To those who believe the 911 official story

[turbonium]

Q said...

"I would therefore be very interested if you could direct me to these collapse simulations based on real-world physics that you describe."

So would I.

And I'd bet that thousands of architects and engineers would be most interested in seeing such simulations, as well.

flyingswan, on the other hand, seems quite satisifed when the entire event is summed up in one sentence, such as "Collapse was inevitable", or NIST's explanation - "global collapse ensued".

Edited April 26, 2008 by turbonium

[flyingswan]

No evidence? That's pure nonsense.

There's physical evidence, such as iron-rich metal spheres and solidified molten metal. There's evidence in photos and videos, showing molten metal pouring out of the upper floors of one tower. There's evidence from eyewitness accounts, such as the firefighters who reported seeing molten metal "flowing like lava" in the towers' basements.

That's just some of the evidence - there is much, much more evidence than that. Indeed, your argument is the one that lacks any actual evidence.

Evidence indeed, the problem is that it's not evidence for a controlled demolition. In fact, I've yet to see any explanation of how molten metal even fits in with a CD theory.

If you'd bothered to check their members page below...

http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_

...then you'd have quickly realized how off-base your claim is.

The first page of their website even states.."We will post your name after verifying your A/E credentials"

If you're actually disputing their credentials, then you need to do a whole lot better than come up with unfounded accusations and nonsense innuendo.

How do they check? I don't know about the situation in other countries, but with the Data Protection Act, the UK institutions certainly don't reveal their membership details.

That apart, if they were qualified, you'd expect them to show a bit more knowledge of the subject in their statements, rather than just re-gurgitated conspiracist websites.

Here's badeskov's check where he finds three imposters.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...6598&st=135

It's only relevant that there are several structural engineers on that list. The number is irrelevant. Many more may be in agreement, but haven't (yet) joined this specific group.

Btw, are you implying that Architects aren't qualified to address this subject? Or, that only structural engineers are qualified?

Mechanical engineers, physicists, and architects have published such papers. I don't know if any structural engineers have done so, as yet.

Again - are you implying that only structural engineers are qualified to address this subject?

Are you aware that some structural engineers first claimed that the towers collapsed because the fires melted the steel?...

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Perhaps you now realize that even some of these supposed "experts" can be completely wrong.

If you want detailed knowledge of why buildings stay up or fall down, you certainly want structural engineers rather than architects. In addition, both you and q24 have queried my own expertise as an aerospace engineer to comment on the matter, so I don't see why you should be allowed a wider base.

The Chris Wise quote does rather show the risks of giving a quote before the facts are known, but a quote to the media hardly carries the same technical weight as a peer-reviewed paper.

Could you actually point me to any technical paper that explains all the evidence in terms of a CD, because I'm not aware of any. Even J911S, with it's joke peer-review system, seems to limit itself to nit-picking the "official" story rather than coming ip with a consistent CD theory.

[flyingswan]

I've worked with engineers on a daily basis for 20 years, so my practical expertise in the field is probably greater than yours. Cut out the pretentious BS.

Computer simulations can indeed make the impossible "appear" to be possible. Simulations are only as valid and reliable as the data being put in to create them. GIGO.

I find it very hard to believe that someone who compares engineering computational methods to film CGI knows the first thing about the subject.

On the contrary. If you trust the methods used by NIST, then you better not enter any steel-framed buildings. A fire can make them totally collapse in less than an hour!

If you mean the towers, try fire and aircraft impact damage, for a start.

That said, the claim that steel-frame buildings can't collapse in a fire is demonstrably false. Warehouse fires can result in a collapse in much less time than an hour.

[flyingswan]

No, Roberts only tries to make it appear to be a genuine, exact quote from Rodriguez....

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Roberts does not mention that he is paraphrasing what Rodriguez said. Furthermore, Roberts includes quotation marks, which are not used when paraphrasing.

And Roberts further tries to give the impression that this is a direct quote, by noting: "Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement."

Roberts is lying, pure and simple.

If you put Rodiguez' actual quotes in place of Roberts' paraphrase, the rest of his paragraph is unaffected, it still adds up to "Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement". Given also that the link leads to the actual quotes, you are just quibbling.

By the way, Roberts is not the only one to find that Rodriguez changed his story, with quotes to prove it:

http://www.911myths.com/html/william_rodriguez.html

No, you're misinterpreting what he said. This was the quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

He's simply saying that he is not an expert on explosives. That's why he says he doesn't talk about bombs - as in the specific types of bombs / explosives used, etc. - because he is "not an explosives expert".

You're so intent on smearing him, you twist and spin the most irrelevant points to try and help your ludicrous argument.

He says he doesn't talk about bombs, but then he does, where's the misinterpretation?

You're making the same false accusation against me as Czero did. I made Czero eat his words, just the same as I will with you. What you and he have failed to understand is that I have the truth on my side.

I made up a joke. When it wasn't understood that I meant it as a joke, I simply explained that I meant it as a joke.

I posted this analogy for Czero, because it perfectly reflects my situation...

Czero? It was me who asked for a source for your made-up quote and Waspie Dwarf who used the "lying" word. I hardly see the relevance of your chat-show story, this is a discussion forum, not an entertainment medium, it wasn't obvious to the readers of your post that you were joking (most people expect a joke to be in some way actually funny), and you didn't admit to making up the quote until after you'd first repeated it and then been asked for the source.

Edited April 26, 2008 by flyingswan

[flyingswan]

Q said...

"I would therefore be very interested if you could direct me to these collapse simulations based on real-world physics that you describe."

So would I.

And I'd bet that thousands of architects and engineers would be most interested in seeing such simulations, as well.

flyingswan, on the other hand, seems quite satisifed when the entire event is summed up in one sentence, such as "Collapse was inevitable", or NIST's explanation - "global collapse ensued".

There are at least three peer-reviewed technical papers dealing with the collapses of the towers subsequent to the initial failure, as I mentioned in my reply to q24. As one of these in particular, by Bazant and Zhou, was referenced in the NIST report and was well-known before NIST began their collapse initiation modelling, their "global collapse ensued" isn't just an off-the cuff opinion.

[Czero 101]

You're making the same false accusation against me as Czero did.

Get your quotes and timelines straight. This was Frenat's post:

You made up a quote to slander and smear NASA, but Czero101 has beaten me to the pot, kettle comment.

