Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Rastaman

WHY were the twin towers PURPOSELY collapsed?

247 posts in this topic

Yes, another example of a contestable conclusion.

Ah, first it's definite proof of demolition, now it's contestable?

You are appealing to expert opinion all the while knowing that there are more experts on record who call for a new investigation than are on record actually supporting the current one. Why should anyone believe me? Because I support what I am saying with logic and facts backed up by physics and professionals.

"Experts on record" - we've had this debate. At that stage you were more in love with AE911T, but found lots of far-fetched reasons to dismiss everyone I found on my side of the argument.

Have any of your "professionals" actually replied to Urich's points? Why not?

You cling to Urich when he is in fact dissatisfied with the NIST investigation and is one of the hundreds of engineers on record as demanding a new investigation. Urich is not convinced by the full list of evidence promoted by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and neither am I. His opinion does not disagree greatly with my own. This is just typical of the infighting within the truth movement some of which is inevitable with the number of supporters involved.

I quote Urich because, like you, he wants it to be a controlled demolition. However, he is honest enough in evaluating the evidence to see that it isn't the "proof" of CD that you both want. In every case where you ticked the "proof" column, he ticks the "ambiguous" column. In that, he is far closer to my position than to yours.

Yes, that’s right… all too very difficult (read: “scary”)… there there.

Yeah, you don't like that point so you resort to insult.

It’s an area that interests me. Remember that I’ve been through my own phase of fear/doubt/discovery. I understand from experience how the subconscious will create any excuse to protect your worldview and sanity. For some people the desire to feel comfortable means they simply cannot fight this complacency or be completely honest with themselves. For those who do challenge their own mindset and accept the truth as it stands whatever that may be, it can be most enlightening once the initial shock is over. Most will never know that feeling thus one reason why state sponsored terrorism is so difficult to unveil until the emotional connections of the time have long passed.

I think you might try applying all that to yourself. You are the one with the confirmation bias problem. My worldview doesn't require me to believe that a US government is necessarily a force for good, very much the contrary as far as foreign policy in recent years goes, but it does require me to look at evidence from an engineering viewpoint. This leads me to see the evidence put forward by the conspiracists for CD as best ambiguous, while ignoring a lot of problems. Whether NIST got spot on with their predictions or not, their collapse mechanism is plausible and doesn't require the sort of highly convoluted reasoning you bring to support a covert CD.

Yes, that’s right… some non-descript boxes amongst the million plus tonnes of debris will be all too very noticeable.. there there.

You think an expended thermite column cutter is going to be non-descript? Only in the sense that no-one has every descibed one in detail. I'm sure it's going to be something very unusual to have the properties you want.

What would happen if all of the core columns on a particular side were cut in the same direction?

Very likely an immediate collapse.

Apart from clearly appearing as a thermite reaction at first glance, on closer inspection it is seen that the molten metal flow from WTC2 matches continuously in coloration and consistency. If we were seeing a mixture of melted lead and/or aluminium with office debris this would appear inconsistent showing dark/light patches with burning material, a visible flame and dark smoke as the rest of the fires. Further, lead and/or aluminium when it becomes liquid and begins to flow appears as a silver colour, not glowing birght orange/white hot as thermite must always be. As well as the coloration and consistency of the witnessed flow, the fact there is no visible flame is another match to thermite. Finally on the physical characteristics of the flow, a light white smoke can be seen given off matching the iron oxide produced in a thermite reaction. Experiments to replicate the flow using aluminium have proven wholly unsuccessful. Add to all of this that the flow was only active in the minutes prior and leading to the collapse initiation.

A flow of molten lead will certainly glow orange or whatever if hot enough, and if you look at the lower part of the flow where it has cooled it looks silver or grey. If the flow is lead, why should it match aluminium? How about addressing the shear volume and duration of the flow, which don't match your demolition device at all?

NIST have already admitted that the collapse of WTC7 was beyond all expectations as their simulations also confirmed that WTC1 & 2 were not expected to collapse. The problem is that, by extending a damage and/or fire scenario and including many assumptions, a situation can always be reached that provides collapse… whether this is within the realms of realitiy or not is where opinion can be divided. There will not be conclusive proof either way without an unbiased investigation.

You can misquote or cherry-pick all you want, but if the NIST collapse mechanisms are so implausible, where is the outcry from the structural engineering community?

I don’t see the initial movement as a tilt. The mast and top of the building begin to drop prior to the façade at the impact level. The tilt comes after this initial downward movement. This would imply that the initial failure was in the core, allowing the structure to fall through itself and dragging everything else with it.

This makes it all the more interesting that NIST describe the initial failure at the wall and then propagating through the rest of the columns. Despite what video footage shows, this would have provided an immediate tilt and meant that the core collapsed as a result of the perimeter failure rather than vice versa.

Footage from various angles showing the mast and top of the building dropping prior to the façade can be seen

– watch closely, keep your eye on the mast and top. But can you provide a single piece of footage showing the façade failing first in support of NIST’s theory?

Just to re-emphasise to anyone after seeing that video the near freefall speed of the collapse. One second the structure is there with no significant distortion and the next it just drops as though with no resistance. If fire and gradual heating/distortion of the columns were to cause complete collapse you would know about it beforehand, but it just cannot do that witnessed so suddenly - there had to be resistance; not like it was falling through air.

As I have never seen a good video from the south side of the building, no, I haven't footage of the facade failing. However, all the footage from other directions does show the top of the building and the antenna tilting to the south, which is certainly consistent with the south side failing first.

Just for the benefit of anyone else passing by…

The bowing of the wall is just the sort of "gradual heating/distortion of the columns" that a fire causes. This is an indication of the structure gradually weakening. At some point it weakens to the stage where it can no longer sustain the weight of the building above. At that instant, a very sudden collapse is typical of the failure mode of thin columns in compression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, first it's definite proof of demolition, now it's contestable?

Follow the discussion – we were talking about the Bazant and Zhou paper.

"Experts on record" - we've had this debate. At that stage you were more in love with AE911T, but found lots of far-fetched reasons to dismiss everyone I found on my side of the argument.

Have any of your "professionals" actually replied to Urich's points? Why not?

All you found on your side of the argument were those listed as contributors to the NIST investigation, many of which were not construction professionals. These individuals are outnumbered by the architects and engineers of AE911T. Can you specify the “far-fetched reasons to dismiss everyone” that you claim I used?

Every one of Urich’s points should have been addressed by the official investigation.

I quote Urich because, like you, he wants it to be a controlled demolition. However, he is honest enough in evaluating the evidence to see that it isn't the "proof" of CD that you both want. In every case where you ticked the "proof" column, he ticks the "ambiguous" column. In that, he is far closer to my position than to yours.

Yes, Urich is very similar to someone else we know…

Quintiere, like you, wants it to be an impact and fire induced collapse. However, he is honest enough in evaluating the evidence to see that the NIST investigation is not the “proof” of an impact and fire induced collapse that you both want. In many cases where you find the investigation to be satisfactory, Quintiere is dissatisfied. In that, he is far closer to my position than yours.

The point is that neither Urich or Quintiere are content with the official investigation; both wanting further details and study to address unanswered questions. I can only conclude that it is correct to support them, rather than obstruct further research and settle for less than a full explanation as you do.

Yeah, you don't like that point so you resort to insult.

No insult intended - if you don’t like what you see in yourself then that’s another matter.

This leads me to see the evidence put forward by the conspiracists for CD as best ambiguous, while ignoring a lot of problems. Whether NIST got spot on with their predictions or not, their collapse mechanism is plausible and doesn't require the sort of highly convoluted reasoning you bring to support a covert CD.

You

Note: for some reason it will not let me quote the above section without further text on the bottom, thus the “You” left in place. :wacko:

There can be many possible answers to questions but not all are equally plausible. As Quintiere has said and the scientific method dictates, NIST should have looked into and tested all possible hypotheses. It is simply not satisfactory to demonstrate the plausibility of only one hypothesis which causes collapse initiation that is based upon damage provably greater than the reality on 9/11 – in fact that would make the actual case that NIST demonstrated absolutely implausible, ie it didn’t happen. Basically they provided only a theory of a collapse mechanism that could be plausible. It is no wonder that people, laymen and experts alike, ask questions. You should be ashamed of yourself as a professional in settling for the ‘investigation’ that we have been provided.

