far, I don’t have a problem with any of these simulations or results, until the following…

NIST compared the “best estimate” case and “severe case” to photographic evidence of the actual building damage.  What they found is that the “best estimate” (which remember, did not lead to collapse in the simulation) provided the best match to that observable reality.  This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality.  So what did NIST do?  In their conclusion NIST, for no reason other than a desire to provide the politically pre-conceived answer, discarded the “best estimate”/best match case in favour of the “severe case”/non-best match.

If you have followed all the above then you will know why I have confidence in NIST’s technical expertise and results but not in impartiality of their conclusions.

I'm not sure of the whole previous conversation between you and frenat  flying swan (edit), but it seems like he has some valid points here.  (if either of you guys easily know how I could find a link or search to find your previous discussion please let me know).  They had an explanation that caused the collapse within the measurement errors, and no good evidence of a demolition, along with the fact that it did indeed collapse.  Did you expect them to say, just because of the the word 'best', to say, we have confidence that the towers did not fall without demolitions?  Scientists don't work in 'proofs'; it's all in degrees of likelihood and their results are always tentative.  And I don't think this is 100% an accurate way to paraphrase it: "This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality.".  'Present in reality' is okay if what you really mean is simply 'observed from the photographic evidence'; I'm not sure how we know for certain the exact damage.  I'm not sure how, from photographic evidence, they are able to see the detail of the internal structural damage through smoke to give this that much accuracy, and probably has to do with why the error bars are large enough to encompass double the damage of the 'best case'.  Is there photographic evidence that clearly shows that their 'severe case' is not valid?

Quote


Of course precedent/experience is important.  There is no precedent for office fire doing what we saw on 9/11.  There is precedent for thermite melting steel, and that when the columns of steel framed buildings are simultaneously compromised then such a collapse as witnessed will take place.


There is no precedent for demolitions that can do the job you are suggesting being hidden in devices the size of toolboxes.  I thought there were other examples of collapses from fire after 9/11 of other steel buildings?  Might be wrong on that.  Do these thermite demolitions not have an audible explosive component?  I've watched several demolitions on youtube since we've been discussing this, some symmetrical, some non-symmetrical, some pretty messy, but none that didn't involve loud clear explosions.

Quote


If the charges are initiated simultaneously then damage across the structure will occur likewise until the point of collapse initiation is reached.

What I'm driving at here is the explosion sounds.  When WTC7 was demolished, is it your contention that, like all other demolitions I can find, at the time of detonation there was an audible explosion?  I don't hear it on the videos I've watched.

Quote


It is number 1.  I think in the link I provided and further discussion on this thread I have already explained why all experts who disagree with the official theory are not necessarily prepared to fight it.  I have also explained why many experts are content to accept the official theory.  You introduce another category
above – experts who are lying.  I have not actually mentioned these individuals yet (except brief reference to Lysenko type scientists) and believe it a very small, though influential, number.  It may be correct they are a part of the operation, or otherwise in denial.


Again, if the demolition is blatant to a non-expert, then it should be pretty risk-free to simply present these obvious facts and the undeniable reasoning supporting the demolition.  You are insinuating that there is a gigantic secret that is obvious, and therefore easy to demonstrate from a scientific point of view, that is circulating amongst, I'd argue, tens if not over a hundred thousand experts, and they can't get enough interest or critical mass to blow this story open?   The influence of our govt is so great, in protecting the actions of a former administration, that there are no international experts either?  The only reason these experts would be 'accepting' the official theory is if they hadn't looked into it enough given how obvious it supposedly is, and I've already explained that I don't think that the number of experts who have looked into the greatest building collapses in history is that significantly smaller than the raw number of experts; even half is a huge number of people.  

A 'small number' of experts who are lying and might be in on the operation?  I've found well over twenty experts who disagree with the demolition possibility who clearly have examined it, there goes our minimal number of people involved.  It may also be correct that your experts are in denial, are letting what they want to be true to cloud their objective evaluation of the demolition possibility, or may just be one of the many myriad people who like to draw attention to themselves for all kinds of reasons.  And please, Lysenkoism is really not a good analogy; the closed Soviet society of 1948 cannot be compared to an open 21st Century American society where every single person is armed with global communication via the internet.  And this does not explain why and how this Lysenkoism concerning demolition has been enforced internationally.