Which was a result of this post of mine:

It's time you showed some actual evidence for your argument, or concede that it has no validity. Personal opinions and wild leaps in logic do not cut it.

Its interesting how, when the same demand as is quoted above is made of you, you employ your usual diversionary tactics of changing the subject, nitpicking over matters of semantics, or claiming that you are "gathering evidence to post at a later time" which seems to never come.

Perhaps you should start providing any kind actual hard evidence for any of your opinion-based ideas - here and elsewhere - before demanding others do the same.

which, as you can see, had nothing to do with whether or not you'd made up anything, but was a comment on the ludicrousness of you, of all people, demanding that someone show evidence other than personal opinion, when ALL you ever show is personal opinion and misquoted or misunderstood "sources". Essentially, you were saying "put up or shut up" which is something that has been asked of you countless times here and other places, and countless times you have ignored the questions asked of you in the manner I outlined in my quoted post above.

I posted this analogy for Czero, because it perfectly reflects my situation...

Actually, you posted your talk-show analogy in response to another poster on that other board, not directly to me, at least not initially.

Czero refuses to answer these questions.

And this was my response when you later asked me if I'd read or ignored your analogy:

Nope, didn't ignore it... I read it... considered it, then disregarded it as more of you usual hand-waving diversionary tripe.

He can't admit that he made a false accusation against me.

I don't have to admit to anything. You made a claim regarding a certain timeline of events, I refuted it by showing that the chain of events you claimed to have happened in fact did not happen in the way you suggest or in some cases, at all. I even quoted the relevant posts regarding that issue and compared them to how you said things transpired. All I did was point out that you had falsely represented the way things transpired regarding the accusations of your "joke". If you go back and read what I posted, you will notice that I never said anything specifically about your "joke" at all.

I made Czero eat his words, just the same as I will with you.

Uhm... no you didn't. You completely avoided the last post I made (on that other board) regarding that situation. If you recall, before the issue of your "joke" came up, you had been asked several times by members of that board to answer specific questions that you had constantly ignored.

why don't you answer the other questions - some which have been waiting since you were year last year sometime - then after you do that, you can come back and ask me to answer yours again...

... or is there some reason you are DELIBERATELY avoiding answering the other people's questions? Reasons like you HAVE NO answers because you have NOTHING to back up your opinions with? Maybe that's why you're trying to distract the attention away from the fact that you haven't answered anyone's questions, yet have the gall to demand answers from me...

To date you have still not answered any of the question posed to you on that other site, and I stand behind my position that you demanding that I naswer your questions, while you have ignored the other questions asked of you, is pure hypocrisy.

By the way, in case you missed it, there are still a lot of question on that other board awaiting your specific answers.

back to the topic at hand...

Cz

Edited April 26, 2008 by Czero 101

[Q24]

I was just suggesting that you restricted the AE911T list to those actually capable of evaluating the "official" theory. Structural and fire engineers. How many can they muster?

So, by your own reckoning, you are incapable of evaluating the NIST ‘investigation’?

It may take structural or fire engineers to put together detail of the ‘investigation’ but it by no means requires an expert to understand the preconceptions, political restrictions, lack of evidence, fixing and stretching of figures that went into it, altogether still failing to prove the impacts could even initiate the collapses on 9/11.

The 300+ members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are capable of making all the above observations, as can any inquisitive person who looks into it, and more.

Kevin Ryan was fired by UL for using UL's name to promote his personal opinions.

Steven Jones was put on paid leave for similar reasons. The engineers at his university have denounced his theories (did you count those?).

James Quintiere questions some of the details of the NIST findings, but has said that there is no evidence for CD. Count him on the anti-CD side too.

Of five AE911T names picked at random, only one appeared to actually exist. This suggests that your 300+ professionals actually number rather less. This is not a conspiracy theory on my part, I have no idea whether the false names on the list are people trying to discredit AE911T or conspiracists trying to push up the numbers.

Yes, the first two are fine examples that you are not allowed to publicly voice personal opinions as an employee of these organisations. A couple of quotes from NIST’s former Chief of Fire Science, James Quintiere: -

• “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 think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable”

Now just two questions: -

1. Would Quintiere have publicly stated the above if still an employee of NIST?
2. How long would Quintiere remain in his current position at the University of Maryland if he suggested anything other than the impacts caused the collapses?

Which five AE911 names were picked and how did you attempt to validate their existence? I looked at the checks badeskov carried out but those three names are not listed either with Architects and Engineers, Scholars or Patriots for 9/11 Truth.

Fact is, that video is the only evidence you have of a thermite column cutter, and you seem unable to give any example of a larger one working. In the absence of any other evidence, scaling up from that video is all you can do. I showed on the long thread that you would have to scale such a device linearly with the dimensions of the column.

Given also that the video is by way of being a demonstration, I'd be very surprised if they cut a small column when a bigger and more impressive column was possible.

I don't know where you got only two hundred kg for the cascade. Estimates I've seen range from several hundred kg to tonnes. Even on your figures, a device a metre long is pretty noticable, certainly impossible to hide under spray-on insulation.

It is only your opinion that the device would need to be scaled up in direct proportion to the column… not surprising as you are not exactly one for having a ‘can do’ attitude. You did not show in the other thread that increasing the dimensions of the device does not increase its effectiveness disproportionately.

The WTC2 thermite flow is not at all easy (impossible even?) to quantify so how it can be shown to be more than a couple of hundred kg I don’t know. In this clip where they burn through a car engine I would say, judging by the flowerpot size, there is approximately 17kg of thermite – well I’m allowing for approximately 12 times the amount seen in the video. How can you say with any certainty there is more than this in the WTC2 flow?

As you say, photographic evidence. NCSTAR 1-6D, p324, for example.

The photographs show damage to the WTC2 floors in the area of impact. I am asking for evidence that the floor trusses were sagging due to fire, in particular in the case of WTC1. There isn’t any evidence, is there? This sagging floor theory is all just a charade to cover that the WTC1 bowing was in the wrong place to be explained by the impacts, ie the WTC2 bowing was toward the damage area (all well and good) whilst the WTC1 bowing was away from the damage area (not so good).