You think an expended thermite column cutter is going to be non-descript? Only in the sense that no-one has every descibed one in detail. I'm sure it's going to be something very unusual to have the properties you want.

I envision that the devices would appear as a metal box perhaps a metre long – crushed, twisted and buried with the million plus tonnes of other metal and concrete debris; entirely unremarkable unless inspected closely.

You envision that the devices would appear “very unusual” - can I ask in what way? A smooth mirrored surface, a ‘Warning: Thermite Inside’ label, brightly coloured wires or flashing lights perhaps? Please explain.

Very likely an immediate collapse.

The bowing of the wall is just the sort of "gradual heating/distortion of the columns" that a fire causes. This is an indication of the structure gradually weakening. At some point it weakens to the stage where it can no longer sustain the weight of the building above. At that instant, a very sudden collapse is typical of the failure mode of thin columns in compression.

We were discussing the direction that the columns would fail. If all of the columns on one side of the core were cut in the same direction, they would fail in one direction. If the columns begin to fail in the same direction at the core, ie moving inwards, this would provide the pull-in forces to give the bowed perimeter columns.

The Madrid fire is a good example of the wide level of distortion due to heating that should be apparent in the structure prior to collapse. A limited section of bowed perimeter columns is no indication that the entire structure is about to suddenly collapse. See the plausible alternative above for the pull-in forces providing the bowing.

A flow of molten lead will certainly glow orange or whatever if hot enough, and if you look at the lower part of the flow where it has cooled it looks silver or grey. If the flow is lead, why should it match aluminium? How about addressing the shear volume and duration of the flow, which don't match your demolition device at all?

Yes, lead or aluminium will appear orange only “if hot enough”. At the point they become molten and would begin to flow, both appear a silver colour. I cannot see that in WTC2 either of these metals could become molten and then be held within some sort of dish or bowl while they were heated to a greater temperature before being released in the minutes prior to collapse. Thermite will always appear the bright orange colour seen from WTC2 upon initiation.

You can misquote or cherry-pick all you want, but if the NIST collapse mechanisms are so implausible, where is the outcry from the structural engineering community?

Shut your eyes… tighter… fingers in your ears too if that helps… there there.

As I have never seen a good video from the south side of the building, no, I haven't footage of the facade failing. However, all the footage from other directions does show the top of the building and the antenna tilting to the south, which is certainly consistent with the south side failing first.

So the initial failure in the perimeter columns is another assumption from NIST that is unsupported by evidence. Did you watch the video footage that I linked? The mast and top of the building can be seen making a downward movement a moment before the tilt begins – evidence of initial failure at the core, not perimeter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mast and top of the building can be seen making a downward movement a moment before the tilt begins – evidence of initial failure at the core, not perimeter.

Maybe someone could explain to us how, with all the connections of beams, box columns, and trusses, the singular event of dropping the middle section of the roof was accomplished, independent of effects upon the rest of the top of the building.

Discussion of the relevant building elements, with a convincing series of events would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you gave up on Al Qaeda as you did not respond to my post above, merril.

Maybe someone could explain to us how, with all the connections of beams, box columns, and trusses, the singular event of dropping the middle section of the roof was accomplished, independent of effects upon the rest of the top of the building.

Discussion of the relevant building elements, with a convincing series of events would be appreciated.

It wasn’t the “middle section of the roof”, it is the entire roof level that can be seen to drop before any movement in the façade at the impact level. I refer to the mast as well because this is an obvious way to see that the top level is dropping first.

In the explanation given by NIST, the façade fails first with instability propagating across the building through the core - this would mean that failure should first be seen in the façade with an immediate tilt. If the core fails first then the initial collapse would be internal with the centre of the structure falling through itself (taking all with it) and first being visible as a downward movement from the top.

Does it like a failure at the façade or the building falling straight through itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the discussion – we were talking about the Bazant and Zhou paper.

We were talking about how you interpret the evidence to fit your views.

What we have here is your list of evidence which you put in the pro-demolition column and pretty near every engineer, including the pro-conspiracy Urich, puts into the ambiguous column. If AE911T members support your view, why haven't they produced anything in reply to Urich? It's been over a year since he published his open letter to them.

All you found on your side of the argument were those listed as contributors to the NIST investigation, many of which were not construction professionals. These individuals are outnumbered by the architects and engineers of AE911T. Can you specify the “far-fetched reasons to dismiss everyone” that you claim I used?

I found quite a lot more than that, Quintiere for one, and you tried to argue that any engineer that could be linked, however remotely, to government money was effectively part of the conspiracy.

You are arguing like the creationists, who crowed over the rare pro-creationism biologist and ignored the fact that the silent majority of biologists supported evolution and saw creationism as nonsense. If your conspiracy ideas ever become as widespread as creationism, perhaps some engineers will start an equivalent of Project Steve.

I'll take AE911T seriously when they can produce any actual engineering arguments to support their opinions.

Every one of Urich’s points should have been addressed by the official investigation.

Urich's points are aimed at AE911T, it is they who should be responding.

Yes, Urich is very similar to someone else we know…

Quintiere, like you, wants it to be an impact and fire induced collapse. However, he is honest enough in evaluating the evidence to see that the NIST investigation is not the “proof” of an impact and fire induced collapse that you both want. In many cases where you find the investigation to be satisfactory, Quintiere is dissatisfied. In that, he is far closer to my position than yours.

The point is that neither Urich or Quintiere are content with the official investigation; both wanting further details and study to address unanswered questions. I can only conclude that it is correct to support them, rather than obstruct further research and settle for less than a full explanation as you do.

Quintiere accepts that the collapses were due to fire, he just differs from NIST as to the details.

The point is that neither Quintiere nor Urich see your list of evidence as pro-demolition.

No insult intended - if you don’t like what you see in yourself then that’s another matter.

If you don't intend to insult me, you have a very strange way of choosing your words. In any event, you are still avoiding a reply to my argument.

There can be many possible answers to questions but not all are equally plausible. As Quintiere has said and the scientific method dictates, NIST should have looked into and tested all possible hypotheses. It is simply not satisfactory to demonstrate the plausibility of only one hypothesis which causes collapse initiation that is based upon damage provably greater than the reality on 9/11 – in fact that would make the actual case that NIST demonstrated absolutely implausible, ie it didn’t happen. Basically they provided only a theory of a collapse mechanism that could be plausible. It is no wonder that people, laymen and experts alike, ask questions. You should be ashamed of yourself as a professional in settling for the ‘investigation’ that we have been provided.

Quintiere doesn't think that demolition is plausible enough to be investigated. His alternative hypotheses relate to different impact/fire processes.

As I have said before, the NIST collapse initiation mechanism fits the available evidence and is consistent with damage predicted by parameters well within the range of measurement error. Quintiere indeed argues that NIST used an underestimate of the severity of the fires in their models, rather the opposite of your claims. In the context of fire v demolition, fire fits and demolition is nowhere. The argument within the engineering community is on the details of the fire theory.

I envision that the devices would appear as a metal box perhaps a metre long – crushed, twisted and buried with the million plus tonnes of other metal and concrete debris; entirely unremarkable unless inspected closely.

You envision that the devices would appear “very unusual” - can I ask in what way? A smooth mirrored surface, a ‘Warning: Thermite Inside’ label, brightly coloured wires or flashing lights perhaps? Please explain.

The device has to eject 200kg (your figure) of thermite horizontally at a column. For relative size, think of your thermite as a bullet and the device as a gun. The "muzzle" width has to be as big as the columns and the thing has to be robust enough that the thermite only exits in one direction, plus it has to withstand aircraft impacts and fires. More robust than the steel columns, in other words. Something that strong is going to survive the collapse pretty well intact.

