To those who believe the 911 official story

May 4, 2008

Q24-
You mention explosions. I will now have to say that I have learned there were such events on that day. You have made that clear.

I am glad you now see that there were explosions prior to the WTC collapses.

In the end, and not having been there, I can only assume even large electrical, or back-up power storage devices, or fuel, or steam, or whatever was to be found in that complex of large buildings- and some things exploded.

I agree that some explosions would, no doubt, be due to the fires and collapses. There are though a number of important features which lead to the conclusion that these explosions were separate events aside from the impacts: -

If you read the excerpts and follow the links from the post I made here, it is apparent that explosions were occurring on many levels far below the impact zones leading up to collapse, including right down to the basement. How was this possible so far from the fires?
Reports of “secondary devices” were sourced from both the CIA and the Chief of Safety for the FDNY. Firefighters on the scene reported explosions and one of them, Christopher Fenyo, said, “At that point, a debate began to rage because… many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point.” Why did trained firefighters not believe these explosions were due to the fire?
This
in particular sounds very much like a shaped-charge. I have listened to other explosions including electrical transformers, propane tanks, firefighter training videos, even land mines and fireworks factories. None of them matched the loud sharp explosion from WTC7 like the shaped charge does. Can you find an example that matches the WTC7 explosion equally well?
Of course after all of the above, the WTC buildings then collapsed virtually symmetrically and at near freefall speed; the results that could be expected of a controlled demolition setup…

Taken altogether, these are some of the points strongly suggestive of planted rather than ‘natural’ explosives in the buildings.

Finally, all this talk about a Pearl Harbor. People have all sorts of dreamed up ideas, everyday. So what? So what if people thought that. That is typical of war planning and geo-strategizing.

So what? So the people who “dreamed up” the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document, the plan for which a “new Pearl Harbor” was required, are the very same people who had come into power in the Bush Administration 6 months prior to 9/11 – including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and others.

If a group wrote a letter saying they wanted to rob a bank, and then 6 months after members of that group take up security positions within that bank, a major heist takes place, are you not going to want them all in for questioning?

Anyway, I wanted to address Q24.
I refer you to Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components. Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster. Banovic, S. W.; Foecke, T.

The document contains no evidence of high or consistent temperatures sufficient to cause the WTC structures to collapse. Of the truss sections you gave pictures for, the report states as a possibility, “this rod was not at high temperature for an extended period of time”. The corrosion of these truss sections was not of the same type or severity as those FEMA described as “very unusual” and NIST failed to investigate.

Also in the report is this gem of a conclusion: “From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

Q24, if I may quote-
Hearsay and speculation.

Sunofone answered this – the fires alone could not reach the approximately 1,500^oC temperatures required to melt steel. It has been speculated that the debris pile accidentally created a forge-like situation and ‘baked’ the steel underground. As a forge requires a specific setup with the correct fuel and oxygen mix, I find the explanation unlikely.

How would the islams get truckloads of thermite in the building, and later, actually hit in the right spot of each building? It was surmised, early on, and correctly so, that no other explosives or bombs were slipped into the building, past the security. They would have been caught with their obvious crews and demolition materials. Lots of materials. It's a myth from the internet!

The ‘islams’ certainly could not have rigged the WTC buildings for demolition. Marvin Bush was a former board member of the company that ran parts of security for the WTC though, and with the potential for security and maintenance insiders, plus Mossad agents known masquerading as removals men, I see possibilities.

If I have missed anything you posted merril, it is because I didn’t understand some of the points you were trying to make.

May 4, 2008

Does that boil down to taking the word of overseas members? They don't phone them, they don't check with the Institutions, they are just people with an e-mail address who can produce a facsimile of a degree certificate. I could work up a copy of mine in about ten minutes.

You have been proven flatly wrong that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth do not verify their members. You have utterly failed to support your claim that the UK engineers, David Scott in particular, are fakes.

I cannot confirm if that is what the verification “boils down to” for overseas members. We have seen in the case of David Scott, not only are records of his credentials held but additional information such as the engineering firm for which he works and also a number of exchanges between himself and AE911T have taken place.

Speculation with no basis is nothing more than fantasy, flyingswan. If you find any evidence that any of the 350+ professionals registered with AE911T are not who or what they are supposed to be then the verifiers of that site will be happy to investigate your claim.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Q24

May 4, 2008

The only samples that came from areas with predicted high fire temperatures were also the samples that showed evidence of heating above 250 deg. It is not easy to measure how much above 250 deg as no major physical changes occur between 250 and 600 deg. Even at 250 deg, steel is starting to lose some of its strength.

Sorry but your first idea that, “The only samples that came from areas with predicted high fire temperatures were also the samples that showed evidence of heating above 250 deg” is false. There are a number of samples from simulated 1,000^oC temperature regions that in fact show physical evidence of fire exposure below 250^oC. There were only 3 perimeter samples from 16 in the WTC1 fire region that through physical analysis indicated temperature between 250-600^oC. In the long thread you gave the excuse that the fireproofing must have been intact on all the others.

My assertion that there is no physical evidence of widespread and high fire temperatures is undisputable.

The UL tests were with intact insulation, showing that insulation damage is required for the trusses to sag. If you seriously think you can have an airliner hit and the insulation remain undamaged, dream on.

The expected base case impact for WTC1 showed minimal debris reaching the south side so there would unlikely be widespread damage to the fireproofing. And if the level of supposed sagging was dependent on the fireproofing being removed, by including fireproofing in the laboratory tests, how did NIST hope to prove their theory?

You may think computational models are questionable, but I work with such models for a living, I understand the issues and I have no problem with the way that NIST conducted their runs. Try also to grasp this point, it's important:
Whatever the shortcomings of the NIST investigation, NIST being wrong does not mean that controlled demolition is right.

I am saying that the human input parameters and adjustments are questionable, not so much the computer model itself. Yes very good, you have no problem with NIST’s collapse initiation simulations being beyond reality.

I am well aware there are two sides to this – first the failure of the ‘official’ investigation and second the multitude of evidence showing the controlled demolition. I am glad you grasp that the NIST investigation is wrong.

Incidentally, as you were asking earlier for pictures of sagging floors, here's another link, including an example of sagging increasing over time:
http://www.debunking911.com/sag.htm

They are the same pictures I have already seen from the NIST report of floors directly in the WTC2 impact zone – not surprising that these floors failed. I am looking for evidence that fire caused sagging of the floor trusses in WTC1.

Is there any indication that it actually was steel rather than, say, aluminium?

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. You think the beams were aluminium? Jeez, no wonder the buildings collapsed.

Go on, then, do the maths (or get one of the 300+ to do them for you), how long would a thermite charge hold its heat if you buried it after it had fired? Those lumps falling down the building have cooled a lot long before they even reach the ground.

It’s irrelevant – the fact is the fires could not melt the steel so there had to be an additional energy source. I am unconvinced the ‘lumps’ you keep referring to were a part of the WTC2 thermite flow rather than just building debris.