Sorry to disillusion you, but structures frequently behave like that, particularly steel structures failing through buckling of columns. At first just a little bowing, then suddenly the whole thing goes. Once a column bows sufficiently to be unable to support its load, that's it. Further bowing means even less load capacity, so you have a positive feedback situation

I have given an example in the Windsor building of where severe and widespread distortion of the structural steel is clearly visible prior to even a partial collapse. Are there any examples you can provide where a building in its entirety collapses virtually symmetrically after a column or limited columns exhibit bowing?

They used the LS-DYNA code, a widely used structural simulation package. That is in the summary of the paper if you bother to read it.

http://www.ansys.com/products/lsdyna.asp

You may find the Chinese paper funny, but then you found "real structures aren't rigid" equally funny. Laughing at something you don't understand is hardly a route to truth. Fact remains, it is an engineering simulation of the collapse using a standard engineering tool.

You are obviously aware of B&Z, and there's a recent paper by Seffen in J Eng Mech that also analyses the collapse.

In which case, the impacts were not correctly modelled: -

The actual WTC1 ‘upper block’ is approximately a cube whilst the simulation shows the impact a considerable distance lower down, don’t you agree?

B&Z did not produce a simulation, just figures making assumptions in favour of collapse and leaving out energy requirements. There was a New Civil Engineer article entitled “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation” and NIST themselves have stated they are “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”. Certainly Purdue’s pancake collapse visualisation was a farce. As discussed above, the Chinese ‘simulation’ is a joke.

So come on, you said you know what a ‘natural’ collapse should look like due to the simulations - where are these simulations that you have seen and no one else has?

That's new, when did you claim that?

New? …...

There was no reason for demolishing the penthouse; its collapse was simply a by-product of the structure weakening local to the top of WTC7.

...

I said a few pages back the demolition/cutting charges were to weaken the upper floors of WTC7 to ensure a complete collapse occurred. A collapse of the penthouse was not the specific intention but a by-product of this weakening.

...

I believe it likely that the penthouse structure coming down seconds before the main collapse was not a design of the demolition but simply an effect of the initial high level charges used to weaken the building before the main charges caused complete collapse.

I have noticed, often you resurrect ‘problems’ of the controlled demolition or points for the ‘official’ story that have been debunked before and many times I have wondered if you have retained any information from previous discussions. This demonstrates that you do not in fact retain the information. There are all sorts of reasons for memory loss, including dementia, head injury and aging but there is help available for it you know.

Say what you like, I'm an engineer, you're not, so why should I take any notice of your mere opinions on engineering matters?

Why should I take any notice of someone who displays the tell-tale signs of dementia?

You completely misunderstand this process - they apply a force to see how large a force corresponds to how big a bowing displacement. They do not "predict" anything, this is a calibration exercise.

You said earlier, “It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too.” Whilst you argue with yourself about whether there was a prediction or not, I will state with certainty that NIST added pull-in forces specifically to the south wall in an attempt to match with the observed photographic evidence.

Read the page again. They say that a lesser force would produce enough bowing when combined with the vertical load redistribution. They do not say that the actual bowing is impossible to model.

Once they have a fire and damage model, they use this to predict where and when the floors are likely to sag, hence where to apply pull-in forces.

No, they apply pull-in forces specifically to the south wall and nowhere else and then remove truss connections where they find appropriate to imitate the bowing.

I can’t see where NIST say a lesser force would produce the observed or “enough” bowing – can you quote it? If the actual degree of bowing is possible to model then why don’t they do so?

You have been proved wrong in your contentions that load redistribution should be uniform, that structures are not elastic, that the bowing wasn't real, that column-to-column impact is not a conservative assumption, that no structural engineer would believe my theory of a hidden internal collapse of WTC7 preceding the visible one.

I have never said that load redistribution must be uniform, I contend that the WTC structures were not as elastic as you imply, I still do not agree that “all the impact forces go into the columns” is conservative and I don’t believe low level fire could collapse the penthouse structure down ‘through’ WTC7.

On the contrary, Gilsanz has given an explanation that fits the key piece of evidence that makes the WTC7 collapse unlike a CD. Beam thermal stresses in a fire are enough to push or pull a column out of vertical. I have no reason to doubt that a failure of column 79 is at all implausible given that the building had been on fire for hours. The "removal" you mention is merely the standard way of representing a failed element in a structural model. Once it has failed, it cannot support a load, so you remove it to model this fact. The structure did not have enough redundancy, given the fire and damage, to carry the redistributed load from column 79, so an internal collapse followed, progressive to the west so also bringing down the west penthouse.

If you think an internal collapse is impossible, check out what happened to WTC5.

Column 79 was surrounded by horizontal beams on all sides from the ground to the roof so it would be more likely to fail in compression if due to heating, and as we know this can actually increase the steel strength. Even if the column fails there are still connections with the beams so the penthouse structure could not simply ‘fall through’ the building.

What is the redistributed load you mention after the failure of column 79? As this whole section of the structure had allegedly been removed or collapsed before the rest in your theory, it would have relieved the remaining structure of the penthouse load.

If all this ‘hollowing out’ of the structure occurred on the east side, I still want to know why all the columns on the west simultaneously and virtually symmetrically failed at near freefall.

WTC5 took a massive hit from WTC1 debris and did not collapse.

Ross's momentum analysis shows a lot of available energy, more actually than Ross guesses for the concrete pulverisation and steel strains, and this is the source of the energy for those phenomena. By adding in a separate estimate for this energy, Ross does indeed count it all twice.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. The available energy is never “more actually than Ross guesses for the concrete pulverisation and steel strains”. Here are Ross’ figures: -

Energy Summary:

The energy balance can be summarised as

Energy available;

Kinetic energy 2105MJ

Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ

Compression of impacting section 32MJ

Compression of impacted section 24MJ

Total Energy available 2256MJ

Energy required;

Momentum losses 1389MJ

Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ

Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ

Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ

Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ

Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ

Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ

Total Energy required 2646MJ

Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

Where does he double count anything?

Do I really need to spell it out? Turbonium uses HE charges because they are easy to hide, you use thermite to explain the lack of explosive noises just before the collapse. Thermite isn't easy to hide, HE is noisy. Neither explains the combination of a "quiet" CD with easily hidden charges, which is what you both actually need. Neither of you has an adequate CD theory.

The explosive charges are detonated prior to the main collapse to weaken the structure (heard in numerous videos), the thermite charges are used to initiate the collapse. Turbonium has already pointed out that your perceived misgivings of what is easy or not to conceal is neither here nor there; the important factor is the possibility of the setup.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Q24

[Zaus]

FAKED

[turbonium]

Evidence indeed, the problem is that it's not evidence for a controlled demolition. In fact, I've yet to see any explanation of how molten metal even fits in with a CD theory.