Quote

Oh and BYU, former employer of Steven Jones, is a private university. What happened when this expert/physician/scientist attempted to raise the discussion in a professional capacity?


Primarily it appears he was criticized for not putting his paper through the relevant scientific peer review and dotting his i's and crossing his t's before suggesting that 'government-sponsored' studies are not reliable.  However, I've looked over his paper and don't agree with BYU's putting him on paid leave because of it; I personally think that universities of all places should bend over backwards to allow free expression, even if it's deemed kinda kooky.  However BYU specifically has been critized in the past it appears for other incidents of not exactly supporting free speech, plus it's a religious university, so I don't know that it's representative of what awaits anyone daring to disagree with the govt, especially if it's obvious what actually happened.  Again, I struggle with your explanations for this silence and deception on the part of experts who obviously also know that it was demolished given your thesis here.  Yes, there's some validity to the psychological make-up of the 'masses', but the masses and this whole country is very political divisive.  These experts are so intimidated and aren't willing to go against the official story despite the science clearly being on their side; this ignores that the scientific community is an international one and that we have a large and proud history of protesting the government, along with the opportunity for wealth and fame, depending on how much they can demonstrate.  This is Nobel Peace Prize level stuff.

Quote


I hope that went well!

Thanks Q, hope you had a good weekend also!


Edited by Liquid Gardens, 14 August 2012 - 01:18 AM.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#122    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,098 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 August 2012 - 06:56 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 13 August 2012 - 06:50 PM, said:

I see, a type of primer for paint?  I wonder who this Oystein guy is?

And a jetfuel fire and gravitational collapse created all the dust somehow, and the dust contained the primer for the paint, in quatities large enough to cover half of Manhattan with dust a few inches thick?

That sounds mysteriously like the claim to Weapons of Mass Distraction.  It sounds a bit suspicious, considering the others who have identified the dust as being the by-product of the thermite reaction.

He is correct, and no evidence of thermite cutting was ever found on the steel columns. So once again, have you ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by demolition companies?


Correction:

In the post above,  I accidently misdirected the post to flyingswan. My apology, flyingswan.

Edited by skyeagle409, 14 August 2012 - 07:07 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#123    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:59 PM

If one were trying to secretly rig a building for demolition, and one controlled the Security Company at that building, how hard would it be to control just when and where bomb-sniffing dogs were deployed?

Not very.  If one controlled the Security Company, one would pretty well have free reign on that property.


#124    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,098 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:25 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 14 August 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

If one were trying to secretly rig a building for demolition, and one controlled the Security Company at that building, how hard would it be to control just when and where bomb-sniffing dogs were deployed?

Not very.  If one controlled the Security Company, one would pretty well have free reign on that property.

On the contrary, there was no way to rig the WTC buildings and not attract attention, which would have taken many, many months of preparation. It took months of preparation just to demoliish a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas with explosives.



KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#125    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 16 August 2012 - 12:51 AM

View Postflyingswan, on 13 August 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Thanks for the diagram, it makes my point very well. The tipping point for collapse is between the "best estimate" and "more severe" cases, so therefore the range of possible tipping points overlaps the range of best match to the damage.

There is no "range of possible tipping points"; there is a tipping point from non-collapse to collapse. If that point is not within the actual damage range then the collapse was not a result of the impacts and fires. NIST neglected to determine if that point occurred within the actual damage range. Oh I wonder why.


View Postflyingswan, on 13 August 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

It is not a quibble, the two processes are completely different. You are highlighting words that don't mean what you want them to mean. One process leads to a pool of molten metal, the other leads, at much lower temperatures, to a crumbling away of the surface layers. Since the whole "molten steel" argument is about temperatures, evidence for the presence of a lower-temperature process is not relevant.

Ok, along with FEMA stating there was "melting" and that the steel "liquefied", let me highlight a few more accompanying words that mean what you'd prefer them not to: -
  • Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero, "It was dripping from the molten steel" he said.
  • Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stated, "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."
  • Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe recounted, "I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat."

