Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Whatever you may find as shortcomings in the "official" theory, it does appear to cover all the evidence. It may not cover it as well as you would like, but then this sort of work is expensive and someone has to pay for it. Let's face it, however well it was done, you would still find fault. There are no "smoking guns" that I can see.

The CD theory, on the other hand, has yet to come up with a consistent story. None of your hundreds of experts can put together a paper fitting in all the evidence, instead you have little partial theories, each explaining some small aspect but being inconsistent with other aspects. These shortcomings are far more serious than any of the points you raise about the "official" theory, but you happily believe in CD nonetheless.

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?

Of course employees are not supposed to express their opinions in an official capacity. Whatever makes you think this is unreasonable or suppressive? If you want to express your own opinion, you can mention your employment position, but in that case you must also make clear that the opinion is not that of your employer.

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've just e-mailed the Institute of Civil Engineers. They say that AE911T have never asked them to verify details of any of their members. Two of the AE911T UK names claim ICE membership. AE911T have clearly not verified this.

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.

And a column with twice the dimensions with a device of twice the dimensions also has eight times the volume of material to cut.

Anyone can take out a patent, the days when you had to show a working device to get a patent are gone.

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.

Seeing that you have produced this estimate, how about you backing it up instead of criticising my effort? The more I look at it, the more I think my original "hundreds of kg" was on the low side, "tonnes" is nearer the mark.

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?

As I don't happen to have an extensive video library of building collapses (do you? does one exist?), the answer is no. However, as I was describing a general property of structural steel which I have personally observed, I don't see why I need to produce such evidence. Have you any evidence of any CD which involves visible bowing of the structure, the set-up surviving damage and fire, silent charges, or the prepping taking place while the building was still occupied?

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?

Without seeing the full paper, I don't see how anyone can comment meaningfully on this point.

Do you think they are also wrong on WTC2? If not, what is your argument going to prove?

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

An example of the lack of mutually consistent CD theories.

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?

Column 79 was carrying loads from every point where a beam was attached to it, which means part of the weight of every floor level. With column 79 failed, these loads must be redistributed to the rest of the columns. If the redistribution results in another column failing, as modelled by Gilsanz, then a "domino" collapse is indeed the result.

Fortunately, buildings do not collapse that often, and when they do there is rarely someone there with a video camera, so the only visual evidence you get is a pile of debris. However, a progressive collapse is a recognised possibility in structural engineering, and a couple of examples are mentioned in this link:

http://www.modernsteel.com/Uploads/Issues/.../30727_nair.pdf

PS, the author is another engineer to add to the list on my side.

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.

WTC5 suffered an internal collapse very similar to that which you find so implausible for WTC7. What makes you think that because one building collapses in one way, all buildings collapses must be in that way?

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.”

I am perfectly well aware of the source of the momentum loss energy - momentum is conserved in a collision, kinetic energy is not. Total energy is also conserved, so the lower post-collision kinetic energy means that there is a lot of energy available - the momentum loss energy - that has to go somewhere, it can't just vanish. Ross just tries to flim-flam his way through this, but there is no reason for the available energy to go into heat but not damage - it will do both. Bend a steel bar and it will get hot.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • turbonium

    180

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Whatever you may find as shortcomings in the "official" theory, it does appear to cover all the evidence. It may not cover it as well as you would like, but then this sort of work is expensive and someone has to pay for it.

The ‘official’ theory carries on regardless where evidence is lacking for a ‘natural’ collapse, eg despite 157 of 160 perimeter columns tested showing no temperature greater than 250oC and the two core columns tested having a peak temperature of 200oC, the NIST fire models were still extensively decorated with 1,000oC temperatures. As well as this, the ‘official’ theory ignores evidence for controlled demolition, eg molten metal in the debris pile and high temperature steel corrosion. So no, the ‘official’ theory plainly does not appear to take account of all the evidence, either for or against.

None of your hundreds of experts can put together a paper fitting in all the evidence, instead you have little partial theories, each explaining some small aspect but being inconsistent with other aspects.

Can you give an example where one piece of evidence supporting controlled demolition is contradicted by another? And the false flag theory explains everything so what do you mean by “little partial theories”?