As FEMA had already raised the issue, what's the problem? It isn't as if high-temp corrosion is something new, and the most plausible explanation is that it was a post-collapse phenomenon, out of NIST's remit.

Using your blasé attitude, why did NIST bother with any evidence or even an ‘investigation’ at all, eh?

I think the lack of any plausible way of installing explosives in an occupied building is highly relevant.

You get invited to the WTC by a maintenance/security inside man – I bet Marvin and Larry knew a few. You put the prefabricated explosive/thermite units in the back of a van, marked “Urban Moving Systems” if you like. You drive into the basement. You take the units straight up the elevator to the relevant shaft/service area. You strap/fix the units to the core columns. You do this at night. Planning and caution would be required but it is “plausible”.

I know that NIST didn't look for explosive residue, but that was because the other signs you'd expect of explosives hadn't been seen. The videos show no acoustic signature, neither is there a seismic signature. They had evidence of absence.
You may think that each piece of debris should have been examined for explosive residues before it was removed, but if that was tried, the site would still be a forensic lab.

However, your man Jones has looked for such evidence, and he didn't find it either.

God there is no hope with you, swanny… no acoustic evidence? There is plenty of witness and video evidence of the sound of explosions. Then why should there necessarily be seismic evidence of explosives when you know very well the ’93 WTC bombing was not seismically recorded? Don’t say explosions should have been heard immediately prior the collapses – they were initiated with thermite. Don’t say explosives should have been discernable during the actual collapses. I am not suggesting the evidence should have been analysed and tested at the WTC site but it should all have been preserved; not hastily shipped overseas and/or recycled.

Jones does not have access to the debris to test for explosives though he has found evidence indicative of thermite.

If it was only 1.6 times as wide, it wouldn't have cut the doubled width of the column. If it was only 1.6 times as long, it wouldn't cut the doubled depth of the column. It is only height that you can vary.

The width and depth of the cut would be dependent on the jet/nozzle/ejection system design, not the size of the unit.

Of course it's a lot bigger - the overexposed area is the nearly the size of the car, the thermite is just a stream from the hole in a flowerpot. Not "fully half", but a factor of a hundred difference. Now look again at the pictures of the cooled part of the cascade, dozens of falling lumps, each typically a quarter of a meter or so, ie each similar in size to your 200 kg charge.

There is not “just a stream from the hole” but the violent reaction is dispersing the thermite across the entire car bonnet and up in the air. If you look at the WTC2 thermite flow you will see it creates a similar spray of thermite which disperses as it falls. The actual thermite flow is difficult to estimate and therefore it cannot be claimed to be too big for a thermite charge.

Why? Different structures react in different ways to different loads. In particular, a damaged structure will react differently to an undamaged one because the actual loads are not all similar factors of the design loads.

Because heating of the steel due to fire is gradual there must also be gradual deformation of the structure. Fire cannot on a building have such a sudden effect without prior visible widespread distortion… controlled demolition has no such problem.

Even if they made an error in selecting the WTC1 floor, it does not affect the simulation for WTC2. Both simulations show generally similar results and the WTC2 damage is in the right place. In that case, it seems unlikely that the collapse progression is all that sensitive to the height of the damage - if there's an error, it doesn't alter what the collapse looks like.

Do you think the misplacement of the WTC1 impact was a mistake or intentional? I don’t think anyone could make such an obvious mistake. I think it likely that after tweaking the simulation figures as far as possible to give maximum chance of collapse, the upper block was still not enough to ‘crush’ the lower intact structure. It seems it was necessary to alter the impact location to make the simulation work as was demanded.

Of course I can't give a detailed sequence. If you want more detail, ask Gilsanz, he has the structural model and I don't. Even then, with the shortage of data on what was happening inside the building during the fire, which columns were damaged, which weakened by fire, a complete sequence may never be posible. However, my engineering experience is enough to tell me that an internal collapse, not necessarily of all the columns but a good portion, is plausible.

How very disappointing - after all your talk of how complete structural progressive collapses are quite well known, expected even, you cannot describe the phenomenon in the case of WTC7. It’s quite obvious you won’t put a process or timeline to your theory because it will not stand up to scrutiny.

I don't need to model every detail of a car body to get a good idea of what it will look like after hitting a tree, but that doesn't mean that the car won't distort without added explosives.

I can just imagine…

linked-image

“It was a tree, honest… the government told me so.”

May 4, 2008

I would ask- where were those planes going as they flew to the WTC? One from the north, and one from the south. I can not know what they were exactly planning, but it seems they wanted to topple those towers, if possible. They certainly seemed out for maximum effect.
They would get the towers when there were a lot people in them, and possibly have them topple over. Why would they do that, knowing the buildings were primed with thermite and explosives? Why go to contradictory efforts?

Why would there be thermite, if the plan was to topple the towers?

Therefore, the actions of the terrorists imply they intended to topple the towers, and kill many tens of thousands of nearby people. Not, drop the towers straight down. Although, they probably hoped to do as much damage, in any event.

They hit the towers in the most vulnerable area. The base would have deflected their entrance into the structure, and the upper few floors would not have initiated collapse. This indicates they probably knew a lot about the damage they intended, by their sole weapons- airplanes.

the wtc complex had been a white elephant from the very beggining-- its contruction was subsidized with tax payers money and it never achieved 70% accuracy and always had to be subsidized just to operate-- faulty materials resulting in the oxidation of key supports as well as the massive clean up required to remove banned asbestos fireproofing doomed the towers early on-- a corrupt military industrial complex operating in tandem with a controlled executive,judicial and legislative govt hi-jacked in the early 1900's by european financial robber barons that instituted the federal reserve and removed the gold standard from the american people,faked every world war and killed jfk were responsible for the 9/11 inside job-- the same cia that murdered jfk that is run by the offspring of the largest crimianl american financier of the nazi regime and hitler is the same cia that created the illusion that is alqueda and pulled off the 9/11 inside job-- confusing wargames,standdown orders,planted demolitions,trillions announced missing on the morning of 9/11,a natural gas pipeline in afghanistan worth an est 8 trillion that all of our bases are situated around,a convienent distraction nearby in their installed puppet saddam also used as a scapegoat to fool the masses with the manufactured oil scarcity which is just a last ditch effort to cull the ignorant cattle as much as possible before internet,solar,wind and hydrogen technologies SET US FREE

you are the one spitting on the graves of the dead by aiding their killers -- the towers were not meant to be toppled-- only used as a motive for war-- that is why they fell into their own footprint pulverised into dust -- for gods sake just look at the collapse of bldg 7 --no plane hit it --

in conclusion there is a sophisticated infowar taking place as we speak people like lll are planted to make absolutely unfounded remarks while associatiing themselves with the truth movement for the sole purpose of being ridiculed and the whole movement ridiculed as well by association-- do not be fooled by these careful plots-- there has not been a true republican or democratic representative since at least the 1900's ---WAKE UP

May 4, 2008

You have been proven flatly wrong that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth do not verify their members. You have utterly failed to support your claim that the UK engineers, Graham Scott in particular, are fakes.
I cannot confirm if that is what the verification “boils down to” for overseas members. We have seen in the case of Graham Scott, not only are records of his credentials held but additional information such as the engineering firm for which he works and also a number of exchanges between himself and AE911T have taken place.