We were discussing the direction that the columns would fail. If all of the columns on one side of the core were cut in the same direction, they would fail in one direction. If the columns begin to fail in the same direction at the core, ie moving inwards, this would provide the pull-in forces to give the bowed perimeter columns.

The Madrid fire is a good example of the wide level of distortion due to heating that should be apparent in the structure prior to collapse. A limited section of bowed perimeter columns is no indication that the entire structure is about to suddenly collapse. See the plausible alternative above for the pull-in forces providing the bowing.

If a column is cut its ends where the floors attach don't move sideways. Either the load redistributes and the ends remain in place or the load is too great and a collapse starts. To move the ends inwards, a large sideways force has to be applied.

The Madrid building had a concrete core structure, far more resistant to fire than steel alone. That's why the steel outer structure could distort more - the concrete continued to support it.

Yes, lead or aluminium will appear orange only “if hot enough”. At the point they become molten and would begin to flow, both appear a silver colour. I cannot see that in WTC2 either of these metals could become molten and then be held within some sort of dish or bowl while they were heated to a greater temperature before being released in the minutes prior to collapse. Thermite will always appear the bright orange colour seen from WTC2 upon initiation.

A roomful of batteries contains a lot of stored energy, and a short-circuit will release that energy very rapidly. The lead doesn't have to be held. On the other hand, what stops your thermite from simply going straight down through the floors? How does it flow out?

Shut your eyes… tighter… fingers in your ears too if that helps… there there.

...and you were denying being insulting? My arguments must really be getting to you.

So the initial failure in the perimeter columns is another assumption from NIST that is unsupported by evidence. Did you watch the video footage that I linked? The mast and top of the building can be seen making a downward movement a moment before the tilt begins – evidence of initial failure at the core, not perimeter.

Look again at the view from the north. If the top of the building is moving down and the facade isn't moving, where is the break? Without a break, the only explanation is that it is tilting away from the camera, and the views from the other angles confirm the tilt. A tilt to the south with the north facade intact implies that the south side has failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we have here is your list of evidence which you put in the pro-demolition column and pretty near every engineer, including the pro-conspiracy Urich, puts into the ambiguous column. If AE911T members support your view, why haven't they produced anything in reply to Urich? It's been over a year since he published his open letter to them.

If you read Gregory Urich’s letter properly you will see that he doesn’t even cover over half of the points I mark as supportive of a demolition. Those reservations he does hold are either on shaky grounds or altogether irrelevant to my point, eg the definition of terms or reference to conventional demoltion. I don’t believe AE911T have responded to Urich because his criticisms are not altogether detrimental to a controlled demolition.

I found quite a lot more than that, Quintiere for one, and you tried to argue that any engineer that could be linked, however remotely, to government money was effectively part of the conspiracy.

So apart from the NIST contributors, most of whom are not engineers, you ‘found’ Quintiere who is dissatisfied with the official investigation and if I remember rightly, a Chinese paper which was so poor it actually made me laugh out loud. I believe I mentioned that most ‘outside’ assistance in the investigation was from major government contractors and that if you are being paid well while tasked to theorise about how the collapses occurred ‘due to the impacts and fires’ then there is no leeway to come back with a ‘wrong’ answer.

Urich's points are aimed at AE911T, it is they who should be responding.

AE911T couldn’t even legitimately exist if there had been a competent investigation that supplied conclusive findings in support of the official story.

The point is that neither Quintiere nor Urich see your list of evidence as pro-demolition.

And neither Quintiere nor Urich see the NIST investigation as satisfactory. That leaves them in a middle ground where they both believe more analysis must be carried out to reach the truth. Good – I like that.

No insult intended - if you don’t like what you see in yourself then that’s another matter.

If you don't intend to insult me, you have a very strange way of choosing your words. In any event, you are still avoiding a reply to my argument.

I’m not avoiding your ‘argument’ - it’s just that where something is clearly possible but you choose to make excuses from a personal position of incredulity, it’s obviously your subconscious self-defence mechanism kicking in. By that point any objectivity you may have is long gone so instead of wasting my time arguing I’m just going to comfort you.

As I have said before, the NIST collapse initiation mechanism fits the available evidence and is consistent with damage predicted by parameters well within the range of measurement error.

As I said, NIST’s collapse initiation mechanism theory has not been proven viable due to the actual situation on 9/11. And what are you talking about, “well within” the range of measurement error? The inputs that NIST used to provide collapse initiation in their model were at the extreme bounds of possible error in each and every parameter, not “well within” in any way at all. After everything we have discussed on this particular subject it’s disturbing that you would come out with something so blatantly inaccurate.

The device has to eject 200kg (your figure) of thermite horizontally at a column. For relative size, think of your thermite as a bullet and the device as a gun. The "muzzle" width has to be as big as the columns and the thing has to be robust enough that the thermite only exits in one direction, plus it has to withstand aircraft impacts and fires. More robust than the steel columns, in other words. Something that strong is going to survive the collapse pretty well intact.

I see – you believe the devices would have looked like ‘big robust guns’ amongst the rubble – that explains a lot. And yet this thermite demolition charge looks nothing like that: -

thermiteunit.jpg

I’m sure I have said numerous times before that the devices do not need to withstand the impacts as any column directly hit would be damaged in any case. Also the fire resistance would not be required to be great as temperatures in the core were nothing like those in the open office areas.

If a column is cut its ends where the floors attach don't move sideways. Either the load redistributes and the ends remain in place or the load is too great and a collapse starts. To move the ends inwards, a large sideways force has to be applied.

The fact that one side of the core could be more damaged brings about the sideways force or tilt forcing the columns inward. With the plastic bottle again, cut a slit around the circumference in one side only and then apply pressure directly downwards on the top – note the bottle bends inward on the cut side despite the force being applied evenly downwards. This is the best example I can give that is practical and where similar principles could be applied.

A roomful of batteries contains a lot of stored energy, and a short-circuit will release that energy very rapidly. The lead doesn't have to be held. On the other hand, what stops your thermite from simply going straight down through the floors? How does it flow out?

Batteries cannot rapidly heat 200kg of lead or aluminium to such a temperature that it appears bright orange. I think you read too much into an article you linked in the past where it was described how individual components of a battery can be vaporised – that is individual components, not large quantities of random nearby metal. As to your question, I’m tired of linking the video that shows thermite flowing over a car bonnet.

Look again at the view from the north. If the top of the building is moving down and the facade isn't moving, where is the break? Without a break, the only explanation is that it is tilting away from the camera, and the views from the other angles confirm the tilt. A tilt to the south with the north facade intact implies that the south side has failed.

If the top of the building is moving down and the façade isn’t moving then the break is internal with the core failing first and taking the perimeter with it moments later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I mentioned that most ‘outside’ assistance in the investigation was from major government contractors and that if you are being paid well while tasked to theorise about how the collapses occurred ‘due to the impacts and fires’ then there is no leeway to come back with a ‘wrong’ answer.

AE911T couldn’t even legitimately exist if there had been a competent investigation that supplied conclusive findings in support of the official story.

Not every breath taken by every human being is for some deceitful purpose, as you seem to constantly belabor.

You have zero evidence that such is the case for any contractor in the FEMA or NIST WTC investigations.

Running private companies and government agencies are difficult and complicated tasks. There are occasional snafus, obstinant bureacratic behaviors and coverups, or even diversions from the straight and narrow.

But, in this particular circumstance, no top-end, violations of law, or treasonous or seditious behavior has ever been demonstrated to exist, per the allegations of enemies of the United States of America. In that, I mean that various groups have, all these years, laid it on thick with a trowel, trying to stretch the original attacks into an ongoing engagement.

What they and the enemy combatants in foreign lands have done, has been to misjudge the benign and intelligent intentions of those they refer as Western religious enemies. They profess a religious concern for groups in their respective countries, when in fact, they would just as soon ignore them one moment, or slit their throats the next. Poverty and ignorance within those locations feed the fires of extremism, which stems from poor social and cultural planning.

In the case of the al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S., finding morally vapid individuals from an upper class to avenge for others was not hard. The mosques manipulate people from start to finish.