The description is of the beams dripping and melted, which the photographic evidence you selectively ignore, further confirms: -

Posted Image

Posted Image

We know the first picture of a metal in a semi-solid state is not aluminium or lead as this would fully liquefy well below the temperature seen (the colour indicating it is approaching 1,000oC).

All of this evidence is corroborative - there was melted steel in the debris pile. The high temperature corrosion that FEMA described, if it occurred in large quantity, explains the observations.

And let's not forget FEMA's conclusion: "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Just please no more of this silliness, claiming that no steel was melted.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#126    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:06 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I'm sorry Q, but I have trouble reading this as something other than, 'yes, there was structural deformation which goes against the idea that 7 was demolished but it doesn't count'. With regard to foreknowledge, the reported bulging and leaning don't even necessarily need to have caused the collapse; they only need to concern the firefighters that 7 was at risk of collapsiing.

From the other thread of yours, I believe this is your overall point: "Not one of the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down of their own independent judgment. The fire fighters expected the building to come down because that is what they were told was going to happen." That's one way of phrasing it. Another way is, 'the firefighters feared that WTC7 would collapse and that was buttressed by an unnamed technical expert'. I don't know if it's intentional, but you seem to be positioning this as if the firefighters had no reason to fear the collapse of 7, while standing in the rubble of WTC1 and 2, which I find absurd. Also, I would call hours of fires spreading a 'further change in the building condition'.

Yes you have the point correct. Your rephrasing is incorrect.

The FDNY had only a minor concern for WTC7. This was to the degree that firefighers entered the building to fight the fires immediately after the WTC1 dust settled, later stood within close proximity and even entered the building again to inspect its condition, further firefighters approached the building in the afternoon prepared to fight the fires, other firefighters were relectant to leave the debris pile to create a fallback perimeter so little did they find the risk, and even Chief Visconti who broadcast the fallback order over FDNY radios could not at first grasp the order he was asked to convey so unexpected was its nature. All of this can be confirmed in the thread I linked - we see that the independent concern of the FDNY was moderate at best.

The advice received from the anonymous external advisor(s) did not "buttress" the FDNY concern at all but extended it to a higher level and indeed influenced the firefighters' independent actions through the morning and afternoon prior to the collapse.

The reports of the bulge in the south-west corner of WTC7 come from FDNY Chief Peter Hayden. Can you explain what led Hayden's mindframe to alter from "concerned" about collapse to "sure" about collapse? Was it his own observation of the bulge or was it information passed from the anonymous advisor? Again, the answer is clearly set out in the thread here.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Vince Cannistraro is one of the people, if not the person, who noted that a couple of these Israelis were found in an intelligence database. As Sky noted above, Cannistraro also says there is no indication that they had foreknowledge of the attack. "Are we supposed to ignore the reports?" I'm not saying you are unfair, but you seem to have just accepted one finding from the same person and disregarded the other.

I think some findings can be more readily questioned than others. The first finding is factual - we cannot say perhaps the men were not found in an intelligence database. The other finding is open to interpretation - perhaps the men did have foreknowledge but the evidence was not forthcoming.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

But you just admitted, "The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.", and further that all 'they' needed to do is look at the agents' dossier to determine accurately what they need to know concerning their psychology. Why choose these dolts, surely there are many Zionist agents available? These guys certainly increased the risks and leads, but were for some reason still included.

I know you like to highlight switcheroos and conflicting positions. Interesting then you have moved from doubting Zionist agents committed to the cause were available (who would not stab each other in the back and/or lacking money as motive) to now stating that surely there are many of the requisite Zionist agents available. Also that you said we cannot determine the mens' psychology, now you suggest you would have selected agents to a higher standard - you can't have it both ways.

I think that perhaps whilst these men were "dolts" in their subsequent action, it is possible they were best fit in the most important area sought - loyalty to the cause.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Dogs can also generate false positives due to tips from their handlers profiling the suspects, not sure if this is being included in your possibility calculation. Where did the reports that the State Dept had been bombed also come from on 9/11, if not largely 'thin air'? I do appreciate you hedging your confidence in this point however by noting that it may be overstated and recognizing the possibility of false positives.

The accuracy of sniffer dogs was not a calculation of mine, I just researched all of the subject matter and opinion I could find. It seems that a false positive is more rare than a false negative, and the dogs more often get it right than either of those cases.