Speculation with no basis is nothing more than fantasy, flyingswan. If you find any evidence that any of the 350+ professionals registered with AE911T are not who or what they are supposed to be then the verifiers of that site will be happy to investigate your claim.

Now I know you're making them up. Who on earth is Graham Scott?

May 4, 2008

"..absolutely inconceivable.."

it is not , and unfortunately its what happened , the major medias were 'in' , and that's why it take so long to discover the truth about it , because they're foggin the play by spreading false information to cover their own outrageous implication in this horrible story.

'No Plane Theories" only hurt the Truth Movement..

no , it hurt the corrupted medias , and it eventually hurt your intelligence , when you will see that there was no commercial airliner hitting these building , because the 'planes' shown on tv are nothing like 767 , while they are filmed with professional materials , and professional crews , and yet you need crappy amateur footages to see some planes ? give me a break .

May 4, 2008

Sorry but your first idea that, “The only samples that came from areas with predicted high fire temperatures were also the samples that showed evidence of heating above 250 deg” is false. There are a number of samples from simulated 1,000^oC temperature regions that in fact show physical evidence of fire exposure below 250^oC. There were only 3 perimeter samples from 16 in the WTC1 fire region that through physical analysis indicated temperature between 250-600^oC. In the long thread you gave the excuse that the fireproofing must have been intact on all the others.

Perimeter samples in areas where the insulation was likely to be intact will of course not get as hot as samples were insulation is likely to be damaged. What on earth is unreasonable with that?

My assertion that there is no physical evidence of widespread and high fire temperatures is undisputable.

Neither do you have any evidence that the NIST fire predictions are incorrect. They certainly fit with the visual evidence of how the fires spread and the temperature predictions are reasonable for office fires. You are making a strawman argument here that the fires are somehow implausible without samples of every piece of steel from the fire region.

The expected base case impact for WTC1 showed minimal debris reaching the south side so there would unlikely be widespread damage to the fireproofing. And if the level of supposed sagging was dependent on the fireproofing being removed, by including fireproofing in the laboratory tests, how did NIST hope to prove their theory?

You have already admitted that the base case underestimated the impact.

I am saying that the human input parameters and adjustments are questionable, not so much the computer model itself. Yes very good, you have no problem with NIST’s collapse initiation simulations being beyond reality.

They did runs at less than and more than the actual impact. Comparing the results, I have no problem with a "best fit" intermediate run being likely to give the same collapse mechanism as the more severe case.

I am well aware there are two sides to this – first the failure of the ‘official’ investigation and second the multitude of evidence showing the controlled demolition. I am glad you grasp that the NIST investigation is wrong.

I've already had to explain this point to turbonium, but if you really have such difficulty with logic, here goes again:

I do not think NIST is wrong.

I was making a point of logic, invoking the false dilemma fallacy.

To make it more clear: the correctness or otherwise of the NIST theory is not evidence for the controlled demolition theory. Even if you prove that NIST is wrong, you do not therefore prove that CD is right. You have to prove CD on the evidence.

They are the same pictures I have already seen from the NIST report of floors directly in the WTC2 impact zone – not surprising that these floors failed. I am looking for evidence that fire caused sagging of the floor trusses in WTC1.

My, those goalposts have a good turn of speed.

There are extra pictures, not from NIST, where you can see the amount of floor sag increasing during the fire for WTC2, but you still deny that it can happen in WTC1.

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. You think the beams were aluminium? Jeez, no wonder the buildings collapsed.
It’s irrelevant – the fact is the fires could not melt the steel so there had to be an additional energy source. I am unconvinced the ‘lumps’ you keep referring to were a part of the WTC2 thermite flow rather than just building debris.

He didn't say the steel was itself melting, he said something was dripping from it, and that could have been aluminium. If you have any actual evidence of molten steel, I'd be interested to see it.

Using your blasé attitude, why did NIST bother with any evidence or even an ‘investigation’ at all, eh?

So they failed to mention something that was irrelevant to their remit and had already been publicised elsewhere? This has no bearing at all on NIST investigating the causes of the collapses.

In your reply to Merril, you imply that temperatures of 1500 deg are needed in the debis pile. As there is no evidence of molten steel and sulphur corrosion occurs at much lower temperatures, this is incorrect.

You get invited to the WTC by a maintenance/security inside man – I bet Marvin and Larry knew a few. You put the prefabricated explosive/thermite units in the back of a van, marked “Urban Moving Systems” if you like. You drive into the basement. You take the units straight up the elevator to the relevant shaft/service area. You strap/fix the units to the core columns. You do this at night. Planning and caution would be required but it is “plausible”.

You believe the building is empty at night, you believe all the security and maintenance staff are in on the conspiracy or incompetent, you of course have proof? Make up as many of these fables as you like, they are not plausible. Even Danny Jowenko says they are not plausible, and he was thinking in terms of HE, not your enormous thermite charges.

God there is no hope with you, swanny… no acoustic evidence? There is plenty of witness and video evidence of the sound of explosions. Then why should there necessarily be seismic evidence of explosives when you know very well the ’93 WTC bombing was not seismically recorded? Don’t say explosions should have been heard immediately prior the collapses – they were initiated with thermite. Don’t say explosives should have been discernable during the actual collapses. I am not suggesting the evidence should have been analysed and tested at the WTC site but it should all have been preserved; not hastily shipped overseas and/or recycled.

Given that you have failed to demonstrate that a thermite demolition is even possible, why should the investigators have considered such a convoluted theory?

Jones does not have access to the debris to test for explosives though he has found evidence indicative of thermite.

If he hasn't access to the debris, where did he find his evidence?

Once again, sulphur is a common component of buildings, it is not evidence of thermite. Thermite produces other substances in much greater amounts than sulphur, and Jones has failed to find them.

The width and depth of the cut would be dependent on the jet/nozzle/ejection system design, not the size of the unit.
There is not “just a stream from the hole” but the violent reaction is dispersing the thermite across the entire car bonnet and up in the air. If you look at the WTC2 thermite flow you will see it creates a similar spray of thermite which disperses as it falls. The actual thermite flow is difficult to estimate and therefore it cannot be claimed to be too big for a thermite charge.

Most of the thermite will go straight through the bonnet and carry on down. Any bits splashed about will be even smaller in size than the main stream. You keep arguing for thermite, but you appear to have no idea how it works. In particular, check how much of the target metal a thermite charge will remove.

For a column cutter, if the jet sprays out to give the width, it wont have the strength to give the depth of cut. You have to scale both.

Because heating of the steel due to fire is gradual there must also be gradual deformation of the structure. Fire cannot on a building have such a sudden effect without prior visible widespread distortion… controlled demolition has no such problem.

There was gradual deformation, the floors sagging and the walls bowing. However, a wall can only bow so far before it collapses rapidly.