No, Q, I don't see any evidence of involvement with, or covering up for al-Qaeda in the U.S., or it's agency called NIST.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read Gregory Urich’s letter properly you will see that he doesn’t even cover over half of the points I mark as supportive of a demolition. Those reservations he does hold are either on shaky grounds or altogether irrelevant to my point, eg the definition of terms or reference to conventional demoltion. I don’t believe AE911T have responded to Urich because his criticisms are not altogether detrimental to a controlled demolition.

Urich addressed every single point in the AE911T list of evidence for demolition, and shows in every case that it does not provide the claimed proof. Without a counter to his paper, AE911T have no case at all. It isn't hard to see why they pretend to ignore him. You may have a different case to AE911T, but you have a similar tendency to ignore any shortcomings in your evidence. If you get it wrong for all your points that Urich covers, what confidence does that give for the rest?

So apart from the NIST contributors, most of whom are not engineers, you ‘found’ Quintiere who is dissatisfied with the official investigation and if I remember rightly, a Chinese paper which was so poor it actually made me laugh out loud. I believe I mentioned that most ‘outside’ assistance in the investigation was from major government contractors and that if you are being paid well while tasked to theorise about how the collapses occurred ‘due to the impacts and fires’ then there is no leeway to come back with a ‘wrong’ answer.

As I said, you find reasons to ignore anyone, however qualified in the engineering skills you lack, who doesn't support your ideas. You bring forward Quintiere because he criticises the NIST report, but he criticises it from within the realms of real engineering and completely dismisses the demolition hypothesis.

AE911T couldn’t even legitimately exist if there had been a competent investigation that supplied conclusive findings in support of the official story.

Conspiracists would dismiss any investigation, however competent, because the whole basis of any conspiracy theory rests on belief rather than evidence.

And neither Quintiere nor Urich see the NIST investigation as satisfactory. That leaves them in a middle ground where they both believe more analysis must be carried out to reach the truth. Good – I like that.

Does that mean that you agree with them that there is no evidence that can only be explained by a demolition?

I’m not avoiding your ‘argument’ - it’s just that where something is clearly possible but you choose to make excuses from a personal position of incredulity, it’s obviously your subconscious self-defence mechanism kicking in. By that point any objectivity you may have is long gone so instead of wasting my time arguing I’m just going to comfort you.

So you can use your personal incredulity in repeating ad nauseam your mantra of three buildings in one day, etc, etc, but when I question the feasibility of prepping an occupied building with a completely unknown type of demolition set-up, it's just my subconsious self-defense mechanism? You should really try and develop a more objective attitude to your own beliefs.

As I said, NIST’s collapse initiation mechanism theory has not been proven viable due to the actual situation on 9/11. And what are you talking about, “well within” the range of measurement error? The inputs that NIST used to provide collapse initiation in their model were at the extreme bounds of possible error in each and every parameter, not “well within” in any way at all. After everything we have discussed on this particular subject it’s disturbing that you would come out with something so blatantly inaccurate.

You know perfectly well that the baseline and severe cases were not very different in their fit to the evidence. If the actual impact was about halfway between the two, as this match implies, then the severe case isn't as extreme as you try to paint it.

I see – you believe the devices would have looked like ‘big robust guns’ amongst the rubble – that explains a lot. And yet this thermite demolition charge looks nothing like that: -

thermiteunit.jpg

I’m sure I have said numerous times before that the devices do not need to withstand the impacts as any column directly hit would be damaged in any case. Also the fire resistance would not be required to be great as temperatures in the core were nothing like those in the open office areas.

You do realise that the days when a patent application had to be accompanied by a working model are long gone? You can't show that the sketch is an accurate representation of how such a device would be. Even so, the metal thickness in the sketch is considerable. The actual working model device in the video is pretty much as I described.

You can't see the problem with claiming that the impacts could do the damage but you still need demolition charges? You can't see the problem with claiming that the NIST post-hoc fire simulations are flawed but the demolition team accurately modelled the fire in advance?

The fact that one side of the core could be more damaged brings about the sideways force or tilt forcing the columns inward. With the plastic bottle again, cut a slit around the circumference in one side only and then apply pressure directly downwards on the top – note the bottle bends inward on the cut side despite the force being applied evenly downwards. This is the best example I can give that is practical and where similar principles could be applied.

You obviously can't see how the building structure differs from a bottle, either.

Batteries cannot rapidly heat 200kg of lead or aluminium to such a temperature that it appears bright orange. I think you read too much into an article you linked in the past where it was described how individual components of a battery can be vaporised – that is individual components, not large quantities of random nearby metal. As to your question, I’m tired of linking the video that shows thermite flowing over a car bonnet.

This link, do you mean? The one from an engineer familiar with such systems?

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

We're talking of currents with thousands of amps, which can produce unimaginable thermal effects. In addition to this, abundant hydrogen, which is highly flammable, is generated during a short circuit.

Do you even understand that the energy required to vapourise a part might be more than enough to melt a lot? To vapourise something, you have to take it well above its melting temperature.

Most of the thermite goes straight through the car bonnet. Thermite can go straight through an engine block, for that matter. How is a floor going to stop it?

If the top of the building is moving down and the façade isn’t moving then the break is internal with the core failing first and taking the perimeter with it moments later.

In that case, the antenna should break away from the roof, but I can't see any sign of that in the videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you get it wrong for all your points that Urich covers, what confidence does that give for the rest?

As I said, that Urich discusses the definition of terms, references conventional demolition or asks questions means nothing to my points. I can give a sound explanation of how any of my points support controlled demolition.

You bring forward Quintiere because he criticises the NIST report, but he criticises it from within the realms of real engineering and completely dismisses the demolition hypothesis.

Quintiere criticises the NIST investigation for many of the same reasons as anyone else, including myself. Do you remember on the original long thread from a time ago where we went through various areas of the NIST investigation? Probably not knowing what your memory is like! But I put forward many failings of NIST which you argued against. I then discovered Quintiere’s criticisms where lo and behold they supported near point for point everything that I had been saying. And only then I see that it becomes for you “within the realms of real engineering”. Another in a long line of examples of your often misplaced faith in and meak submission to authority figures.

As we are talking about Quintiere still, there is one criticism he raises not directly linked to engineering that I don’t think an attempt has been made to address: -

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

Quite simply - why were government lawyers deterring fact finding?

Conspiracists would dismiss any investigation, however competent, because the whole basis of any conspiracy theory rests on belief rather than evidence.

This is certainly true for some conspiracists but my view is based on the evidence. Don’t forget that the official story itself is a ‘conspiracy theory’ and this is indeed the version of events that I once held a faith based belief in before educating myself with the full evidence.

Does that mean that you agree with them that there is no evidence that can only be explained by a demolition?

I cannot reasonably agree with that.

You know perfectly well that the baseline and severe cases were not very different in their fit to the evidence. If the actual impact was about halfway between the two, as this match implies, then the severe case isn't as extreme as you try to paint it.

We don’t know where the actual case fell or if it would produce collapse; NIST did not run the necessary simulations or carry out the required analysis to determine this. All proven is that a case at the most extreme bounds of severity for each parameter along with further tweaking of the models will bring about collapse initiation in the simulation.

You do realise that the days when a patent application had to be accompanied by a working model are long gone? You can't show that the sketch is an accurate representation of how such a device would be. Even so, the metal thickness in the sketch is considerable. The actual working model device in the video is pretty much as I described.

That’s right… thermite charges must always look like ‘big robust guns’… there there.

You can't see the problem with claiming that the impacts could do the damage but you still need demolition charges? You can't see the problem with claiming that the NIST post-hoc fire simulations are flawed but the demolition team accurately modelled the fire in advance?

Very few core columns were damaged during the impact according to the best estimate of NIST. Even in the severe simulated case NIST state that the limited number of damaged core columns only increased the load on those remaining by 1% if I remember correctly. So no, I don’t see the problem in claiming the impacts could do damage but that demolition charges would still be needed to bring about collapse.