Of course employees are not supposed to express their opinions in an official capacity. Whatever makes you think this is unreasonable or suppressive? If you want to express your own opinion, you can mention your employment position, but in that case you must also make clear that the opinion is not that of your employer.

It seems that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Jones can give their opinion but Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories and BYU physics professor Steven Jones cannot. They did not say “this is the opinion of my employer”, they gave personal views as employees. This is restrictive because the very reason their views carry extra weight is because of the professional positions they are in.

Here’s a thought – if the organisation’s view is not necessarily represented by that of their employees – how can we be sure that NIST’s technical staff all agree with the ‘official’ theory?

I've just e-mailed the Institute of Civil Engineers. They say that AE911T have never asked them to verify details of any of their members. Two of the AE911T UK names claim ICE membership. AE911T have clearly not verified this.

Wow, that was a fast response you got. I have e-mailed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to ask how they verify petition signers - I will let you know the response. In the meantime, did you by any chance have the thought to ask the ICE for verification of the two members you were checking? Oh and even if you had asked, bearing in mind the Data Protection Act, do you think they would have confirmed the members’ details for you? I don’t think they would, and AE911T would have the same difficulty in verifying membership this way.

Basically this comes down to you in your desperation wanting Richard Gage to be an outright liar and fraud, with no basis for the accusation whatsoever.

And a column with twice the dimensions with a device of twice the dimensions also has eight times the volume of material to cut.

Anyone can take out a patent, the days when you had to show a working device to get a patent are gone.

Only the width and depth of the column is relevant; the height dimension makes no difference to the cut required. Therefore a thermite charge of twice the dimensions seen in the video, acting on a steel rod twice the dimensions of that in the video, would be twice as effective.

That is being conservative on my part – judging by the ease the demonstrated device cuts the rod, it appears to be capable of more and there is nothing to say otherwise that for a scaled up version, in addition to containing more thermite, the ejection system could be more powerful.

Seeing that you have produced this estimate, how about you backing it up instead of criticising my effort? The more I look at it, the more I think my original "hundreds of kg" was on the low side, "tonnes" is nearer the mark.

That’s because you see what you want to see. Ok, I will explain my estimation – at least that will show I have genuine reason for my view, unlike some. I’m using the thermite/car video here and the following figures: -

54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.

160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

Now some stills from the video. I’m estimating that the flowerpot used…

linked-image

… is approximately 4 litres or 16.8kg. Next, this is the thermite at full flow which lasts for approximately 5 seconds…

linked-image

… allowing us to reasonably estimate that there is 5 times as much thermite released altogether over the flow duration than is seen in this still. There is approximately 1m between the Tower perimeter columns and the Peugeot 205 featured is 1.56m across. Approximately scaling the car thermite flow x5 against WTC2 shows this…

linked-image

Ok, so my photo editing skills need a lot of work but seriously, it serves to give a good idea. Now considering that this is only 16.8kg of thermite, a 200kg charge could give nearly x12 the amount. There were certainly not 12 flows in the WTC2 thermite flow of the equivalent volume to that seen above, so there is no reason to believe the charges would be greater than 200kg!

Taking into account my estimate, what reason is there to believe there must be more?

As I don't happen to have an extensive video library of building collapses (do you? does one exist?), the answer is no. However, as I was describing a general property of structural steel which I have personally observed, I don't see why I need to produce such evidence. Have you any evidence of any CD which involves visible bowing of the structure, the set-up surviving damage and fire, silent charges, or the prepping taking place while the building was still occupied?

It doesn’t matter how big your video library is if something does not exist. There are no previous examples of high-rise steel framed structures entirely collapsing after limited columns exhibit bowing. The example you describe is for a single column, whereas obviously we are discussing the symmetrical collapse of an entire building. There is evidence in the Madrid building showing that severe distortion of a large area of steelwork will occur prior to even a partial collapse.

There is no precedent for a covert controlled demolition and that is hardly surprising. It is though of note, with all the past severe building fires there have been, that you cannot find precedent for a complete and virtually symmetrical building collapse.

Without seeing the full paper, I don't see how anyone can comment meaningfully on this point.

You said, due to the simulations, “that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like” and linked to the Chinese paper as an example. You don’t need to see the full paper as the visual simulations are clearly shown. Here is the real-world picture alongside the simulation for WTC1: -

linked-image

Does the simulated impact appear in the correct position or not?