Do you think the misplacement of the WTC1 impact was a mistake or intentional? I don’t think anyone could make such an obvious mistake. I think it likely that after tweaking the simulation figures as far as possible to give maximum chance of collapse, the upper block was still not enough to ‘crush’ the lower intact structure. It seems it was necessary to alter the impact location to make the simulation work as was demanded.

I've no idea what they did, there is not sufficient information in the summary. However, this is irrelevant to whether a progressive collapse will occur with damage at the WTC1 level in the building, because this is confirmed by B&Z and the Seffen paper. Given the similarity of the two collapses, the WTC2 case alone is sufficient to show that an engineering simulation of a "natural" collapse looks like what actually happened.

How very disappointing - after all your talk of how complete structural progressive collapses are quite well known, expected even, you cannot describe the phenomenon in the case of WTC7. It’s quite obvious you won’t put a process or timeline to your theory because it will not stand up to scrutiny.

Oh very funny, try reading my post again. I cannot describe the collapse in every detail, but that doesn't mean that it can't have happened. If lack of complete detail was an argument, then I could rule out CD just as easily because you cannot produce a charge layout and sequence either.

Edited May 4, 2008 by flyingswan

May 4, 2008

Neither do you have any evidence that the NIST fire predictions are incorrect. They certainly fit with the visual evidence of how the fires spread and the temperature predictions are reasonable for office fires. You are making a strawman argument here that the fires are somehow implausible without samples of every piece of steel from the fire region...
I do not think NIST is wrong.

I was making a point of logic, invoking the false dilemma fallacy.

To make it more clear: the correctness or otherwise of the NIST theory is not evidence for the controlled demolition theory. Even if you prove that NIST is wrong, you do not therefore prove that CD is right. You have to prove CD on the evidence.

Nist this, Nist that, 9/11 commission, The News said Nist explained it...

Well then...

In its recent reply to family members Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, scientists Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, NIST states: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
Thus NIST euphemistically admits that its 10,000-page report on the Towers does not even pretend to provide any explanation whatsoever for the Towers' total collapse--and that indeed no such explanation is possible without invoking the politically-incorrect idea of controlled demolition.

NIST'S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls "collapse initiation" -- the loss of several floors' vertical support. In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for "collapse initiation"--the failure of a few floors.

But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don't. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment--a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways--the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.

Allow me to remind you we went to war with afghanistan(secretly for opium), and back then it was "get osama! get them terrorists!"

then Al-qaeda became(?) linked to Iraq(?) of which we put the dictator in power back in Desert Storm and the old Bush War BS(?), and likewise... NO weapons of mass destruction were found, only the weapon of mass distraction were used, on the US citizens...

Most Blatant Lie's Ever Told, as can be seen with this...

Bush: The regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons, and is seeking the materials needed to do so.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. - Dick Cheney, speech to VFW National Convention, Aug. 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. - George W. Bush, speech to UN General Assembly, Sept. 12, 2002

No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.- Donald Rumsfeld, testimony to Congress, Sept. 19, 2002

The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq.- George W. Bush, Nov. 23, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Dec. 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there. - Ari Fleischer, press briefing, Jan. 9, 2003

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people. - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

And then...

We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country. - Donald Rumsfeld, Fox News interview, May 4, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction. - Condoleeza Rice, Reuters interview, May 12, 2003

I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago - I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago - whether they were destroyed right before the war [or] whether they're still hidden. -

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne, press briefing, May 13, 2003

I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons [sEE NEXT QUOTE].- Donald Rumsfeld, Senate appropriations subcommittee on defense hearing, May 14, 2003

We believe [Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.- Dick Cheney, NBC's Meet the Press, March 16, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.- Donald Rumsfeld, remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations, May 27, 2003

It was a surprise to me then - it remains a surprise to me now - that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there. - Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, press interview, May 30, 2003

I think some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.’ Those were not words we used. We used 'grave and gathering' threat [sEE NEXT QUOTE].- White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Jan. 31, 2004

This is about an imminent threat. - White House spokesman Scott McClellan, press briefing, Feb. 10, 2003

After being asked whether Hussein was an "imminent" threat: Well, of course he is . - White House spokesman Dan Bartlett, CNN interview, Jan. 26, 2003

After being asked whether the U.S. went to war because officials said Hussein’s alleged weapons were a direct, imminent threat to the U.S.: Absolutely.- White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, press briefing, May 7, 2003

He didn't say the steel was itself melting, he said something was dripping from it, and that could have been aluminium. If you have any actual evidence of molten steel, I'd be interested to see it.

Youtube, molten steel from south tower

I do say thats visual confirmation...

And from "Waste Age" '02 D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime

and a quote "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains"

Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. states:

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

Messenger-Inquirer report recounts the experiences of Bronx firefighter "Toolie" O'Toole, who stated that some of the beams lifted from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero by cranes were "dripping from the molten steel."

audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe states:

"When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted..."

Given that you have failed to demonstrate that a thermite demolition is even possible, why should the investigators have considered such a convoluted theory?

Given that you ignore evidence why should anyone take you seriously?

I've no idea what they did, there is not sufficient information in the summary. However, this is irrelevant to whether a progressive collapse will occur with damage at the WTC1 level in the building, because this is confirmed by B&Z and the Seffen paper. Given the similarity of the two collapses, the WTC2 case alone is sufficient to show that an engineering simulation of a "natural" collapse looks like what actually happened.

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis by K. A. Seffen from the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge quotes:

" …it is clear that the initial loads imposed by both parts falling onto the undamaged buildings beneath were exceptionally high due to the unforeseen preceding events, and that damage was bound to propagate into the floors below: this is the initiation phase. It is also clear that both collapse modes were progressive, as indicated by film footage: there was the sound of each successive impact of floor upon floor and a matching sequence of lateral ejection of debris. Therefore, it is valid to consider the behaviour formally in the proposed terms.”

There were sounds of each successive impact, There were also sounds of explosions and other important factors (unusually melted steel, angularly cut beams, lack of temperature to melt steel, and so on). Seffen seems to not care about these factors because taking them into account would force him to choose a different model...

“Accordingly, the assumption of progressive collapse enables a continuum viewpoint, which permits a simpler formulation compared to, say, a finite element analysis...”

Cmon, seriously...

"A frivolous but useful analogue is the inflation of a rubber party balloon”

Yes, quite frivolous. But then, the model of progressive collapse is a frivolous analogue so, do the math, what do you think?

Then its all over from here on out:

“The precise variation does not matter”

Why exactly would that not matter?

“The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally; any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected; and the final stage of collapse after the crush-front reaches the base is discounted. However, the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward. Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae ....”

Oh yes here we go... one cannot include all the elements involved with the collapse (such as "any impulsive action between successive floor impacts") of the WTC towers because if you did, you would not be able to obtain the solution that Seffen has devised by ignoring them. Something to Note:

“ the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward”. Then we are told that obtaining "the solution" he has already decided he must obtain – is “essential”.

If he would incorporate some additional “features”, he would not be able to get to the conclusion that he has been instructed to get... Pure BS.