I don’t claim the NIST fire simulations are flawed in so far as the physics goes – only that, as with the impact parameters, they were turned up to their maximum severity – a situation that not a shred of evidence, physical or otherwise, supports. As would be expected with no fuel to assist fires in the cores, NIST’s simulations show relatively low temperatures at the centre of the buildings. This would also be expected by the demolition team and accounted for if they deemed necessary at all by the type of units used, ie a heat/fire resistant casing.

This link, do you mean? The one from an engineer familiar with such systems?

http://11-settembre....or-of-wtc2.html

We're talking of currents with thousands of amps, which can produce unimaginable thermal effects. In addition to this, abundant hydrogen, which is highly flammable, is generated during a short circuit.

Do you even understand that the energy required to vapourise a part might be more than enough to melt a lot? To vapourise something, you have to take it well above its melting temperature.

No, it was a different link that spoke about vaporisation of individual battery components. Of course the energy to vaporise a part will be more than enough to melt a lot in theory but in practice it would be impossible to transfer that energy completely and evenly into a large section of metal. If there is a gradual energy transfer then the connection will be broken at the metal’s melting point when it flows away. I cannot imagine a great and fast enough transfer from a battery that is going to cause a large quantity of metal to instantaneously liquefy at far above its melting temperature - completely unrealistic. If you think otherwise then please give an example.

Most of the thermite goes straight through the car bonnet. Thermite can go straight through an engine block, for that matter. How is a floor going to stop it?

This is largely dependant on the length of time that the thermite is in contact with a surface. If it does not have the opportunity to pool but travels quickly over a surface due to the ejection rate or angle, then the thermite will not necessarily melt right through all of the debris and/or floor area that it was flowing over in WTC2. The video showing thermite on the car demonstrates this well - were it pools under the pot it goes straight through, where it is ejected onto the bonnet it flows off and onto the ground.

In that case, the antenna should break away from the roof, but I can't see any sign of that in the videos.

The antenna is attached to the roof but is not a structural component. Why should it break away from the roof or have anything to do with the collapse? The initial failure appears to be at the core and I only mention the antenna as it is a good reference point to see that the roof drops before any movement in the façade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious....

There were multiple reports from eye witnesses who heard or saw with their own eyes explosions

either in the basement levels and on other levels of WTC 1 & 2 before either tower collapsed....

What is the most common explanation for these explosions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the most common explanation for these explosions?

Jet fuel getting into the lift shafts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, that Urich discusses the definition of terms, references conventional demolition or asks questions means nothing to my points. I can give a sound explanation of how any of my points support controlled demolition.

Urich asks questions that you do not answer satisfactorily. Just one example:

You: molten metal proof of demolition.

Urich: Can molten metal observed in the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before? The

fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate and any thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which was not observed. If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a reasonable issue to investigate. Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be considered indicative of a thermate attack.

Quintiere criticises the NIST investigation for many of the same reasons as anyone else, including myself. Do you remember on the original long thread from a time ago where we went through various areas of the NIST investigation? Probably not knowing what your memory is like! But I put forward many failings of NIST which you argued against. I then discovered Quintiere’s criticisms where lo and behold they supported near point for point everything that I had been saying. And only then I see that it becomes for you “within the realms of real engineering”. Another in a long line of examples of your often misplaced faith in and meak submission to authority figures.

As we are talking about Quintiere still, there is one criticism he raises not directly linked to engineering that I don’t think an attempt has been made to address: -

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

Quite simply - why were government lawyers deterring fact finding?

Quite simply, in spite of all those reservations about the NIST investigation, why does Quintiere rule out demolition? An experienced fire engineer obviously doesn't have to take the NIST investigation as gospel to be satisfied that the fires brought the buildings down.

This is certainly true for some conspiracists but my view is based on the evidence. Don’t forget that the official story itself is a ‘conspiracy theory’ and this is indeed the version of events that I once held a faith based belief in before educating myself with the full evidence.

Yeah, they all say that. "Once I was a believer..."

I cannot reasonably agree with that.

So the fact that two engineers, one severely critical of NIST and the other a conspiracist, both reject your opinion that all the evidence favours demolition doesn't bother you?

We don’t know where the actual case fell or if it would produce collapse; NIST did not run the necessary simulations or carry out the required analysis to determine this. All proven is that a case at the most extreme bounds of severity for each parameter along with further tweaking of the models will bring about collapse initiation in the simulation.

Ther you go again, characterising the NIST severe case as "most extreme" when it was only twice as far from the initial baseline estimate as the actual case.

That’s right… thermite charges must always look like ‘big robust guns’… there there.

This is the core of your theory, yet when I question it all you can do is resort to insult. You really don't have an argument, do you?

Very few core columns were damaged during the impact according to the best estimate of NIST. Even in the severe simulated case NIST state that the limited number of damaged core columns only increased the load on those remaining by 1% if I remember correctly. So no, I don’t see the problem in claiming the impacts could do damage but that demolition charges would still be needed to bring about collapse.

I don’t claim the NIST fire simulations are flawed in so far as the physics goes – only that, as with the impact parameters, they were turned up to their maximum severity – a situation that not a shred of evidence, physical or otherwise, supports. As would be expected with no fuel to assist fires in the cores, NIST’s simulations show relatively low temperatures at the centre of the buildings. This would also be expected by the demolition team and accounted for if they deemed necessary at all by the type of units used, ie a heat/fire resistant casing.

So your conspirators work out a detailed demolition set-up right in the impact zone, but they don't have to worry if the set-up gets damaged in the impact because anything that damages the charges will have to be severe enough to sever a column. I though you were arguing that the charges weren't that robust? On your argument of flimsier charges, what happens in the charge gets damaged but the column remains intact?

Quintiere argues that NIST actually underestimated the fire. He might not agree that the core fire was less severe. For that matter, how did your conspirators know whether fuel would reach the core or not?

No, it was a different link that spoke about vaporisation of individual battery components. Of course the energy to vaporise a part will be more than enough to melt a lot in theory but in practice it would be impossible to transfer that energy completely and evenly into a large section of metal. If there is a gradual energy transfer then the connection will be broken at the metal’s melting point when it flows away. I cannot imagine a great and fast enough transfer from a battery that is going to cause a large quantity of metal to instantaneously liquefy at far above its melting temperature - completely unrealistic. If you think otherwise then please give an example.

The energy that vapourises the component just vanishes rather than stays around to raise the temperature of the rest?

I note that the say-so of an engineer with relevant experience is as nothing compared with the unsupported opinion of someone who thinks strain and strength are the same thing.

This is largely dependant on the length of time that the thermite is in contact with a surface. If it does not have the opportunity to pool but travels quickly over a surface due to the ejection rate or angle, then the thermite will not necessarily melt right through all of the debris and/or floor area that it was flowing over in WTC2. The video showing thermite on the car demonstrates this well - were it pools under the pot it goes straight through, where it is ejected onto the bonnet it flows off and onto the ground.

That molten cascade lasts for some time, a demolition charge acts quickly. If the cause is thermite it must pool on the floor to produce the long-lived cascade. If it is thermite, it should go through the floor rather than pool.

The antenna is attached to the roof but is not a structural component. Why should it break away from the roof or have anything to do with the collapse? The initial failure appears to be at the core and I only mention the antenna as it is a good reference point to see that the roof drops before any movement in the façade.

If the antenna falls before the rest of the building then logically it must either break away from the surrounding roof or, if the roof stays with the antenna, then the roof must break away from the top of the walls. Where is the evidence for either option?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious....

There were multiple reports from eye witnesses who heard or saw with their own eyes explosions

either in the basement levels and on other levels of WTC 1 & 2 before either tower collapsed....

What is the most common explanation for these explosions?

The explanation the FBI and FDNY were working to on the day is that there were secondary devices planted inside the buildings. This is supported by the many witness statements describing explosions long after the 20 minute period in which the jet fuel is known to have expended. One of the witnesses in the video you posted is Barry Jennings who by his account witnessed explosions in WTC7 before either of the Twin Towers had even collapsed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Urich asks questions that you do not answer satisfactorily. Just one example:

You: molten metal proof of demolition.