Steven Jones has evidence for a CD which involves the use of thermate (thermite). I'm sure you already know about this, don't you?

The real problem is that it's not evidence for a damage/fire-induced collapse theory. You know - like NIST's 'official' theory?

If you are really an engineer, then why aren't you (and NIST, for that matter) following proper scientific method?

A hypothesis (such as NIST's) which cannot account for all the evidence must be dismissed as invalid (in whole or in part). An alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses) - which can (possibly) account for all the evidence - should then be presented, and further investigated, to test the validity of that hypothesis.

The molten metal can't be explained by the NIST theory, so give me a valid reason(s) for why you still support it?

If you want detailed knowledge of why buildings stay up or fall down, you certainly want structural engineers rather than architects.

Not if they don't even know that hydrocarbon (jet fuel and office material) fires can't melt steel!!

The Chris Wise quote does rather show the risks of giving a quote before the facts are known, but a quote to the media hardly carries the same technical weight as a peer-reviewed paper.

Excuse me - "before the facts are known"? His comment has absolutely nothing to do with him not knowing "the facts" of the collapses.

It's been a well-known fact that hydrocarbon fires cannot melt structural steel for (at least) several decades now! The melting point of steel is a well-established fact. The maximum temperature for hydrocarbon fires is a well-established fact.

If he had simply known these two well-established facts, he would not have suggested that the fires melted the steel.

How can you claim that structural engineers are the most qualified group to assess these collapses? Even if the ones who don't (or didn't) know these facts are in the minority (which is debatable), it cannot excuse this fundamental lack of knowledge.

Indeed, there are no truly qualified "experts" on the WTC collapses, because there had never been a fire-induced collapse of a steel-framed highrise before.

But whatever group(s) are deemed to be the "most" qualified, they should at leasy know that the fires couldn't have melted the steel. It's a rather important fact to begin with.

[turbonium]

I find it very hard to believe that someone who compares engineering computational methods to film CGI knows the first thing about the subject.

I didn't compare them. I said GIGO - which certainly applies to computer simulations done within the engineering field. You're the one who brought up a comparison to film CGI, not me.

If you mean the towers, try fire and aircraft impact damage, for a start.

That said, the claim that steel-frame buildings can't collapse in a fire is demonstrably false. Warehouse fires can result in a collapse in much less time than an hour.

I mean all three buildings - including WTC 7, which had no aircraft impact damage. You must be scared every time you go near a steel-framed highrise building, since you believe they can collapse with an hour from common office fires.

Why are you comparing the WTC steel-framed highrise collapses to warehouse collapses? Because you can't make a valid comparison - to other steel-framed highrise collapses.

[turbonium]

And this was my response when you later asked me if I'd read or ignored your analogy:

Nope, didn't ignore it... I read it... considered it, then disregarded it as more of you usual hand-waving diversionary tripe.

That was simply your attempt to weasel out of addressing my analogy. You claimed it was "tripe", as an excuse to ignore it. That's why I've asked you specific questions about it, which you refuse to answer, because you know it will prove my case.

I don't have to admit to anything. You made a claim regarding a certain timeline of events, I refuted it by showing that the chain of events you claimed to have happened in fact did not happen in the way you suggest or in some cases, at all. I even quoted the relevant posts regarding that issue and compared them to how you said things transpired. All I did was point out that you had falsely represented the way things transpired regarding the accusations of your "joke". If you go back and read what I posted, you will notice that I never said anything specifically about your "joke" at all.

I have read what you've posted, and it all comes down to you directly accusing me here...

"... IS THAT YOU LIED and you ADMITTED TO IT"

If you think you're going to get away with this crap, think again.

I'll ask you one more time...

Was the guest "lying"?

Did he "admit to lying"?

Either you answer my questions, or else I have no choice but to conclude that YOU are a LIAR.

Make a decision - own up to the truth of my case, or prove you're a lying weasel.

[turbonium]

If you put Rodiguez' actual quotes in place of Roberts' paraphrase, the rest of his paragraph is unaffected, it still adds up to "Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement". Given also that the link leads to the actual quotes, you are just quibbling.

Nonsense. It is not his actual quote. Roberts does not admit to that fact. Roberts is falsely attributing that quote to Rodriguez. And you are actually defending him for doing this?!! That makes you look just as pathetic as Roberts.

He says he doesn't talk about bombs, but then he does, where's the misinterpretation?

Are you serious? I've already explained your mistake. He's not talking about bombs in terms of being an explosives expert! Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

Czero? It was me who asked for a source for your made-up quote and Waspie Dwarf who used the "lying" word. I hardly see the relevance of your chat-show story, this is a discussion forum, not an entertainment medium,

Rubbish. They are both discussion forums - and both entertainment mediums, for that matter. The analogy is perfectly valid - the joke was misunderstood in both cases, the person telling the joke had to explain that it was a joke after it was misconstrued in both cases, and the person telling the joke was not lying in both cases.

You have no excuse for avoiding my questions.

it wasn't obvious to the readers of your post that you were joking (most people expect a joke to be in some way actually funny), and you didn't admit to making up the quote until after you'd first repeated it and then been asked for the source.

Unbelievable.

I had to EXPLAIN that it was a joke, because it was being misunderstood. I didn't have to "admit" to it - I had to EXPLAIN it.

Even a child can understand the difference between the two terms, so why can't you?

[turbonium]

There are at least three peer-reviewed technical papers dealing with the collapses of the towers subsequent to the initial failure, as I mentioned in my reply to q24. As one of these in particular, by Bazant and Zhou, was referenced in the NIST report and was well-known before NIST began their collapse initiation modelling, their "global collapse ensued" isn't just an off-the cuff opinion.

No. I wanted to know if there were any computer simulations of the collapses - not papers.

An engineer that can't make a simple distinction between a computer simulation and a technical paper...

Edited April 27, 2008 by turbonium

[merril]

I would never listen to Steven Jones. I read one of his papers- give me a break! He jumps to conclusions...

For anyone who wants a quick summary of what makes more sense-

Launch Audio Slide Show

or

Short Video Clip

[flyingswan]

So, by your own reckoning, you are incapable of evaluating the NIST ‘investigation’?