More info here, from a scientific journal peer reviewer and doctorate of Mathematics.

AND THEY STILL HAVE NOTHING ON WTC 7...

May 4, 2008

Now I know you're making them up. Who on earth is Graham Scott?

Well spotted – obviously I meant David Scott.

Perimeter samples in areas where the insulation was likely to be intact will of course not get as hot as samples were insulation is likely to be damaged. What on earth is unreasonable with that?
Neither do you have any evidence that the NIST fire predictions are incorrect. They certainly fit with the visual evidence of how the fires spread and the temperature predictions are reasonable for office fires. You are making a strawman argument here that the fires are somehow implausible without samples of every piece of steel from the fire region.

You are the one with a strawman argument here whilst you go off on a tangent about insulation. My assertion comes down to, as NIST said, that “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.” The physical evidence therefore is not supportive of the ‘official’ story or the NIST fire simulations… simple as that.

I am not suggesting every single piece of steel should have been analysed; only that some (any!) evidence of consistent high temperatures should have been found. For instance, core columns from the collapse initiation zone would have been of immense value in determining the precise cause and process of failure. I have just re-read FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection document (Ramon Gilsanz :rolleyes: ) which quite unbelievably states some pieces that were identified and marked for saving, “were accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.”

Even devout believers of the ‘official’ story must accept that the preservation and study of physical evidence was a disgrace. Those with an open-mind have every justification to be outright suspicious.

You have already admitted that the base case underestimated the impact.

I had initially deduced that, as the WTC1 base case impact showed no debris exiting through the structure, it must have been an underestimation. Then, as I detailed on the long thread, I found NIST’s statement: -

“In order to simulate the trajectory of specific pieces of aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building was needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the building, where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, could make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the tower. In addition, modelling uncertainties and assumptions might play a role in not matching the observable.”

Therefore it is reasonable that had the specifics NIST mention above been fully known and simulated, it is entirely possible the landing gear would have passed through the structure in the base case.

NIST carried out a comparison of the base and severe case, “with the base case analysis providing the better match to the observed damage.” That best match base case referred to did not initiate collapse. It took NIST’s severe case, with figures extended beyond those expected and coupled with questionable fire simulations, to initiate collapse in the computer models.

They did runs at less than and more than the actual impact. Comparing the results, I have no problem with a "best fit" intermediate run being likely to give the same collapse mechanism as the more severe case.

And I have no problem with an intermediate simulation giving the same result as the expected base case, ie no collapse. Now what? NIST should have come to a definitive conclusion, negating the need for this discussion.

My, those goalposts have a good turn of speed.
There are extra pictures, not from NIST, where you can see the amount of floor sag increasing during the fire for WTC2, but you still deny that it can happen in WTC1.

The goalposts haven’t moved – I have been asking for evidence that the floors were sagging on the south side of WTC1 due to fire. The photographs supplied for WTC2 are taken from directly in the path of impact – of course the floors were severely weakened in that area.

He didn't say the steel was itself melting, he said something was dripping from it, and that could have been aluminium. If you have any actual evidence of molten steel, I'd be interested to see it.

So your most logical conclusion based on what a firefighter described as “molten steel” dripping from a steel beam is that it was…… aluminium. Says it all really, doesn’t it.

So they failed to mention something that was irrelevant to their remit and had already been publicised elsewhere? This has no bearing at all on NIST investigating the causes of the collapses.

I find an event FEMA investigators described as “very unusual” and of which they said, “It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure”, to be enormously relevant to the investigation.

Given that you have failed to demonstrate that a thermite demolition is even possible, why should the investigators have considered such a convoluted theory?

You have gone full-circle back to the double-standard of claiming a hydrocarbon diffuse flame waxing and waning from 100^oC to (allegedly) 1,000^oC around the structure could cause collapse, whilst simultaneously claiming a jet of extreme temperature 2,500^oC thermite ejected directly on the columns could not. Apart from the plausibility of a thermite initiated controlled demolition, there is also the following evidence: -

The sudden onset of the entire upper block collapse
The virtual symmetry of collapse
The near freefall speed of collapse
The visible thermite flow from WTC2
The high temperature steel corrosion discovered by FEMA
The iron rich spheres discovered by physicist Steven Jones
The descriptions of like a “foundry” or “lava” and “molten steel” in the debris pile

The above is all supported and explained due to the presence of thermite, whilst the official story must resort to multiple contentious individual excuses for each.

There was gradual deformation, the floors sagging and the walls bowing. However, a wall can only bow so far before it collapses rapidly.

The limited bowing of a single wall section does not imply that virtually symmetrical, near freefall, ‘global collapse’ is imminent.

I've no idea what they did, there is not sufficient information in the summary. However, this is irrelevant to whether a progressive collapse will occur with damage at the WTC1 level in the building, because this is confirmed by B&Z and the Seffen paper. Given the similarity of the two collapses, the WTC2 case alone is sufficient to show that an engineering simulation of a "natural" collapse looks like what actually happened.

I would not have such faith in a ‘simulation’ I had “no idea” about, for which there is “not sufficient information” and where the impact location is blatantly wrong. If the Chinese paper was willing to alter the simulated impact location to give the desired collapse, then how many other rules did they break along the way? The only ‘confirmation’ provided by the B&Z paper is that the ‘official’ story requires many assumptions.

Oh very funny, try reading my post again. I cannot describe the collapse in every detail, but that doesn't mean that it can't have happened. If lack of complete detail was an argument, then I could rule out CD just as easily because you cannot produce a charge layout and sequence either.

All I am asking for is a plausible hypothesis of WTC7 column failures and times beginning from the penthouse collapse. Your “domino” collapse theory does not fit into the 7 seconds between the penthouse movement and main collapse. If you cannot possibly describe these events, I do not see how it could possibly have happened.

You haven’t before asked me for a possible controlled demolition layout, though it is an area I have considered. So long as the demolition charges are placed on the main columns and detonated simultaneously, the collapses would occur as witnessed. Also, depending on the demolition configuration in the Towers, this could well explain the WTC1 direction of tilt.

May 5, 2008

Zaus, you claim that Satam Al Suqami, the terrorist whose passport was found amongst the debris, was later found to be alive and you give this website as proof:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

However, you must not have read it very closely, because it does not list Satam Al Suqami as one of the hijackers to later be found alive. So how is this evidence that the passport was planted?

May 5, 2008

I was in NY on 9/11, and I saw the planes hit the WTC's.

May 5, 2008

I was in NY on 9/11, and I saw the planes hit the WTC's.

possible you saw planes , one thing is sure , you didn't saw large commercial airliner , 767 to be precise , hitting those buildings , because these were fakes .

their trajectory are fakes , their shapes are fakes , their sounds are fakes.

now if you mean you were in NY that day (that's possible) and that you saw the planes ON TV , (thats very likely , regardless of being in NY or not ) , that's something else.

May 5, 2008

Man, it had to be an inside job. Not necessarily planned and executed by the administration - but someone in the U.S. intelligence community knew about it and let it happen!