Here, I have found you a real simulation. It shows the collapse lasting over 30s and still not reaching the ground. Also the simulation ignores Newton’s third law in allowing for the upper block to remain intact throughout the fall giving a massive but futile advantage to complete collapse.

Column 79 was carrying loads from every point where a beam was attached to it, which means part of the weight of every floor level. With column 79 failed, these loads must be redistributed to the rest of the columns. If the redistribution results in another column failing, as modelled by Gilsanz, then a "domino" collapse is indeed the result.

So when column 79 failed, the adjacent loads that it was supporting did not collapse with it? Column 79 somehow detached and extracted itself from the surrounding structure/beams, leaving those loads to be redistributed?

Your “domino” theory would not produce a symmetrical collapse. If the columns progressively fail from column 79, the west wall should not drop at exactly the same time as the east wall. There is no explanation for how the failure of column 79 should progress instantaneous failures through all of the other columns. There is no explanation why column 79 fails independently but the remaining structure must fail as one. There is no reason that all of the other columns should enter into a near freefall descent through the path of most resistance.

The above is all comprehensively explained by controlled demolition.

WTC5 suffered an internal collapse very similar to that which you find so implausible for WTC7. What makes you think that because one building collapses partially, all buildings must collapse partially?

How is damage from heavy debris directly impacting WTC5 in any way similar to low level fire allegedly causing an internal collapse in WTC7? The damage processes are very different with WTC5 being affected more severely than WTC7 and yet not collapsing.

Reply to your question: because controlled demolition is the only method that has ever caused a steel-framed building to all at once, virtually symmetrically, at near freefall, collapse in its entirety.

I am perfectly well aware of the source of the momentum loss energy - momentum is conserved in a collision, kinetic energy is not. Total energy is also conserved, so the lower post-collision kinetic energy means that there is a lot of energy available - the momentum loss energy - that has to go somewhere, it can't just vanish. Ross just tries to flim-flam his way through this, but there is no reason for the available energy to go into heat but not damage - it will do both. Bend a steel bar and it will get hot.

I would have thought the momentum loss figure applies at the point of impact and is more a re-evaluation of the available energy based on 4.8m/sec rather than an energy loss as such. Anyhow, all of the papers dealing with the collapse after initiation assume an instant and symmetrical freefall drop just to get going. This is impossible unless every column fails simultaneously. That is, no bending, no individual buckling, no ‘domino’ progression, but all at once - a phenomenon that is only achievable through controlled demolition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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."

How many people in this world hold to this idea? Why? Is it something having to do with the suspicious nature that gets exagerated in some people? Why does the majority not hold to these perceptions?

I have seen the videos. NEVER ONCE DID I HEAR AN EXPLOSION!!! NEVER ONCE!

People who repeat this LIE have something not quite right about them. I don't know what or why. But, maybe they are trying to write a book and make money... I just don't get it.

Q-

Can you refute Dr. Shyam Sunder? Please try, if you REALLY want to prove your points. Why is his general explanation incorrect? Details, please.

And, as for the illustration below- what is it from? How about the facts and figures? Back up your attempt to dismiss whatever this means to you with THE REST OF THE STORY- behind the image. It may be lame, or something other than what you say it represents, but the analysis is the meat of the story.

Again- Prove Dr. Shyam Sunder incorrect.

Thank you.

post-69024-1209426062_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen the videos. NEVER ONCE DID I HEAR AN EXPLOSION!!! NEVER ONCE!

People who repeat this LIE have something not quite right about them. I don't know what or why. But, maybe they are trying to write a book and make money... I just don't get it.

Watch this video footage of an

. Here is another video of a
where a firefighter says, “It's blowin' boy” and someone else says, “The building is about to blow up”... and another explosion here.

This video, Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11, gives many examples of explosions and FBI/FDNY references to “secondary devices”.

This paper, Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories, summarises firefighter and first hand witness accounts of explosions below the impact zones. A few excerpts: -

  • Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

    Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.

    Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.

  • After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator. After they pried themselves out of the elevator, another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, Oh. My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!??

  • She was on the 47th floor, she reported, when suddenly the whole building shook. . . . [shortly thereafter] the building shook again, this time even more violently." Then, while Veliz was making her way downstairs and outside: There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
How about this BBC correspondent, Steve Evans, who says, “Then, an hour later, we had that big explosion, from much much lower. I don't know what on earth caused that.