It may take structural or fire engineers to put together detail of the ‘investigation’ but it by no means requires an expert to understand the preconceptions, political restrictions, lack of evidence, fixing and stretching of figures that went into it, altogether still failing to prove the impacts could even initiate the collapses on 9/11.

The 300+ members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are capable of making all the above observations, as can any inquisitive person who looks into it, and more.

You have presented all sorts of reasons for ignoring all the engineers who support the "official" story, yet you blindly accept the AE911T list. I'm only asking you to use a consistent criterion, otherwise your bias is showing.

Yes, the first two are fine examples that you are not allowed to publicly voice personal opinions as an employee of these organisations. A couple of quotes from NIST’s former Chief of Fire Science, James Quintiere: -

• “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 think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable”

Now just two questions: -

1. Would Quintiere have publicly stated the above if still an employee of NIST?
2. How long would Quintiere remain in his current position at the University of Maryland if he suggested anything other than the impacts caused the collapses?

Which five AE911 names were picked and how did you attempt to validate their existence? I looked at the checks badeskov carried out but those three names are not listed either with Architects and Engineers, Scholars or Patriots for 9/11 Truth.

You are confusing the offence of someone expressing an opinion and of them passing off that opinion as having the authority of their employer. The latter is not generally taken lightly.

If you want to quote Quintiere, add this one in:

"Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST's conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives."

He certainly expresses disagreement with NIST, but unlike any conspiracist, he has got NIST to look into the points he raises. This certainly does not suggest that NIST would have fired him.

Sorry, it was another list that badeskov checked. However, I have now done a bit more work on the AE911T list myself, and have been able to find no information on any of the UK members other than their AE911T membership. Tell me again, how do AE911T actually check?

It is only your opinion that the device would need to be scaled up in direct proportion to the column… not surprising as you are not exactly one for having a ‘can do’ attitude. You did not show in the other thread that increasing the dimensions of the device does not increase its effectiveness disproportionately.

The WTC2 thermite flow is not at all easy (impossible even?) to quantify so how it can be shown to be more than a couple of hundred kg I don’t know. In this clip where they burn through a car engine I would say, judging by the flowerpot size, there is approximately 17kg of thermite – well I’m allowing for approximately 12 times the amount seen in the video. How can you say with any certainty there is more than this in the WTC2 flow?

I gave good reasons for how the device scaled in the long thread. Do you have any reason to think I'm wrong other than wanting me to be? Do the inventors of the device claim otherwise?

Try looking at the video again - the cascade has dozens of "lumps" of falling material which each seem similar in size to your charge.

The photographs show damage to the WTC2 floors in the area of impact. I am asking for evidence that the floor trusses were sagging due to fire, in particular in the case of WTC1. There isn’t any evidence, is there? This sagging floor theory is all just a charade to cover that the WTC1 bowing was in the wrong place to be explained by the impacts, ie the WTC2 bowing was toward the damage area (all well and good) whilst the WTC1 bowing was away from the damage area (not so good).

The area of impact is also the area of the fires. You'd need a series of photos to show when the floors sagged, which I don't have. The WTC1 bowing being on the side opposite to the impact isn't that unexpected, that's the direction the aircraft debris and fuel was going in, that the direction where the fires were.

I have given an example in the Windsor building of where severe and widespread distortion of the structural steel is clearly visible prior to even a partial collapse. Are there any examples you can provide where a building in its entirety collapses virtually symmetrically after a column or limited columns exhibit bowing?

I've certainly seen examples in an engineering lab of the way that a steel column fails.

In which case, the impacts were not correctly modelled: -

The actual WTC1 ‘upper block’ is approximately a cube whilst the simulation shows the impact a considerable distance lower down, don’t you agree?

B&Z did not produce a simulation, just figures making assumptions in favour of collapse and leaving out energy requirements. There was a New Civil Engineer article entitled “WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation” and NIST themselves have stated they are “unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”. Certainly Purdue’s pancake collapse visualisation was a farce. As discussed above, the Chinese ‘simulation’ is a joke.

So come on, you said you know what a ‘natural’ collapse should look like due to the simulations - where are these simulations that you have seen and no one else has?

I love the way your goalposts move, first you just want a simulation, I give you one and now you want one that isn't a "joke", despite it being given at an international engineering conference. Perhaps if it had been in a US journal, you'd be claiming it wasn't "independent".

New? …...

I have noticed, often you resurrect ‘problems’ of the controlled demolition or points for the ‘official’ story that have been debunked before and many times I have wondered if you have retained any information from previous discussions. This demonstrates that you do not in fact retain the information. There are all sorts of reasons for memory loss, including dementia, head injury and aging but there is help available for it you know.

Why should I take any notice of someone who displays the tell-tale signs of dementia?

Sorry, the conspiracy story changes so much that it is difficult to keep track of it. You mean you were being even more misleading than I thought when you applauded turbonium's ideas?

You said earlier, “It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too.” Whilst you argue with yourself about whether there was a prediction or not, I will state with certainty that NIST added pull-in forces specifically to the south wall in an attempt to match with the observed photographic evidence.

No, they apply pull-in forces specifically to the south wall and nowhere else and then remove truss connections where they find appropriate to imitate the bowing.

I can’t see where NIST say a lesser force would produce the observed or “enough” bowing – can you quote it? If the actual degree of bowing is possible to model then why don’t they do so?

You are still confusing the external wall calibration model with the global model used to predict the collapse initiation.

Here's the NIST quote, right from the paragraph you were quoting to me:

"The magnitude of the pull-in forces was expected to be less than 6 kip with the addition of gravity loads from the core system as it also weakened..."

I have never said that load redistribution must be uniform, I contend that the WTC structures were not as elastic as you imply, I still do not agree that “all the impact forces go into the columns” is conservative and I don’t believe low level fire could collapse the penthouse structure down ‘through’ WTC7.

Anyone who wants to check these points is welcome to read the long thread.

As to WTC7, read my claim again, don't just reply to a different one.

Column 79 was surrounded by horizontal beams on all sides from the ground to the roof so it would be more likely to fail in compression if due to heating, and as we know this can actually increase the steel strength. Even if the column fails there are still connections with the beams so the penthouse structure could not simply ‘fall through’ the building.