The reports of a bomb at the State Department (a car bomb wasn't it?) did not come from thin air but the fact that explosions could be heard coming from the Pentagon on Capitol Hill (there's video footage of this somewhere). So the spark of truth in the report is that there were indeed explosions audible at the State Department which sounded somewhat like car bombs.

I also expect at least a spark of truth behind reports that the Israelis' van was packed with explosives.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

Regarding your points why you think they are involved:

The celebration of the attacks. - They would have reason to celebrate assuming they are pro-Israel and know who committed the attack, as they know the US will respond against their enemies. I'm sure they weren't the only Israelis who were pleased for that reason. You're assuming that the celebration is that the mission was completed successfully I think when there are more parsimonious explanations.
The indication of explosives in the mens' van (not to mention presence of the WTC demolitions). - Possible explosives, which if detected are from an unknown source. Not sure what you mean by 'presence of the WTC demolitions', unless you're just explaining this from your point of view, since I'm not really convinced at this point that there was a demolition involved.
The failed lie detector tests. - Polygraph test are notoriously unreliable.
The fact the men were arrested at the scene, on the day, in direct relation to the attacks. - 'At the scene' being in New Jersey, but fine close enough. One of the callers to the police thought they were 'Palestinians' which was wrong. I don't know what the fact that they were arrested shows; I thought they were arrested mainly because they celebrated and were thereby suspicious.
The fact the front company owner did not want to answer questions. - Ha, yes, because when you're being investigated criminally, all good lawyers recommend that you talk to the press and law enforcement...
The fact that political powers wanted the investigation shutdown. - Wanted the investigation shut down or found nothing to link them specifically to the attacks?

So whilst accepting actions of the agents were suspicious, you suggest it was the polygraph results which were incorrect. And you think we should disregard the possible presence of explosives because the source is unknown. Why make such weak arguments in defense of these men in lieu of a criminal investigation?

Do good lawyers recommend that company owners flee the U.S. and abandon their business before law enforcement investigations are complete? Apparently so. And how can political interference be in best interest of the justice system? In response to your last question, another quote from former CIA officer Cannistraro: -

"There was no question but that [the order to close down the investigation] came from the White House. It was immediately assumed at CIA headquarters that this basically was going to be a cover-up so that the Israelis would not be implicated in any way in 9/11. Bear in mind that this was a political issue, not a law enforcement or intelligence issue. If somebody says we don't want the Israelis implicated in this - we know that they've been spying the hell out of us, we know that they possibly had information in advance of the attacks, but this would be a political nightmare to deal with."


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 13 August 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

There are a couple possibilities why they weren't mentioned. One is that they were indeed involved in a demolition and 'they' in the govt covered it up. Another is that they are actually Israeli intelligence agents with an undefined mission and were investigated and not found to have any involvement in the attacks.

I'm not sure information was covered up, rather political pressure applied to ensure that investigative leads could not be followed to completion.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#127    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:21 AM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Well, since I can't find any reference or precedent for thermite charges with the capability to cut through the steel at WTC that are only the size of a toolbox, and the main thermite demolition from 70+ years ago involving over 1000 lbs of explosives, I'm not sure you're being realistic about what evidence there actually was to find.

I don't understand why you need further precedent for this.

The Skyride Tower demolition used I believe, a 1,500lbs packed mass of thermite per leg. Would you deny that neither the efficiency of thermite or useful dispersion systems developed over the following 77 years? The other examples I provided and military development of thermite show this is not the case.

Incidentally I am content with around 500lbs of thermite per charge in the demolition. This adequately matches quantity of the molten flow which became visible from WTC2 at 7 minites prior collapse and also could comfortably be contained in a unit of 100cm x 25cm x 25cm (which would in turn fit inside numerous industrial toolboxes on the market).

It's not exactly miraculous - it's all very basic.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

It's that difficult to walk some bomb-sniffing dogs through the building?

It might be awkward to strap dogs in harnesses and start winching them up elevator shafts.

Anyhow, that is not how the response to bomb threats worked (most are actually ignored altogehter - see here: "Generally, security experts advise client companies to ignore threats no more specific than "there's a bomb in the building."") and long term occupants of the building, especially in areas of the building management and security, would be aware of that when considering viability of the demolition setup.