Q-

Can you refute Dr. Shyam Sunder? Please try, if you REALLY want to prove your points. Why is his general explanation incorrect? Details, please.

Can I refute Dr. Shyam Sunder, implying the NIST ‘investigation’… where would you like me to start? Preconceptions, lack of evidence, ignorance of evidence, questionable fire models, exaggeration of figures, incomplete study, inconclusive findings. Take your pick and I will explain.

And, as for the illustration below- what is it from? How about the facts and figures? Back up your attempt to dismiss whatever this means to you with THE REST OF THE STORY- behind the image. It may be lame, or something other than what you say it represents, but the analysis is the meat of the story.

The photograph is WTC1 and the computer simulated graphic is taken from a paper supposedly showing how the collapse progressed. I am just pointing out that the impact in the simulation is in the wrong location and therefore the paper cannot be seen as trustworthy.

Thank you.

No probs. :tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ‘official’ theory carries on regardless where evidence is lacking for a ‘natural’ collapse, eg despite 157 of 160 perimeter columns tested showing no temperature greater than 250oC and the two core columns tested having a peak temperature of 200oC, the NIST fire models were still extensively decorated with 1,000oC temperatures. As well as this, the ‘official’ theory ignores evidence for controlled demolition, eg molten metal in the debris pile and high temperature steel corrosion. So no, the ‘official’ theory plainly does not appear to take account of all the evidence, either for or against.

Several things wrong with this argument, first, steel temperature and air temperature are not the same, second, 1000 deg is not an unusual air temperature for an office fire, even without added kerosene, third, the NIST collapse theory does not require steel temperatures anywhere near 1000 deg.

So which of those samples comes from a place in the building where the simulation predicted higher air temperatures and damage to the insulation was likely to let the steel get near to the air temperature? Why is molten metal in a debris pile proof of CD? The only possible cause for such long-duration heat is a long-duration fire in the debris pile. This also explains high temperature corrosion. Where is the conflict with a "natural" collapse?

Can you give an example where one piece of evidence supporting controlled demolition is contradicted by another? And the false flag theory explains everything so what do you mean by “little partial theories”?

Do I have to repeat this? q24: Lack of acoustic and seismic signals immediately before the collapses rules out HE, so you propose thermite. Thermite column cutter charges would need to be big, so difficult to hide.

turbonium: charges could be hidden under the insulation. The insulation is not thick, so the charges must be small, ie HE.

The problems with the CD theory also include the sheer implausibility of prepping an occupied building, the difficulty of getting the set-up to work after impact damage and fire, the lack of explanation for the observed bowing, the absence of physical evidence for explosives - damage to steel, residue, smell.

It seems that Mr. Ryan and Mr. Jones can give their opinion but Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories and BYU physics professor Steven Jones cannot. They did not say “this is the opinion of my employer”, they gave personal views as employees. This is restrictive because the very reason their views carry extra weight is because of the professional positions they are in.

Here’s a thought – if the organisation’s view is not necessarily represented by that of their employees – how can we be sure that NIST’s technical staff all agree with the ‘official’ theory?

Read what I just said: if you mention your employer's name when expressing an opinion that is not your employer's, you must make it clear that it is not your employer's opinion or else you are committing a disciplinary offence. I would have thought that this was a pretty standard rule.

The NIST staff endorse the report because they put their names to the report.

Where on earth do you work that you have to question any of this stuff?

Wow, that was a fast response you got. I have e-mailed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth to ask how they verify petition signers - I will let you know the response. In the meantime, did you by any chance have the thought to ask the ICE for verification of the two members you were checking? Oh and even if you had asked, bearing in mind the Data Protection Act, do you think they would have confirmed the members’ details for you? I don’t think they would, and AE911T would have the same difficulty in verifying membership this way.

Yes, they said it wasn't their policy to release data on members. AE911T would have had the same difficulty if they had asked, but they hadn't asked.

Basically this comes down to you in your desperation wanting Richard Gage to be an outright liar and fraud, with no basis for the accusation whatsoever.

See the above evidence.