What is the redistributed load you mention after the failure of column 79? As this whole section of the structure had allegedly been removed or collapsed before the rest in your theory, it would have relieved the remaining structure of the penthouse load.

If all this ‘hollowing out’ of the structure occurred on the east side, I still want to know why all the columns on the west simultaneously and virtually symmetrically failed at near freefall.

WTC5 took a massive hit from WTC1 debris and did not collapse.

Eh? You asked for loads putting a column out of vertical, I mentioned thermal stresses in the beams, you are still claiming it must be vertical?

After column 79 fails, its load must be redistributed. Are you seriously claiming that the penthouse was the only load it had?

A failure of one column can overload the column next to it, causing it to fail in turn. This is how a collapse can progess horizontally.

WTC5 suffered an interior collapse.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. The available energy is never “more actually than Ross guesses for the concrete pulverisation and steel strains”. Here are Ross’ figures: -

Energy Summary:

The energy balance can be summarised as

Energy available;

Kinetic energy 2105MJ

Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ

Compression of impacting section 32MJ

Compression of impacted section 24MJ

Total Energy available 2256MJ

Energy required;

Momentum losses 1389MJ

Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ

Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ

Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ

Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ

Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ

Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ

Total Energy required 2646MJ

Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

Where does he double count anything?

He counts the momentum loss energy, then he counts separately all the ways of absorbing this energy. In fact, the momentum loss energy is the energy that is available for causing damage to the steel and concrete, and is more than enough on his figures. He counts it twice.

The explosive charges are detonated prior to the main collapse to weaken the structure (heard in numerous videos), the thermite charges are used to initiate the collapse. Turbonium has already pointed out that your perceived misgivings of what is easy or not to conceal is neither here nor there; the important factor is the possibility of the setup.

Either way, he has small charges, you have both big and small ones. Your theories are mutually inconsistent. You have nothing beyond your own desire that large charges could be concealed to back up this opinion.

[Czero 101]

That's why I've asked you specific questions about it, which you refuse to answer, because you know it will prove my case.

So is this the reason why you have steadfastly refused to answer the questions and requests for evidence and proof of your allegations? Because you know that any answer you give will only further show that your opinions have no basis in reality?

I have read what you've posted, and it all comes down to you directly accusing me here...

"... IS THAT YOU LIED and you ADMITTED TO IT"

Ah, yes, but in your cherry-picked quote, you left out the important quote from your own message where you admit to lying:

And you did effectively admit to lying. Maybe you chose more neutral sounding words, but the net result of this:

Sure, I have a source for it - ME!

I made it up in jest.

... IS THAT YOU LIED and you ADMITTED TO IT.

If you think you're going to get away with this crap, think again.

Who's the more weaselish: the one person who defers answering a question until other ignored questions are answered, or the one who has ignored almost all questions asked of him for (in some cases) over a year and then demands that his questions be answered immediately in a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the fact that he himself has no answers to give to the questions asked of him?

I'll ask you one more time...

Was the guest "lying"?

Did he "admit to lying"?

As has been pointed out to you before, your talk show guest analogy is flawed and does not adequately match the situation under discussion. Whether the guest admits to lying or not is inconsequential to your situation, and you made it so when you yourself admitted that you made it up in jest.

Either you answer my questions, or else I have no choice but to conclude that YOU are a LIAR.

Using your own logic here, and the fact that you yourself have not yet answered the questions put to you that ask for specific details and evidence of your claims, you have basically just admitted to me and everyone else that you yourself are a liar.

And its interesting, though hardly surprising, that you completely ignored this part of my post:

why don't you answer the other questions - some which have been waiting since you were year last year sometime - then after you do that, you can come back and ask me to answer yours again...

... or is there some reason you are DELIBERATELY avoiding answering the other people's questions? Reasons like you HAVE NO answers because you have NOTHING to back up your opinions with? Maybe that's why you're trying to distract the attention away from the fact that you haven't answered anyone's questions, yet have the gall to demand answers from me...

To date you have still not answered any of the question posed to you on that other site, and I stand behind my position that you demanding that I naswer your questions, while you have ignored the other questions asked of you, is pure hypocrisy.

By the way, in case you missed it, there are still a lot of question on that other board awaiting your specific answers.

You claim you have the truth on your side. Then fine... prove it. Answer the other questions that have been put to you.

This will be my last post / response to you on this topic here in this forum, as this thread has been de-railed enough. You obviously have the time needed to address these issues here, so I see no reason why you cannot answer the questions asked of you on the other forum, other than you have no answers and are just trying to deflect attention away from that. To paraphrase you from your post above to Frenat, "You have no excuse for avoiding the questions asked of you". Time for you to put up or shut up, Turbs. Answer the questions that have been waiting for a year or longer in some cases. Further handwaving or diversionary tactics on your part will only show you to be the one with the agenda. Answer the questions posed of you or admit that you have no proof to back up your claims and retract them.

Cz

[Q24]

I'll ask you one more time...

Was the guest "lying"?

Did he "admit to lying"?

For what it's worth, I think the analogy compares well to the situation discussed and the answers would have to be "no" and "no".

Time for you to put up or shut up, Turbs. Answer the questions that have been waiting for a year or longer in some cases. Further handwaving or diversionary tactics on your part will only show you to be the one with the agenda. Answer the questions posed of you or admit that you have no proof to back up your claims and retract them.

I'm thinking this all pertains to the Moon landings topic?

[flyingswan]

Steven Jones has evidence for a CD which involves the use of thermate (thermite). I'm sure you already know about this, don't you?

The real problem is that it's not evidence for a damage/fire-induced collapse theory. You know - like NIST's 'official' theory?

If you are really an engineer, then why aren't you (and NIST, for that matter) following proper scientific method?

A hypothesis (such as NIST's) which cannot account for all the evidence must be dismissed as invalid (in whole or in part). An alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses) - which can (possibly) account for all the evidence - should then be presented, and further investigated, to test the validity of that hypothesis.

The molten metal can't be explained by the NIST theory, so give me a valid reason(s) for why you still support it?

Steven Jones has sulphur, which he claims comes from thermate though it is a common component of buildings, but no barium, which is also a component of thermate.

There is no evidence that cannot be explained by fire and damage, but can be explained by explosives or thermate. The fire/damage hypothesis has no problems with the evidence at all. Any molten metal in the debris piles is explainable as a result of long-duration fires. Thermate has no explanation for it. On the basis of your posts to date, you wouldn't know scientific method from making up quotes in jest.