View PostLiquid Gardens, on 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

I guess I'm confused; the NIST simulations do not necessarily compare to reality but you have confidence in the computer modeling and their scientific background. Not saying your inconsistent, it's just not clear to me; I think you are saying, yes, they did fine work analyzing the collapse but their conclusions do not follow from that analysis because they are not impartial.


I'm not sure of the whole previous conversation between you and frenat flying swan (edit), but it seems like he has some valid points here. (if either of you guys easily know how I could find a link or search to find your previous discussion please let me know). They had an explanation that caused the collapse within the measurement errors, and no good evidence of a demolition, along with the fact that it did indeed collapse. Did you expect them to say, just because of the the word 'best', to say, we have confidence that the towers did not fall without demolitions? Scientists don't work in 'proofs'; it's all in degrees of likelihood and their results are always tentative. And I don't think this is 100% an accurate way to paraphrase it: "This means that the "severe case" (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality.". 'Present in reality' is okay if what you really mean is simply 'observed from the photographic evidence'; I'm not sure how we know for certain the exact damage. I'm not sure how, from photographic evidence, they are able to see the detail of the internal structural damage through smoke to give this that much accuracy, and probably has to do with why the error bars are large enough to encompass double the damage of the 'best case'. Is there photographic evidence that clearly shows that their 'severe case' is not valid?

Yes, NIST did a fine job in analysing hypothetical circumstances, yet their preconceived conclusion was not an accurate reflection of the results. NIST simply took the hypothetical result which suited the politically desirable answer and discarded the rest, despite fact that the latter was best match to the actual tower damage.

Err... which discussion would you like between me and flyingswan? We have been through it numerous times over a period of years.

I'm glad you mention likelihoods above because that is an area where me and flyingswan have found agreement. Had NIST carried out exactly the same analysis the day before 9/11, it would have been concluded the towers most probably would remain standing. This is indisputably indicated in the results whereby two of the three simulated cases did not lead to collapse. And flyingswan will claim he disagrees with me here (because he likes to pretend so even when he's actually agreeing - it's like a hobby of his). I'll provide his quote so there can be no confusion: "NIST's conclusion would be "It's more likely to stand up than collapse, but we can't rule out collapse"." So why did NIST not admit in their conclusion the collapse simulations indicated the towers would most likely not collapse due to the impacts and fires present? Incidentally this conclusion would also be in line with the WTC construction engineers who in multiple analysis also calculated the towers would withstand jetliner impact and fire.

Yes, "present in reality" is "observed from photographic evidence" is "actual damage". NIST stated the most important observable factor in validating their simulations was comparison with impact damage at the external wall. If the match at the external wall was accurate, and the modelling and physics competent, then the internal simulated damage that carried through the structure should also be accurate. Again, the results indicated that the non-collapse case was better match to the photographic evidence of impact damage at the external wall than was the collapse case. So why did NIST discard the better match? The reason is simply that it could not lead to collapse. The severe case is not valid because NIST acknowledge that the best estimate simulation is a better match. This is how we know the actual damage was closer to the best estimate case - the graph I provided on the previous page depicts these results. Assuming accuracy of the modelling, there is no way on Earth that NIST's severe case can be valid, not only due to the small probabilities involved of all inputs falling to the most severe degree, but the fact it is not best match to the photographic evidence.

If you have any further questions on the graph or that would assist understanding then please ask. It's quite a simple concept but I appreciate it can seem a lot to get your head around at first.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

There is no precedent for demolitions that can do the job you are suggesting being hidden in devices the size of toolboxes. I thought there were other examples of collapses from fire after 9/11 of other steel buildings? Might be wrong on that. Do these thermite demolitions not have an audible explosive component? I've watched several demolitions on youtube since we've been discussing this, some symmetrical, some non-symmetrical, some pretty messy, but none that didn't involve loud clear explosions.


What I'm driving at here is the explosion sounds. When WTC7 was demolished, is it your contention that, like all other demolitions I can find, at the time of detonation there was an audible explosion? I don't hear it on the videos I've watched.

There are no examples of fires causing collapse of high-rise steel-framed buildings equivalent to WTC7, despite the many instances of fire in such buildings, not even close.