Urich: Can molten metal observed in the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before? The fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate and any thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which was not observed. If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a reasonable issue to investigate. Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be considered indicative of a thermate attack.

The temperature required to create molten steel in the debris pile simply cannot be achieved through normal fires. In an attempt to counteract this, proponents of the official story suggest that accidental furnaces could have been formed underground. It would seem that random rubble and debris creating what is usually such a specific manufactured setup, with the correct fuel and oxygen input to melt steel, is entirely unlikely.

Now we must look for a feasible explanation for the additional energy source in the debris pile that melted the steel. We already have the evidence of what looks to be thermite flowing from WTC2 in the minutes prior to collapse, the chemical signature of thermite discovered in the ground zero dust, the high temperature steel corrosion described by FEMA and indeed thermite could also be responsible for the molten steel in the debris pile. Burning at 2,500oC there would be no problem in initially melting the steel, before the compression and insulation of the heated debris pile ensured it remained in a molten state until uncovered.

So the first question of Urich has been answered and the concern regarding ignition of the thermite shown to be irrelevant. All remaining is the quantity of molten steel involved – I would first suggest that if a competent investigation had been arranged and ground zero treated as the crime scene that it was, then this question would not now be outstanding. Although now impossible to know the quantity of molten steel in the debris pile, it is at least apparent that there was volume enough to be widely observed and commented on by many witnesses to the clean-up operation. The post here where “dripping”, “pools”, “running”, “melted” and “pockets” are all mentioned contains details.

Finally, not one of Urich’s concerns, but proponents of the official story attempt to negate the presence of molten steel by claiming that the witnesses were mistaken and that it could be another metal with a lower melting point. Looking at the witness comments, many refer specifically to “steel” and others are more telling still – “the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” and “beams had just totally been melted”. This is confirmation that the molten metal came from structural components of the building… and that can only be steel.

Next!

Quite simply, in spite of all those reservations about the NIST investigation, why does Quintiere rule out demolition?

Probably because Quintiere is incredulous at the very suggestion of a demolition, ie he has not even gone so far as to study the evidence for demolition. I know that he has not commented upon this evidence except for one tiny snippet so he cannot ‘rule it out’ to anyone’s satisfaction.

Now stop sidestepping a straight question or else accept that your whole argument is a failure. Quintiere has stated on record: -

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

I ask again – why were government lawyers deterring fact finding?

So the fact that two engineers, one severely critical of NIST and the other a conspiracist, both reject your opinion that all the evidence favours demolition doesn't bother you?

There’s a saying that you can find an ‘expert’ to support any opinion. I am not bothered by Urich and Quintiere’s reluctance to commit to a demolition scenario because there are a great deal more architects and engineers who do.

Ther you go again, characterising the NIST severe case as "most extreme" when it was only twice as far from the initial baseline estimate as the actual case.

The NIST severe case was as extreme as it could possibly be. Further, your “twice as far” is nothing but an estimate/assumption and even if this were correct then “twice as far” from the base case can mean a considerable increase in the internal damage. This is without even accounting for the increased fire simulation and tweaking of the models during running.

This is the core of your theory, yet when I question it all you can do is resort to insult. You really don't have an argument, do you?

That’s right… your ‘big robust guns’ argument beat me… there there.

So your conspirators work out a detailed demolition set-up right in the impact zone, but they don't have to worry if the set-up gets damaged in the impact because anything that damages the charges will have to be severe enough to sever a column. I though you were arguing that the charges weren't that robust? On your argument of flimsier charges, what happens in the charge gets damaged but the column remains intact?

Quintiere argues that NIST actually underestimated the fire. He might not agree that the core fire was less severe. For that matter, how did your conspirators know whether fuel would reach the core or not?

The plan would not be so greatly detailed as you are trying to imply and it would be known that the cores were mostly empty space with no fuel to sustain fires. Those columns not in the impact path were not damaged or sustained only hits from minor debris, as would the attached thermite charges.

The energy that vapourises the component just vanishes rather than stays around to raise the temperature of the rest?

I note that the say-so of an engineer with relevant experience is as nothing compared with the unsupported opinion of someone who thinks strain and strength are the same thing.

No, if there is energy enough to vapourise a section of metal then that is exactly what it will do. The energy transfer could never be so rapid and evenly distributed as to reduce a much larger piece of metal to a molten state far above its melting temperature. Metals can be good conductors of energy/heat but not that good.

And I still maintain that strain can be generically linked to strength.

That molten cascade lasts for some time, a demolition charge acts quickly. If the cause is thermite it must pool on the floor to produce the long-lived cascade. If it is thermite, it should go through the floor rather than pool.

The first explanation could be that the unit was damaged and so the thermite was being ignited sporadically instead of in one burst. A second explanation could be that the unit was designed to release the thermite in a number of bursts to ensure more sustained and therefore greater damage to each column. I actually like this idea as it makes sense that the planners would want a more gradual failure of the building over those minutes to immitate fire damage - it didn't actually work when it came to it but it still seems logical that it could have been their intention.

If the antenna falls before the rest of the building then logically it must either break away from the surrounding roof or, if the roof stays with the antenna, then the roof must break away from the top of the walls. Where is the evidence for either option?

The antenna, roof and uppermost levels of the building all move together before the façade at the impact zone. I have identified from the

exactly where the first major ‘break’ in the structure is: -

wtcbreak.jpg

The red circle is the first place where the corner can be seen to break. Simultaneously, large smoke expulsions come from that same level marked by the red lines. The impact/fire zone is obviously the green line. The fact that the collapses did not initiate at the perimeter of the impact zone as NIST theorised is confirmed. The collapses initiated either higher up or somewhere in the core structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The temperature required to create molten steel in the debris pile simply cannot be achieved through normal fires.

Now we must look for a feasible explanation for the additional energy source in the debris pile that melted the steel.

Show us the melted steel, baby!

And, that swiss cheese steel- salt water rot from WTC7 debris pile effects- they used sea water when the street lines were severed.

Looking at the witness comments, many refer specifically to “steel” and others are more telling still – “the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel” and “beams had just totally been melted”. This is confirmation that the molten metal came from structural components of the building… and that can only be steel.

Like I said, proof is king! Show us the steel, baby!

Next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The antenna, roof and uppermost levels of the building all move together before the façade at the impact zone. I have identified from the
exactly where the first major ‘break’ in the structure is: -

wtcbreak.jpg

The red circle is the first place where the corner can be seen to break. Simultaneously, large smoke expulsions come from that same level marked by the red lines. The impact/fire zone is obviously the green line. The fact that the collapses did not initiate at the perimeter of the impact zone as NIST theorised is confirmed. The collapses initiated either higher up or somewhere in the core structure.

Incorrect. The impact zone for WTC1 is between floors 94, 95, 96, and 97. That can be seen in the GIFs. And, those floors collapse just like everything else does, and when everything else does.

ge1w.gif

cr1a.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Show us the melted steel, baby!

And, that swiss cheese steel- salt water rot from WTC7 debris pile effects- they used sea water when the street lines were severed.

Like I said, proof is king! Show us the steel, baby!

Next!

I linked to the information in my post above - look HERE for evidence of molten steel in the debris. The post includes many witness accounts along with links to the original sources they came from.

There do not appear to be any good images in existence, the best being this: -

Numerous-witnesses-corroborate-multiple-scientific-tests-indicating-tons-of-molten-metal-within-the-aftermath-of-all-three-WTC-Towers-destroyed-with-Superthermite-explosives.jpg

And closer up: -

Almost-six-weeks-after-911-molten-metal-was-dripping-from-heavy-equipment-as-WTC-debris-was-being-picked-up-from-ground-zero.jpg

An indicator that this is indeed steel rather than another metal such as aluminium or lead is contained in the picture. Using the temperature chart above, the colour of the debris for the most part appears to be ‘salmon’ at around 845oC. As can be seen in the chart, aluminium and lead melt at a much lower temperature and so would not partly be in a solid state as per the image. Structural steel on the other hand would be as seen in the picture at this temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect. The impact zone for WTC1 is between floors 94, 95, 96, and 97. That can be seen in the GIFs. And, those floors collapse just like everything else does, and when everything else does.