No matter what evidence anyone will bring forth. I stick to my guns. The U.S. has the best computers, the best internet infrastructure, the best postal service, the best warbirds, and the best most well-trained fighter pilots. If that is true, how can any foreign power (whether low scale, low-tech terrorist, or upscale, high-tech sovereign power) get into U.S. air space and have pulled it off - WITHOUT U.S. Intelligence knowing about it.

The converse is pathetic: that the U.S. cannot protect its borders from a sophisticated attack. And I, for one, refuse to believe that for pre 9/11 or for post 9/11. Actually, I refuse to believe that scenario for any time after Pearl Harbor - and even that one is suspect!

Edited May 5, 2008 by lmbeharry

May 5, 2008

Man, it had to be an inside job. Not necessarily planned and executed by the administration - but someone in the U.S. intelligence community knew about it and let it happen!
No matter what evidence anyone will bring forth. I stick to my guns. The U.S. has the best computers, the best internet infrastructure, the best postal service, the best warbirds, and the best most well-trained fighter pilots. If that is true, how can any foreign power (whether low scale, low-tech terrorist, or upscale, high-tech sovereign power) get into U.S. air space and have pulled it off - WITHOUT U.S. Intelligence knowing about it.

The converse is pathetic: that the U.S. cannot protect its borders from a sophisticated attack. And I, for one, refuse to believe that for pre 9/11 or for post 9/11. Actually, I refuse to believe that scenario for any time after Pearl Harbor - and even that one is suspect!

All these things, though, require someone to operate them, or to take notice of the information that they give. Considering that, I feel that the second option (the U.S. cannot protect its borders from a sophisticated attack)is, actually, quite possible, much more so, in fact, than any number of conspiracy theories. (Incidentally, the whole point of 9/11 is that it wasn't a sophisticated attack; the timing was, but the actual attack was very basic indeed.)

May 5, 2008

I was in NY on 9/11, and I saw the planes hit the WTC's.

*sigh* You're forgetting that in the world of the conspiracy theorist:

possible you saw planes , one thing is sure , you didn't saw large commercial airliner , 767 to be precise , hitting those buildings , because these were fakes .
their trajectory are fakes , their shapes are fakes , their sounds are fakes.

now if you mean you were in NY that day (that's possible) and that you saw the planes ON TV , (thats very likely , regardless of being in NY or not ) , that's something else.

the evidence of one's own eyes is never sufficient. It's got to be holograms, or hallucinations caused by pyschological warfare techniques, or whatever; that's just so much more likely than what people actually saw with their own eyes.

[/irony].

May 5, 2008

All these things, though, require someone to operate them, or to take notice of the information that they give. Considering that, I feel that the second option (the U.S. cannot protect its borders from a sophisticated attack)is, actually, quite possible, much more so, in fact, than any number of conspiracy theories. (Incidentally, the whole point of 9/11 is that it wasn't a sophisticated attack; the timing was, but the actual attack was very basic indeed.)

We agree to disagree. The coincidence (according to the docu-drama 9/11 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy) that U.S. Air Force warbirds were on exercise at the time, and did not respond to broadcasts that jet airliners were flying into the WTC (especially after the first one), and these USAF warbirds (and others on base in NJ) had ample time to intercept? What - U.S. is training male and female jet warbird pilots to be pussies? And not to take down threats to American civilians and property?

The extreme issues with the investigations at Pentagon? The dearth of consistency in the aftermath - jet engines from which type of plane?

The miraculous passport photos that survived extreme carnage and raging 1,000 degree celsius temperatures? The almost "free-fall" demolition of the WTC? The fires that raged on for ten days in extreme heat (hotter than carbon based structures should burn)?

Conspiracy theories abound!

1970's Mossad intelligence was the balls. Post 1980's Ronald Wilson Reagan? U.S. Intelligence is the balls. Remember that Microsoft is an American company. National Security Agency, as (an unstated rule) has a backdoor to all Microsoft products. No one in the world can use Internet Explorer, AOL, of even Mozilla, without NSA computers eavesdropping on the transmission...

1st Edit: Further to that: No one on U.S. soil can use a cell phone or a land line without NSA knowing the transmission (but that goes without saying, doesn't it). So they've got supercomputers, and they had - what - (according to theory) 3 or more years of transmissions while these "alleged" terrorists were cooking up the plot? Damn it, I can't believe it. I worked for Nazis in America: Johnson & Higgins (I was young and naive, and I could not believe that nazis actually could exist in the corporate world). Anyway, the most profound thing that anyone ever told me in business? And this was from one of the Nazis at Johnson & Higgins: There are no "accidents" in business... (BTW, this guy - and I won't say his name, actually ended up dying in WTC...)

But his statement to me, a few days before he fired me because I chose to pursue graduate education while working full time - "There are no accidents in business"

I take WTC to be an extreme form of business... It was no accident - insofar as U.S. intel - someone knew about it...

2nd Edit: (Since no one has posted since.) I didn't write about American Nazis above to suggest that they had anything to do with WTC. [but reading my own post, I wonder...] I just was writing a short anecdote. Personally, I don't have a clue who was responsible. And I don't even have a conjecture. The whole thing has turned into such a complex mess. No one might be able to actually sift through all of the documents and diatribe for another 100 or 150 years... Just remember - I only mentioned Nazis in passing. [but it really does make me wonder...] - Maybe more fuel for the conspiracy theorists...

Edited May 5, 2008 by lmbeharry

May 5, 2008

The air defense "standdown" arguments are just plain ignorant, pure and simple. This is an area I know something about.

You did not directly address the “orders still stand” controversy last time I raised it, mrbusdriver, though I’m sure you didn’t evade the issue on purpose. What follows is an outline of the issue in case you do not have time to read the entire link.

Norman Mineta, US Secretary of Transportation, was present at the Pentagon Presidential Emergency Operating Center on the morning of 9/11. In testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Mineta gave the following account: -

There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

We know this was not a shoot down order as NORAD Major Larry Arnold later testifies: -

GEN. ARNOLD:

That is correct. In fact, the American Airlines 77, if we were to have arrived overhead at that particular point, I don't think that we would have shot that aircraft down.

MR. HAMILTON: Because?

GEN. ARNOLD:

Well, we had not been given authority

And later on: -

MR. HAMILTON: Now, one of the things that's curious to me, General Arnold,

you said that you did not learn of the presidential order until after United 93 had already crashed. That was about a little after 10 o'clock in the morning.

The first notice of difficulty here was at 8:20 in the morning when a transponder goes off on the American Flight 11. I don't know how significant that is, but 20 minutes later you had notification of the possible hijack. So there's a long lapse of time here between the time you are initially alerted and you receive the order that you can shoot that aircraft down. Am I right about that?

GEN. ARNOLD:

That's correct.

So what were “the orders” if not a stand-down directive from Vice President Dick Cheney allowing the incoming airliner to strike the Pentagon?

May 5, 2008

I am making this last post, to address this nutjob conspiracy about americans killing americans, once and for all.

You don't need to bring down a building with controlled demolition, in order to have reprisals.