Not if they don't even know that hydrocarbon (jet fuel and office material) fires can't melt steel!!

Excuse me - "before the facts are known"? His comment has absolutely nothing to do with him not knowing "the facts" of the collapses.

It's been a well-known fact that hydrocarbon fires cannot melt structural steel for (at least) several decades now! The melting point of steel is a well-established fact. The maximum temperature for hydrocarbon fires is a well-established fact.

If he had simply known these two well-established facts, he would not have suggested that the fires melted the steel.

How can you claim that structural engineers are the most qualified group to assess these collapses? Even if the ones who don't (or didn't) know these facts are in the minority (which is debatable), it cannot excuse this fundamental lack of knowledge.

Indeed, there are no truly qualified "experts" on the WTC collapses, because there had never been a fire-induced collapse of a steel-framed highrise before.

But whatever group(s) are deemed to be the "most" qualified, they should at leasy know that the fires couldn't have melted the steel. It's a rather important fact to begin with.

Just because you can find one engineer who didn't put much thought into a quote for the press, is hardly proof that structural engineers are not the most qualified group to investigate the collapses. After all, you have admitted making up a quote, does that mean that all conspiracists can be accused of dishonesty?

[flyingswan]

I didn't compare them. I said GIGO - which certainly applies to computer simulations done within the engineering field. You're the one who brought up a comparison to film CGI, not me.

You're making up things again, I'm afraid. Your post #423 made that comparison, I hadn't mention film CGI until I responded to that.

I mean all three buildings - including WTC 7, which had no aircraft impact damage. You must be scared every time you go near a steel-framed highrise building, since you believe they can collapse with an hour from common office fires.

There you go again, WTC7 was severely damaged by debris from the towers, and the fires there burned uncontrolled for several hours.

Why are you comparing the WTC steel-framed highrise collapses to warehouse collapses? Because you can't make a valid comparison - to other steel-framed highrise collapses.

You were the one who said no steel framed building ever collapsed due to fire, now you are shifting the goalposts and it has to be a high-rise one.

[flyingswan]

Nonsense. It is not his actual quote. Roberts does not admit to that fact. Roberts is falsely attributing that quote to Rodriguez. And you are actually defending him for doing this?!! That makes you look just as pathetic as Roberts.

Read what I said, look how it reads with the actual quotes:

"From day one, I have told the same story, never straying from the truth." But, "It is a well known fact that I was believeing the goverment official story early on. As I asked questions and put things together, the whole thing changed from their side and also from mine." Then, "I always talk about explosion, not bombs- since I am not an explosives expert."

Two incompatible statements followed by a false statement. Rodriguez does say that there were bombs in the WTC towers, and several aspects of his story have changed drastically. His account of what he heard in the basements has changed. Perhaps the greatest change is that Rodriguez used to blame al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. Now he blames George Bush for sponsoring the terrorist attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq. His distrust of the government began more than a year after the attacks when he learned that the 9/11 Commission wouldn't include any family members of victims...or did that distrust begin within days, or weeks?

Putting the actual quotes in instead of Roberts' paraphrases leaves Roberts conclusions intact.

Are you serious? I've already explained your mistake. He's not talking about bombs in terms of being an explosives expert! Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?

He says he doesn't mention bombs (in terms of being an explosives expert, if you want), but he then does just that. Look at this exchange:

Radio Host: "Do you believe there was a bomb in both buildings?"

WR: "Definitely. …I think that was explosives that was set up on the basement as an accelerator to actually bring the towers down.”

Not only is he claiming that there was a bomb, he is setting himself up as an explosive expert by giving a reason for the bomb.

Rubbish. They are both discussion forums - and both entertainment mediums, for that matter. The analogy is perfectly valid - the joke was misunderstood in both cases, the person telling the joke had to explain that it was a joke after it was misconstrued in both cases, and the person telling the joke was not lying in both cases.

You have no excuse for avoiding my questions.

Unbelievable.

I had to EXPLAIN that it was a joke, because it was being misunderstood. I didn't have to "admit" to it - I had to EXPLAIN it.

Even a child can understand the difference between the two terms, so why can't you?

I agree with czero101 on this, you are just trying to weasle your way out of it. Joke or not, you admitted making up a quote.

[flyingswan]

No. I wanted to know if there were any computer simulations of the collapses - not papers.

An engineer that can't make a simple distinction between a computer simulation and a technical paper...

I've already given an example, so if I can link again without you accusing me of doing so 84 times, it's here:

http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.pdf

I know q24 thinks it's a joke, but then he thought "real structures aren't rigid" was a joke. He appears to think any technical matter he doesn't understand is a joke unless, of course, it appears in J911S.

[sickpuppy]

32 pages now..?

what's left to beat out? if you watch lots of the footage and research the situation even a little.. nothing makes sense.. swallowing the 'offical' story is harder than poking butter up a porcupines butt with a hot knitting needle..

you are expected to believe a terrorist passport miraculously survives and gently floats to earth, at the same time as you are expected to believe the resultant damage was so severe that it brings down both towers..

you can't have it both ways..

look.. for certain there is a possiblity that a passport can survive such an event, nobody can rule that out.. but then another stretch of reality is piled on yet another stretch of reality untill you have such a fancifull event, you may as well be asking me to believe the staypuft marshmallow man is responsible..

[Q24]

You have presented all sorts of reasons for ignoring all the engineers who support the "official" story, yet you blindly accept the AE911T list. I'm only asking you to use a consistent criterion, otherwise your bias is showing.

Far from “ignoring” the official reports and few independent engineers who support the ‘official’ story, I think it is quite apparent I have taken a great deal of time and effort to view their theories. Neither do I disregard out of hand what I have seen.

The problems come where the preconceived conclusion is driven toward to the detriment of all indicating otherwise, the exaggerated figures oppose that which are expected or apparent, the vague explanation covers for the lack of evidence or precedent and altogether still no comprehensive verification of the ‘official’ story is found. These are issues of the ‘official’ story I have demonstrated with specific examples time and time again.

I do not in any way “blindly accept” the findings of groups such as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth; it’s not in my nature to believe without reason. My views are due first and foremost to independent research.

You are confusing the offence of someone expressing an opinion and of them passing off that opinion as having the authority of their employer. The latter is not generally taken lightly.