The few frames in your images don’t show anything useful.

If you watch the full collapse initiation sequence in the video that I linked, you will see that my description is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The temperature required to create molten steel in the debris pile simply cannot be achieved through normal fires.

As merril has pointed out, the only real evidence is for molten metal, not molten steel. As Urich asks, where is the evidence for thermite temperatures?

Probably because Quintiere is incredulous at the very suggestion of a demolition, ie he has not even gone so far as to study the evidence for demolition. I know that he has not commented upon this evidence except for one tiny snippet so he cannot ‘rule it out’ to anyone’s satisfaction.

He is quite happy with the fire explanation, which he has obviously studied in depth. He just differs from NIST on details.

Now stop sidestepping a straight question or else accept that your whole argument is a failure. Quintiere has stated on record: -

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.”

I ask again – why were government lawyers deterring fact finding?

Perhaps because they didn't want to get into Quintiere's theory of inadequate fire-proofing, as likely to generate unwelcome litigation from the builders/owners. Lawyers are notoriously keen on protecting their clients from libel suits. Without more details from Quintiere, neither of us know what exactly he thinks the lawyers want to hide.

There’s a saying that you can find an ‘expert’ to support any opinion. I am not bothered by Urich and Quintiere’s reluctance to commit to a demolition scenario because there are a great deal more architects and engineers who do.

Are you now back in love with AE911T, or are they just as dubious a lot as the pilots who banned you from their forum? Why can't all those experts on AE911T answer Urich's questions?

There is also a saying "Who would you rather carry out your surgery, an expert surgeon or some joe who read about surgery on the Internet?" Why are conspiracists so anti-expert unless they can cherry-pick a quote that appears to support their opinion?

Urich isn't reluctant to commit to a demolition scenario, but he wants evidence and can't find it: "If the truth movement is going to be successful, we will need to distance ourselves from fallacious claims and avoid conjecture." Conjecture is just about all you have for your covert demolition theory.

The NIST severe case was as extreme as it could possibly be. Further, your “twice as far” is nothing but an estimate/assumption and even if this were correct then “twice as far” from the base case can mean a considerable increase in the internal damage. This is without even accounting for the increased fire simulation and tweaking of the models during running.

It was as extreme as the uncertainty in the evidence permitted. In other words, it was perfectly possible. If "twice as far" as actual from baseline can represent a considerable increase in the internal damage, so can the distance from baseline to actual.

That’s right… your ‘big robust guns’ argument beat me… there there.

Without a plausible thermite demolition method, your hypothesis is nothing, yet whenever I query this you get all defensive and resort to insult. One wonders why.

The plan would not be so greatly detailed as you are trying to imply and it would be known that the cores were mostly empty space with no fuel to sustain fires. Those columns not in the impact path were not damaged or sustained only hits from minor debris, as would the attached thermite charges.

You are just handwaving your way around this. How on earth can they know that every damaged charge is going to be on a column that gets severed. You are already claiming that one charge gets knocked away without much damage.

No, if there is energy enough to vapourise a section of metal then that is exactly what it will do. The energy transfer could never be so rapid and evenly distributed as to reduce a much larger piece of metal to a molten state far above its melting temperature. Metals can be good conductors of energy/heat but not that good.

You miss my point. There is a lot of energy in the vapourised metal that is going to redistribute itself by heating up everything else in the room, rapidly. That's the way that energy flows, from hotter to cooler.

And I still maintain that strain can be generically linked to strength.

Dunning-Kruger.

You get a lot more strain with toffee than you do with steel, so which is stronger?

The first explanation could be that the unit was damaged and so the thermite was being ignited sporadically instead of in one burst. A second explanation could be that the unit was designed to release the thermite in a number of bursts to ensure more sustained and therefore greater damage to each column. I actually like this idea as it makes sense that the planners would want a more gradual failure of the building over those minutes to immitate fire damage - it didn't actually work when it came to it but it still seems logical that it could have been their intention.

Your demolition charges are getting more far-fetched by the day. Now they have to just damage a bit of the column without the released thermite igniting the rest of the charge. Do you still think they wouldn't be robust devices? They now have to withstand a thermite release.

The antenna, roof and uppermost levels of the building all move together before the façade at the impact zone. I have identified from the
exactly where the first major ‘break’ in the structure is: -

wtcbreak.jpg

The red circle is the first place where the corner can be seen to break. Simultaneously, large smoke expulsions come from that same level marked by the red lines. The impact/fire zone is obviously the green line. The fact that the collapses did not initiate at the perimeter of the impact zone as NIST theorised is confirmed. The collapses initiated either higher up or somewhere in the core structure.

In other words, your argument that the antenna/core moves before the exterior of the building is incorrect. You now admit that the whole top part, from the upper level of the impact damage, moves as a unit. As you can't see where the collapse actually starts - it's on the far side of the building - I don't see how this conflicts with the NIST scenario in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An indicator that this is indeed steel rather than another metal such as aluminium or lead is contained in the picture. Using the temperature chart above, the colour of the debris for the most part appears to be ‘salmon’ at around 845oC. As can be seen in the chart, aluminium and lead melt at a much lower temperature and so would not partly be in a solid state as per the image. Structural steel on the other hand would be as seen in the picture at this temperature.

Structural steel would indeed be seen, the object on the left is a similar temperature and retains its shape. That suggests that whatever in that picture is molten, it isn't steel. If you have steel at 845oC, then anything dripping off it is also at that temperature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was a different link that spoke about vaporisation of individual battery components.

I'm still not sure what link I gave you, there are so many about battery hazards. However, I googled this one, specifically about UPS systems and completely unconnected with conspiracy debunking:

http://www.ptsdcs.com/whitepapers/30.pdf

Short Circuit Hazard: Batteries have low internal impedances and are capable of very high levels of short circuit current. The battery or its terminal connections can explode or molten metal can splatter from the battery and wiring if a short circuit occurs.

So there you have it, specific mention of explosions and molten metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The jet fuel argument doesn't cut it. Take a look at the amount how much jet fuel available in comparison to the towers.

929.png

How is the jet fuel, which burned of within minutes according to NIST suppose to account for the numerous reports of explosions and subsequent damage in the basements, lobby and on floor 22.

MALE : I have a ambulance (inaudible) ... where's that guard?

MALE: Eighth floor, S2, to OSCC.

MALE : Three-thirty, fire command!

MALE : S2 to SCC!

FEMALE 77 TRAPPED ON 22ND FLOOR: Go!

MALE : (AUDIO BREAKING UP) (Inaudible) conditions there?

FEMALE TRAPPED ON 22ND FLOOR: Can you repeat that again, please?

MALE : Josie, what's the condition on twenty-two?

FEMALE TRAPPED ON 22ND FLOOR: Twenty-two is we cannot leave the area.

There is a lot of smoke outside, we are stuck inside.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

Firefighter Michael Yarembinsky: "When we got to 22, we heard there was a Port Authority command post on 22. So we were stopped there. My officer wanted to find out some information, my officer Lieutenant Andy Desperito. He went over to the command post. We noticed in the hallway that the elevator shaft had been blown out. There was nothing there, no doors, no framing, nothing. When you looked down, all you saw was the cables for the elevator and the brick work that was surrounding."

Q. "Was it burning?"

Firefighter Michael Yarembinsky: "No burning, no smoke coming out of it."

According to these accounts, they report hearing, feeling and even seeing explosions.

Plus, there only appears to be one route for the jet fuel to travel down, which is the elevator shaft and lift known as car 50 (far left of the image) because none of the other lifts went to the lobby and basements levels.

nist3-custom;size:270,475.jpg

Unless we are to believe that the jet fuel snaked it's way through the building. :rolleyes:

I would like to hear a theory on how jet fuel travelled down the shaft of car 50, and then is suppose to have caused numerous explosions including destroying the plaza path in the basement but Arturo Grifiths who was in car 50 survived?