To think otherwise is sickness and delusional.

If those buildings had been hit, and not compromised- defenders of America would have still called for corrective measures.

Q24-

I can not believe you will not put that mind of yours to better activities, than conspiracy wrangling.

That is all the advice I can offer.

May 5, 2008

Nist this, Nist that, 9/11 commission, The News said Nist explained it...
Well then...

Try not to take quotes out of context. NIST took their simulation to the point of collapse initiation, they did not model the full collapse. However, a technical paper by Bazant and Zhou had already shown that once a collapse started it would contiue as observed, so NIST didn't need to follow this up with a detailed simulation.

I am not really interested in your political points, I'm just here to argue the engineering factors involved. As I see it, if there is no evidence that the towers collapsed for any other reason than having aircraft flown into them, arguing who had motives for adding explosives is irrelevant.

"When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.
The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted..."

None of those quotes say that anyone analysed the molten metal to see if it was steel or not, though the mention of underground fires in that last quote, plus the very high temperature mentioned, gives a clue to why molten metal was seen.

Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis by K. A. Seffen from the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge quotes:
" …it is clear that the initial loads imposed by both parts falling onto the undamaged buildings beneath were exceptionally high due to the unforeseen preceding events, and that damage was bound to propagate into the floors below: this is the initiation phase. It is also clear that both collapse modes were progressive, as indicated by film footage: there was the sound of each successive impact of floor upon floor and a matching sequence of lateral ejection of debris. Therefore, it is valid to consider the behaviour formally in the proposed terms.”

There were sounds of each successive impact, There were also sounds of explosions and other important factors (unusually melted steel, angularly cut beams, lack of temperature to melt steel, and so on). Seffen seems to not care about these factors because taking them into account would force him to choose a different model...

“Accordingly, the assumption of progressive collapse enables a continuum viewpoint, which permits a simpler formulation compared to, say, a finite element analysis...”

Cmon, seriously...

"A frivolous but useful analogue is the inflation of a rubber party balloon”

Yes, quite frivolous. But then, the model of progressive collapse is a frivolous analogue so, do the math, what do you think?

Then its all over from here on out:

“The precise variation does not matter”

Why exactly would that not matter?

“The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally; any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected; and the final stage of collapse after the crush-front reaches the base is discounted. However, the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward. Such refinements may negate the ability to obtain closed-form solutions, which are essential in ascribing the generic character of behaviour and for distilling key formulae ....”

Oh yes here we go... one cannot include all the elements involved with the collapse (such as "any impulsive action between successive floor impacts") of the WTC towers because if you did, you would not be able to obtain the solution that Seffen has devised by ignoring them. Something to Note:

“ the incorporation of these features into a subsequent model would rely on estimations apportioning their relative contributions, which are not straightforward”. Then we are told that obtaining "the solution" he has already decided he must obtain – is “essential”.

If he would incorporate some additional “features”, he would not be able to get to the conclusion that he has been instructed to get... Pure BS.

More info here, from a scientific journal peer reviewer and doctorate of Mathematics.

AND THEY STILL HAVE NOTHING ON WTC 7...

As Seffen gets the same result as Bazant and Zhou with a different approach to the problem, you can hardly take such a one-sided approach to criticising his method.

Why do conspiracists have such a problem understanding analogies? Mention a party balloon or a drinks can, and all you get is "nothing like WTC". General structural principles hold whatever the scale of the structure.

Technical papers always contains provisos, because nothing is ever 100% certain. Provisos don't mean that the result is improbable, as conspiracists inevitably claim, just that it might be 99.99% instead of 100% certain, for instance.

As to your "mathematician and peer-reviewer", his criticism of the paper is curiously lacking in technical points. Loads of stuff about the premature publication announcement, which is irrelevant, but apart from a few remarks showing that he doesn't grasp Seffen's method, nothing about the details.

May 5, 2008

q24 and turbonium, this is for you, a 911 version of the Curse of Klass:

No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about 911 than you know today. You will never know any more about covert controlled demolitions or how structures work. You will never gain any more evidence for U.S. Government involvement in 911 than you have today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about 911 as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

Edited May 5, 2008 by flyingswan

May 5, 2008

You are the one with a strawman argument here whilst you go off on a tangent about insulation. My assertion comes down to, as NIST said, that “no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.” The physical evidence therefore is not supportive of the ‘official’ story or the NIST fire simulations… simple as that.
I am not suggesting every single piece of steel should have been analysed; only that some (any!) evidence of consistent high temperatures should have been found. For instance, core columns from the collapse initiation zone would have been of immense value in determining the precise cause and process of failure. I have just re-read FEMA’s WTC Steel Data Collection document (Ramon Gilsanz ) which quite unbelievably states some pieces that were identified and marked for saving, “were accidentally processed in salvage yard operations before they were removed from the yards for further study.”

Even devout believers of the ‘official’ story must accept that the preservation and study of physical evidence was a disgrace. Those with an open-mind have every justification to be outright suspicious.

Do you understand what a strawman argument is?

Just read the NIST report again. The basic reason for collecting steel was to check that it was manufactured to spec. Some from the region of the fire was also used to compare the simulation results with physical evidence. However, most of the material from the impact/fire region was damaged to the point where its original location in the building could not be ascertained.

What was usable is consistent with the fire models, the highest temp steel exposures coming from where the models predicted, making allowance for where insulation damage was likely to have occured. The temperatures predicted by the models were also verified using the lab fire experiments.

You are placing an importance on the analysis of the steel for verifying the fire that it does not have. You are setting up a strawman to knock down.

I had initially deduced that, as the WTC1 base case impact showed no debris exiting through the structure, it must have been an underestimation. Then, as I detailed on the long thread, I found NIST’s statement: -

“In order to simulate the trajectory of specific pieces of aircraft debris, a fairly precise knowledge of the internal configuration of the building was needed. This is especially true with components passing through the core of the building, where some of the most massive building contents and partition walls were present. Uncertainties regarding the internal layout of each floor, such as the location of hallways or walls, could make the difference between debris from a specific component passing through or being stopped inside the tower. In addition, modelling uncertainties and assumptions might play a role in not matching the observable.”

Therefore it is reasonable that had the specifics NIST mention above been fully known and simulated, it is entirely possible the landing gear would have passed through the structure in the base case.

NIST carried out a comparison of the base and severe case, “with the base case analysis providing the better match to the observed damage.” That best match base case referred to did not initiate collapse. It took NIST’s severe case, with figures extended beyond those expected and coupled with questionable fire simulations, to initiate collapse in the computer models.

So you can consider the uncertainties in the input data as a reason for the underestimate of the damage, but NIST can't consider the same uncertainties as a reason for running a more severe case? Unbelievable logic.

And I have no problem with an intermediate simulation giving the same result as the expected base case, ie no collapse. Now what? NIST should have come to a definitive conclusion, negating the need for this discussion.

I gave my reasons for this belief at length in the other thread. How about you giving any reason at all for your belief?