I don't see why thermite charges should have to include an audible explosion. We can fire it with an electrical or chemical detonator - the article states that the Skyride Tower thermite demolition was initiated through an electrical charge.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

Again, if the demolition is blatant to a non-expert, then it should be pretty risk-free to simply present these obvious facts and the undeniable reasoning supporting the demolition. You are insinuating that there is a gigantic secret that is obvious, and therefore easy to demonstrate from a scientific point of view, that is circulating amongst, I'd argue, tens if not over a hundred thousand experts, and they can't get enough interest or critical mass to blow this story open? The influence of our govt is so great, in protecting the actions of a former administration, that there are no international experts either? The only reason these experts would be 'accepting' the official theory is if they hadn't looked into it enough given how obvious it supposedly is, and I've already explained that I don't think that the number of experts who have looked into the greatest building collapses in history is that significantly smaller than the raw number of experts; even half is a huge number of people.

Yes to all! Though there are international experts who dispute the collapses.

You put it well - a gigantic and obvious secret that is easily demonstrated and yet ignored by the scientific masses through disinterest or doubt. It's exactly as the master propagandist described: -

"All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."



And we are talking of lies so big as offering hypotheticals that do not match reality (not only in the NIST example discussed further above, but numerous others). We are talking of lies that circumvent the foundations of established physics such as Newton's third law. It's some huge and blatant issues and it is worth repeating: "Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation." It is an unfortunate fact that many people want to believe the official narrative of 9/11 and will go some lengths in adapting their beliefs to do so - it sits so much better with their worldview.


View PostLiquid Gardens, on 14 August 2012 - 01:15 AM, said:

These experts are so intimidated and aren't willing to go against the official story despite the science clearly being on their side; this ignores that the scientific community is an international one and that we have a large and proud history of protesting the government, along with the opportunity for wealth and fame, depending on how much they can demonstrate. This is Nobel Peace Prize level stuff.

Let's not forget we do have 1,700+ architects and engineers, which include those from the international community, who are dissatisfied with the official theory. That is along with many hundreds of scientists, government, military and other professionals who have also spoken out on record. Not to mention support from a large portion of the public.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#128    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,098 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 August 2012 - 01:45 AM

View PostQ24, on 16 August 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

Posted Image


That is not molten steel by any means. I might add that temperatures far below the melting point of steel can also distort and weaken steel columns, and if under stress, weaken the columns to complete failure.

Posted Image

That is not molten steel either.

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 August 2012 - 01:50 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#129    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,098 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 August 2012 - 06:21 AM

Quote

Steel without thermal protection can fail extremely quickly in a fire:


"One of the most common structures today is the strip mall built with steel bar joists and metal deck roofs. A serious fire in one of these structures should be expected to produce roof collapse in as little as 5 to 10 minutes." Firehouse.com Sept. 1998


Posted Image


https://sites.google...teelcolumnstobu



EFFECT OF SUPPORT CONDITIONS ON STEEL
BEAMS EXPOSED OF FIRE



Department of Civil Engineering
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand


1. Introduction
1.1 General

Structural steel has been widely used throughout the world. It is one of a designer’s best
options in view of its advantages over other materials. Steel is available in a range of discrete
size, and its ductile behaviour allows plastic deformation upon yielding, therefore avoiding
brittle failures.

In reinforced concrete structures, steel enhances the concrete strength by
carrying the tensile forces. It is also commonly used to reinforce timber constructions.
In spite of its advantages, steel on its own is vulnerable in fire.

Elevated temperatures in the steel cause reduction in its strength and stiffness which eventually leads to failure due to
excessive deformations. This is crucial in steel in compared with concrete or timber members
as steel conducts heat very well and often comes in thin or slender elements.



2.4.2 Steel design at elevated temperature

There are a few modifications to be considered when designing structures for fire conditions
although the concepts are similar to those for the ambient condition. Most of the material
properties change with temperature, the strength is reduced upon heating and thermal
expansion may induce internal forces that lead to structural failure with various mechanisms
depending on the type of supports, connections and structural arrangements.