Arturo Griffith.......

Well, I was on my way from B-2 to 49th floor. And as I took off, it was amount it was a matter of seconds -- five, six, seven seconds, I don't know. And there was a loud explosion and the elevator dropped. And when the elevator dropped there was a lot of debris and cables falling on top of the elevator. And I just -- I just put my hand over my head and I said, oh God I'm going to die. But I didn't know what was happening.

When the elevator finally stopped, they had an explosion that bring the doors inside the elevator, and I think I'm sure that that was what broke my leg. And then they had another explosion and the panel that threw me, you know, against the wall, and I guess I was unconscious for a couple of minutes because somebody else was in the elevator with me, and they say that they was trying to get my attention and they didn't get no response from me.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0110/06/lklw.00.html

How does a jet fuel cause 3 different explosions that Arturo is reporting? We can account for an explosion from the impact, another one from a fuel air explosion, then how does that explain the 3rd one?

What is even stranger is in another interview, Arturo tell us what happens when he got rescued...

I don't know who saved me. It was so black and smoky. I couldn't see nothin',' Arturo said. 'When they got me out, I told them there was someone else down there, a woman. They went back to get her. Seconds after they pulled her out, a ball of fire came down the shaft. They almost got killed.'

http://web.archive.org/web/20021101235538/http://911digitalarchive.org/seiu/details/54

It would appear that after these 3 explosions, when he and the other person is rescued from car 50, their rescuers were almost killed by a "ball of fire."

The jet fuel is acting very strangely? Causing 3 explosions and then a fireball. :blink:

What is even weirder about this jet fuel, is that it then goes on to cause this damage in the basement. :blink:

PAPD OFFICER DESK: Go, three-three.

PAPD OFFICER 33: There's also been a cave-in at the platform of the PATH plaza ...there's a live electrical, and water running. Turn off the power in that area.

PAPD OFFICER DESK: Roger.

PAPD OFFICER TRUCK ONE: Truck one, desk.

PAPD OFFICER: Truck one, go.

PAPD OFFICER DESK: Three-three is reporting that there is a cave-in, B-4 level, at the World Trade, copy? A possibility of people trapped.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

Mike Pecoraro..........

There was nothing there but rubble, “Mike said. “We’re talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press – gone!” The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. “You could stand here,” he said, “and two inches over you couldn’t breathe. We couldn’t see through the smoke so we started screaming.” But there was still no answer.

The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. “There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can’t see anything,” he said.

As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up “like a piece of aluminum foil” and lying on the floor. “They got us again,” Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building’s structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building.

http://www.chiefengineer.org/article.cfm?seqnum1=1029

How does jet fuel, with only one possible route, travel around Arturo in car 50, who survives yet it goes on to cave in walls in the basement. Not to mention the lobby..

All of the glass on the first floor that abuts West Street was blown out. The glass in the revolving doors was blown out. All of the glass in the lobby was blown out.

The wall panels on the wall are made of marble. It's about two or three inches thick. They're about ten feet high by ten feet wide. A lot of those were hanging off the wall.....

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110442.PDF

So jet fuel, went down the lift shaft, passing around car 50 which breaks Arturos leg, but then this jet fuel goes further down the shaft causing damage to floors 22, the lobby leaving all the glass blow out and big marble tiles hanging off the walls, then continues further downward to numerous basement floors whose floors and walls have caved in.

This jet fuel does seems rather magical doesn't it?

Edited by Stundie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This jet fuel does seems rather magical doesn't it?

The fuel itself doesn't have to travel all the way, but any fuel explosion where the blast wave is confined by a shaft is going to propagate with undiminished intensity, unlike an explosion in free air where the intensity reduces with distance. Once a fire starts, there can easily be multiple fuel explosions. The fuel in the aircraft will be spilt into lots of areas by the impact, and these areas will not all reach the right fuel-air mixture to explode at the same time. I see no problem in lots of blasts, some stronger than others, coming down the same shaft. You also need to note that when a blast wave hits the end of a shaft, it reflects back up again, increasing in strength at the instant of reflection. This could cause the extra damage in the basement. As to the man in the car, a blast wave coming down is going to push the car downwards. The floor drops away from him, then he falls on to it as the car slows again. He thus won't experience the full force of the blast. Multiple "explosions" in a short interval could be caused by a single blast wave reflecting up and down the shaft. The wave coming up will drive the car upwards, so more likely to injure a passenger in contact with the rising floor. This all seems very much in agreement with his account.

Incidentally, how much do you think a 50-ton hydraulic press actually weighs? This one has a shipping weight of 800 lb.

http://www.gregsmithequipment.com/50-Ton-Air-Hydraulic-Shop-Press-p/ht0811.htm

Edited by flyingswan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuel itself doesn't have to travel all the way, but any fuel explosion where the blast wave is confined by a shaft is going to propagate with undiminished intensity, unlike an explosion in free air where the intensity reduces with distance.

But this blast wave went around car 50 which Arturo was in, leaving him relatively undamaged, then went onto to cause the floors and walls in the basement to cave in.

Also if a blast wave is confined to the shaft, then it will still reduce with distance. Jet fuel exploding over 80 floors above is not going to cause walls or floors to cave in, even if it travels around car 50.

Once a fire starts, there can easily be multiple fuel explosions. The fuel in the aircraft will be spilt into lots of areas by the impact, and these areas will not all reach the right fuel-air mixture to explode at the same time.
Sorry but NIST state that most of the fuel burned up in the initial impact and within the 1st few minutes. Any fuel left over would not have enough energy to travel down the lift shaft and car 50, to then cave the walls and floors in the basement.
I see no problem in lots of blasts, some stronger than others, coming down the same shaft.
Of course you do not see a problem with it. That is because you are ignoring overwhelming evidence which suggest that it was not possible.

You also need to note that when a blast wave hits the end of a shaft, it reflects back up again, increasing in strength at the instant of reflection.

It may well reflect back up, but I doubt it will increase in strength or energy.
This could cause the extra damage in the basement.
Sorry, but I do not see how.
As to the man in the car, a blast wave coming down is going to push the car downwards. The floor drops away from him, then he falls on to it as the car slows again. He thus won't experience the full force of the blast.
No he won't, the car would protect him, but if the blast happened higher up, then he would feel the effect more than someone in the basement.

Multiple "explosions" in a short interval could be caused by a single blast wave reflecting up and down the shaft.

They didn't just hear multiple explosions, they felt multiple explosions.
The wave coming up will drive the car upwards, so more likely to injure a passenger in contact with the rising floor. This all seems very much in agreement with his account.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Incidentally, how much do you think a 50-ton hydraulic press actually weighs? This one has a shipping weight of 800 lb.

http://www.gregsmithequipment.com/50-Ton-Air-Hydraulic-Shop-Press-p/ht0811.htm

I haven't got a clue how much one weighs, that would be like asking someone how long is a piece of string as I'm sure that not all 50 tons presses weigh 800lbs.

Besides, 800lbs is still quite a bit of weight and the guy was surprised and thought that bombs had gone off, like in 93.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But this blast wave went around car 50 which Arturo was in, leaving him relatively undamaged, then went onto to cause the floors and walls in the basement to cave in.

Also if a blast wave is confined to the shaft, then it will still reduce with distance. Jet fuel exploding over 80 floors above is not going to cause walls or floors to cave in, even if it travels around car 50.

What segments or articles of wall or floor construction were people referring to, exactly, as being affected by the fireball blast in the basement, when they are quoted as saying they witnessed blast effects?

I read that some veneer of marble fell from the walls in the lobby, and a door was knocked down. Although, there was probably a decent amount of results from the blast.

And, when someone says something like a metal press was "gone", what does that mean? Blown into a wall cavity, out of sight? Smashed to pieces? I wish these people would form a group and settle these internet rumors once and for all. Did they, or did they not see bombs go off?

And, why are they still alive?

Now, if this energy went down the little elevator shafts, in which the even smaller elevators travel, what would that do on the ground floors?

24344917.png

wtc1fireballzoomin.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.