You know perfectly well that this is another of your have-it-both-ways arguments. NIST not running as many cases as you want here is suspicious, but you have also argued that running more cases is fiddling the input to get the right answer, and this is also suspicious.

The goalposts haven’t moved – I have been asking for evidence that the floors were sagging on the south side of WTC1 due to fire. The photographs supplied for WTC2 are taken from directly in the path of impact – of course the floors were severely weakened in that area.

Your post #446, you asked "How do we know the Towers had sagging floors?". I provide evidence, and now instead of just "the towers", it's got to be the south side of WTC1. That's a classic goalpost shift.

So your most logical conclusion based on what a firefighter described as “molten steel” dripping from a steel beam is that it was…… aluminium. Says it all really, doesn’t it.

This is your claim, the burden of proof is on you. Where is there any analysis identifying the nature of the molten metal? Not just a visual report, as one metal looks much like another.

I find an event FEMA investigators described as “very unusual” and of which they said, “It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure”, to be enormously relevant to the investigation.

As NIST's methods predicted the collapse without having to invoke corrosion-weakened steel, why is it relevant?

You have gone full-circle back to the double-standard of claiming a hydrocarbon diffuse flame waxing and waning from 100^oC to (allegedly) 1,000^oC around the structure could cause collapse, whilst simultaneously claiming a jet of extreme temperature 2,500^oC thermite ejected directly on the columns could not. Apart from the plausibility of a thermite initiated controlled demolition, there is also the following evidence: -

The sudden onset of the entire upper block collapse

The virtual symmetry of collapse

The near freefall speed of collapse

The visible thermite flow from WTC2

The high temperature steel corrosion discovered by FEMA

The iron rich spheres discovered by physicist Steven Jones

The descriptions of like a “foundry” or “lava” and “molten steel” in the debris pile

The above is all supported and explained due to the presence of thermite, whilst the official story must resort to multiple contentious individual excuses for each.

Full circle? We've gone into every element of that list ad nauseam. You say "evidence for thermite", I say easily explained by the "official" theory. How on earth is thermite going to cause high-temperature corrosion or pools of molten metal anyway?

You have yet to demonstrate that a thermite column-cutter would work at that scale, or that prepping an occupied building is possible, or that any CD set-up could survive impact and fire. All you have on these points is your own multiple contentious individual excuses.

The limited bowing of a single wall section does not imply that virtually symmetrical, near freefall, ‘global collapse’ is imminent.

But my point is that a steel column can go from bowing to a full collapse practically instantly, and that this is how steel behaves in the real world. Just because you want it to behave differently doesn't matter to the steel.

I would not have such faith in a ‘simulation’ I had “no idea” about, for which there is “not sufficient information” and where the impact location is blatantly wrong. If the Chinese paper was willing to alter the simulated impact location to give the desired collapse, then how many other rules did they break along the way? The only ‘confirmation’ provided by the B&Z paper is that the ‘official’ story requires many assumptions.

As the WTC2 case where the impact location is correct is sufficient for my purpose, any questions about the WTC1 case are irrelevant. The authors may have made an honest error, but there is not sufficient information in the summary to say.

All I am asking for is a plausible hypothesis of WTC7 column failures and times beginning from the penthouse collapse. Your “domino” collapse theory does not fit into the 7 seconds between the penthouse movement and main collapse. If you cannot possibly describe these events, I do not see how it could possibly have happened.
You haven’t before asked me for a possible controlled demolition layout, though it is an area I have considered. So long as the demolition charges are placed on the main columns and detonated simultaneously, the collapses would occur as witnessed. Also, depending on the demolition configuration in the Towers, this could well explain the WTC1 direction of tilt.

No, you are asking for something you know I don't have in order to embarrass me. The fact is, you have nothing equivalent for your side of the argument either, so you should be equally embarrassed.

Simultaneous charges will not explain the WTC7 collapse with the delay after the penthouse falls, but my suggestion that the delay is associated with debris falling through the building does explain such a time lapse.

Your "simultaneous charges" also remind me that another important point for your theory you have yet to establish is how fast a large thermite column cutter could work. Is it fast enough to get "simultaneous" or a normal CD fractional second timing to function?

May 5, 2008

You don't need to bring down a building with controlled demolition, in order to have reprisals.
To think otherwise is sickness and delusional.

If those buildings had been hit, and not compromised- defenders of America would have still called for corrective measures.

That is your opinion though the people with the opportunity to action the 9/11 false flag operation showed they thought differently when they wrote of requiring a “new Pearl Harbor”.

Q24-
I can not believe you will not put that mind of yours to better activities, than conspiracy wrangling.

That is all the advice I can offer.

I call it ‘researching the facts’ rather than ‘conspiracy wrangling’. Too many people are afraid of what those facts reveal. It is because so many follow the advice you offer that false flag attacks are made easier.

May 5, 2008

q

... yes?

q24 and turbonium, this is for you, a 911 version of the Curse of Klass:
No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about 911 than you know today. You will never know any more about covert controlled demolitions or how structures work. You will never gain any more evidence for U.S. Government involvement in 911 than you have today. As you lie on your own death-bed you will be as mystified about 911 as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

All the information needed to be aware of the 9/11 false flag is already here, right now. Not everybody is yet ready to accept the reality but I believe, when history looks back, the event will be seen for what it was. There is a saying, “History never looks like history when you are living through it.”

I have a question – do you believe the Nazis were complicit in the Reichstag fire?

Edited May 5, 2008 by Q24

May 5, 2008

... yes?

You caught me mid-edit, see above.

May 5, 2008

I am making this last post, to address this nutjob conspiracy about americans killing americans, once and for all.
You don't need to bring down a building with controlled demolition, in order to have reprisals.

To think otherwise is sickness and delusional.

If those buildings had been hit, and not compromised- defenders of America would have still called for corrective measures.

Q24-

I can not believe you will not put that mind of yours to better activities, than conspiracy wrangling.

That is all the advice I can offer.

imo sickness and delusion would be turning my back to the obvious facts-- there is a reason the physics prof from byu wrote a 47pg analysis of why the wtc collpases would have required explosives of some sort then retired to persue the debate full time as well as a 27yr cia veteran ray mcgovern among thousands others making the same claim-- now if you cannot come to terms with reality you need to admit that and not vent your confused frustration on those trying to wake you up-- history and the facts tell a vivid tale of treason and heresy and the unconstitutional federal reserve,operation northwoods,gulf of tonkin,pearl harbor,waco,and the oklahoma murrah building fiascos are undeniable traitorous anti american operations that can only be translated one way-- the 9/11 mega ritual was no different and the real defenders of america are in you face right now challenging you to prove them wrong-- so run to the hills until your ready to entertain reality or accept your fate

To those who believe the 911 official story

Recommended Posts

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sunofone

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LLL

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Zaus

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

OilFight

Link to comment

Share on other sites

--Mandalore--

Link to comment

Share on other sites

LLL

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Silmarillion

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Space Commander Travis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Space Commander Travis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Silmarillion

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

merril

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Q24

Link to comment

Share on other sites

flyingswan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Sunofone