Instability failure also needs to be considered even though the structure still has adequate
strength. The applied loads for fire design are less due to very low probability of the event
occurring when the structure is fully loaded at its maximum capacity, therefore a smaller
safety factor is acceptable.

The actual load at a given time as a proportion of the load that would cause collapse of the
structure is often referred to as the load ratio. Most constructions have a load ratio of 0.5 or
less. Smaller load ratio means greater fire resistance as the reduction of strength of any
member will not necessarily cause collapse of the structure.

Failure mechanisms

The failure of a beam is reached when its strength is exceeded at one or more particular points
termed plastic hinges, depending on they way it is supported. Figure 2.13 is the illustration by
Buchanan (2000), showing the bending moment, deflected shape and the failure mechanism
for different end conditions.

The development of plastic hinges shows ductile behaviour as energy is dissipated

http://www.civil.can...ts/JSepturo.pdf



In WTC Building 5, this large column and beam buckled on floor 8 of 9.

The fire was fueled by office materials only.


Posted Image




Edited by skyeagle409, 16 August 2012 - 06:33 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#130    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,098 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 16 August 2012 - 07:03 AM

Collapse of the North Tower

At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south". At 10:28 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly."

The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for 102 minutes.


Collapse initiation

After the planes hit the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors.

As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences

http://en.wikipedia....ld_Trade_Center

Edited by skyeagle409, 16 August 2012 - 07:06 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#131    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,695 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 17 August 2012 - 11:52 PM

Q, quick question, what is the best source of the mentions of the unknown engineer providing the foreknowledge?  I've found other quotes by other firefighters talking about thinking it would collapse and was wondering if they can be tied to this guy too, just out of curiosity.  I'm in the slow process of downloading the 911 dataset files, that's got a ton in it, don't know if there's something in there where you're getting it.  Been a busy week, I'll respond to your posts when I can; oooo, I disagree with you! (shakes fist comically)

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#132    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,886 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 19 August 2012 - 10:30 AM

View PostQ24, on 16 August 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

There is no "range of possible tipping points"; there is a tipping point from non-collapse to collapse. If that point is not within the actual damage range then the collapse was not a result of the impacts and fires. NIST neglected to determine if that point occurred within the actual damage range. Oh I wonder why.
Of course there's a range.  The measurement uncertainties apply to several parameters and by selecting different values of each you get different patterns of damage, each with its own tipping point.  Without running hundreds of cases rather than just three, NIST could not determine where all these points lie.  However, there is similar uncertainty in the extent of the actual damage inside the building, all NIST has to go on here is photos of the exterior, particularly the damage to the exit wall showing that parts of the aircraft passed right through the core structure.  With all this uncertainty, the overlap between the calculated and observed is sufficient to show that NIST nailed the collapse initiation as well as could be expected.

Quote

Ok, along with FEMA stating there was "melting" and that the steel "liquefied", let me highlight a few more accompanying words that mean what you'd prefer them not to: -
  • Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero, "It was dripping from the molten steel" he said.
  • Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stated, "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel."
  • Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe recounted, "I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat."
You bring up these eyewitness reports, but there is no way an eyewitness or a photograph can determine if dripping molten metal is steel or something else. There are no temperature measurements that confirm molten steel.  Just because there is molten metal dripping off a steel beam, it doesn't mean the metal is steel.  Pull a steel beam out of a pool of molten aluminium and it will drip molten aluminium.  You drip water after you get out of the bath, doesn't mean you are made of ice.


Quote

We know the first picture of a metal in a semi-solid state is not aluminium or lead as this would fully liquefy well below the temperature seen (the colour indicating it is approaching 1,000oC).



A remarkable argument.  It can't be liquid aluminium or lead because it is above their melting temperatures.  For you information, metals are liquid above the melting point and solid below.  Your temperature rules out steel for what is melting, not aluminium or lead.  Once again, it is likely steel being pulled out of a pool of aluminium.

Edited by flyingswan, 19 August 2012 - 10:38 AM.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#133    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:46 PM

Swan

Have you any theories as to just WHAT metal it might have been?


#134    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,075 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:03 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 19 August 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Swan

Have you any theories as to just WHAT metal it might have been?

Steel was not the only thing that made up WTC.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#135    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,506 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 19 August 2012 - 06:06 PM

Duh!





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users