Exactly, employees are not permitted to express their opinion in an official capacity. How is that not political control or restriction of speech? So what was Kevin Ryan supposed to do – remove all reference to his working for a division of Underwriter Laboratories? Was Steven Jones supposed to pretend he wasn’t a physics professor? Then how would we know any professionals are speaking out?

Sorry, it was another list that badeskov checked. However, I have now done a bit more work on the AE911T list myself, and have been able to find no information on any of the UK members other than their AE911T membership. Tell me again, how do AE911T actually check?

You would have to ask Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and member of the American Institute of Architects, how credentials of petition signers are verified. You cannot assume that because someone is not listed on the internet they do not exist.

I gave good reasons for how the device scaled in the long thread. Do you have any reason to think I'm wrong other than wanting me to be? Do the inventors of the device claim otherwise?

I really have no idea what you are talking about – “good reasons”? A device twice the dimensions could contain eight times the volume of thermite – the effectiveness does increase disproportionately to the scaling up. As thermite can cut steel, as we have seen video of a linear thermite charge and as a patent for a thermite demolition unit does exist, your personal misgivings are a complete non-issue anyhow.

Try looking at the video again - the cascade has dozens of "lumps" of falling material which each seem similar in size to your charge.

I see nothing to suggest that more than a couple of hundred kg of thermite is visible from WTC2. You need to do better than “lumps” and “seem” to prove otherwise.

I've certainly seen examples in an engineering lab of the way that a steel column fails.

That’s nice. I have given an example in the Windsor building of where severe and widespread distortion of the structural steel is clearly visible prior to even a partial collapse. Are there any examples you can provide where a building in its entirety collapses virtually symmetrically after a column or limited columns exhibit bowing?

I love the way your goalposts move, first you just want a simulation, I give you one and now you want one that isn't a "joke", despite it being given at an international engineering conference. Perhaps if it had been in a US journal, you'd be claiming it wasn't "independent".

Was requesting a simulation that isn’t a joke too much to ask? Anyhow, can I have an answer to this, reference the Chinese WTC1 ‘simulation’: The actual WTC1 ‘upper block’ is approximately a cube whilst the simulation shows the impact a considerable distance lower down, don’t you agree?

Sorry, the conspiracy story changes so much that it is difficult to keep track of it. You mean you were being even more misleading than I thought when you applauded turbonium's ideas?

I see turbonium’s idea as a possible alternative explanation to my own.

Eh? You asked for loads putting a column out of vertical, I mentioned thermal stresses in the beams, you are still claiming it must be vertical?

After column 79 fails, its load must be redistributed. Are you seriously claiming that the penthouse was the only load it had?

A failure of one column can overload the column next to it, causing it to fail in turn. This is how a collapse can progess horizontally.

WTC5 suffered an interior collapse.

Read my post again – I said “more likely” to fail in compression. What load was column 79 carrying other than that of the penthouse and adjacent structure which had allegedly all been removed? The horizontal progression you mention… that would be the well-known instantaneous and symmetrical, near freefall, demolition imitating ‘domino’ collapse that has never occurred before or since 9/11?

WTC5 was directly impacted by heavy debris from WTC1 causing fire and what appears to be severe structural damage and yet the building did not collapse.

He counts the momentum loss energy, then he counts separately all the ways of absorbing this energy. In fact, the momentum loss energy is the energy that is available for causing damage to the steel and concrete, and is more than enough on his figures. He counts it twice.

The momentum loss figure is due to the rate of fall reducing after the first floor impact, ie the 2,105MJ kinetic energy available assumes a fall of 8.5m/sec when at impact it actually reduces to 4.8m/sec. Ross specifically points out - “It should be understood that the energy losses referred to as momentum losses cannot be re-employed as strain energy or in the energy required to pulverise the floors, thereby reducing the total energy demand. These energy transfers would exist irrespective of the state of repair of the floors after collision and would exhibit as heat in the impacted materials.”

[Cebrakon]

Steven Jones has evidence for a CD which involves the use of thermate (thermite). I'm sure you already know about this, don't you?

The real problem is that it's not evidence for a damage/fire-induced collapse theory. You know - like NIST's 'official' theory?

If you are really an engineer, then why aren't you (and NIST, for that matter) following proper scientific method?

A hypothesis (such as NIST's) which cannot account for all the evidence must be dismissed as invalid (in whole or in part). An alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses) - which can (possibly) account for all the evidence - should then be presented, and further investigated, to test the validity of that hypothesis.

The molten metal can't be explained by the NIST theory, so give me a valid reason(s) for why you still support it?

Not if they don't even know that hydrocarbon (jet fuel and office material) fires can't melt steel!!

Excuse me - "before the facts are known"? His comment has absolutely nothing to do with him not knowing "the facts" of the collapses.

It's been a well-known fact that hydrocarbon fires cannot melt structural steel for (at least) several decades now! The melting point of steel is a well-established fact. The maximum temperature for hydrocarbon fires is a well-established fact.

If he had simply known these two well-established facts, he would not have suggested that the fires melted the steel.

How can you claim that structural engineers are the most qualified group to assess these collapses? Even if the ones who don't (or didn't) know these facts are in the minority (which is debatable), it cannot excuse this fundamental lack of knowledge.

Indeed, there are no truly qualified "experts" on the WTC collapses, because there had never been a fire-induced collapse of a steel-framed highrise before.

But whatever group(s) are deemed to be the "most" qualified, they should at leasy know that the fires couldn't have melted the steel. It's a rather important fact to begin with.

People prefer mysteries to solutions, crackpots to experts. Turbonium, put your ideas into a book, and it could become an international bestseller like those nonsense books about the Blood of Christ and the girl birthed by Mary Magdalene (father, Jesu bar Josuf).

~~~Cebrakon

Edited April 28, 2008 by Cebrakon

[merril]

If the FBI, CIA, President and Vice-President, all the rest of the U.S. governmental multitude accused of 9-11, had the scoop and the evidence on the hijackers, why not just gather the evidence and records- eventually stop them at the airports "in the act"- and then declare pre-emptive strikes, abroad?

Sounds a lot EASIER! No need for the list of endless near-impossibilities cranked out by CTers!

Of course, CTers and that crew have no answer for that...

If we knew for sure, we could still invade Afghanistan! EVEN without the horrors of 9-11 (and subsequent mish-mash of non-contributory confabulators)!