Only the width and depth of the column is relevant; the height dimension makes no difference to the cut required. Therefore a thermite charge of twice the dimensions seen in the video, acting on a steel rod twice the dimensions of that in the video, would be twice as effective.

If you don't scale up the cut height, you have only to remove four times the material, but if you don't scale up the cut height, you only scale the volume of the device by a factor of four. Same difference.

That is being conservative on my part – judging by the ease the demonstrated device cuts the rod, it appears to be capable of more and there is nothing to say otherwise that for a scaled up version, in addition to containing more thermite, the ejection system could be more powerful.

That’s because you see what you want to see. Ok, I will explain my estimation – at least that will show I have genuine reason for my view, unlike some. I’m using the thermite/car video here and the following figures: -

54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.

160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

Now some stills from the video. I’m estimating that the flowerpot used…

… is approximately 4 litres or 16.8kg. Next, this is the thermite at full flow which lasts for approximately 5 seconds…

… allowing us to reasonably estimate that there is 5 times as much thermite released altogether over the flow duration than is seen in this still. There is approximately 1m between the Tower perimeter columns and the Peugeot 205 featured is 1.56m across. Approximately scaling the car thermite flow x5 against WTC2 shows this…

Ok, so my photo editing skills need a lot of work but seriously, it serves to give a good idea. Now considering that this is only 16.8kg of thermite, a 200kg charge could give nearly x12 the amount. There were certainly not 12 flows in the WTC2 thermite flow of the equivalent volume to that seen above, so there is no reason to believe the charges would be greater than 200kg!

Taking into account my estimate, what reason is there to believe there must be more?

Come on, this is your theory, it's up to you to provide proof that your device would work.

Very convincing comparison with the car, you take a picture that overexposes the thermite and makes it look a lot bigger. As you have no reason to believe this overexposure effect is the same in the two videos, you have no comparison at all. How about looking at the lower end of the cascade where it has cooled and you can get a much better idea of the size of the lumps? By the way, it seems that NIST now thinks the Italian engineer is correct, add him to the list on my side:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/n...or-of-wtc2.html

It doesn’t matter how big your video library is if something does not exist. There are no previous examples of high-rise steel framed structures entirely collapsing after limited columns exhibit bowing. The example you describe is for a single column, whereas obviously we are discussing the symmetrical collapse of an entire building. There is evidence in the Madrid building showing that severe distortion of a large area of steelwork will occur prior to even a partial collapse.

There is no precedent for a covert controlled demolition and that is hardly surprising. It is though of note, with all the past severe building fires there have been, that you cannot find precedent for a complete and virtually symmetrical building collapse.

Possibly because I can't recall any tall buildings being hit by aircraft at cruise speed, either.

You are claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, this is a logical fallacy.

You said, due to the simulations, “that is how I know what a "natural" collapse looks like” and linked to the Chinese paper as an example. You don’t need to see the full paper as the visual simulations are clearly shown. Here is the real-world picture alongside the simulation for WTC1: -

Does the simulated impact appear in the correct position or not?

Here, I have found you a real simulation. It shows the collapse lasting over 30s and still not reaching the ground. Also the simulation ignores Newton’s third law in allowing for the upper block to remain intact throughout the fall giving a massive but futile advantage to complete collapse.

And WTC2, is that also in the wrong place? If not, what argument do you have?

You have the nerve to produce that video and then claim that the Chinese paper is a joke? There isn't even a mention of how the building was modelled or the methods used. It could simply be a piece of movie-type CGI. You'll have to come up with a lot of supporting detail before that has any technical plausibility.

So when column 79 failed, the adjacent loads that it was supporting did not collapse with it? Column 79 somehow detached and extracted itself from the surrounding structure/beams, leaving those loads to be redistributed?

Loads do not collapse. Structures collapse. Just because a structural element has failed, for instance because a part of it has buckled or broken, does not mean that all the loads that column was supporting vanish.

Your “domino” theory would not produce a symmetrical collapse. If the columns progressively fail from column 79, the west wall should not drop at exactly the same time as the east wall. There is no explanation for how the failure of column 79 should progress instantaneous failures through all of the other columns. There is no explanation why column 79 fails independently but the remaining structure must fail as one. There is no reason that all of the other columns should enter into a near freefall descent through the path of most resistance.

You completely misunderstand the situation. For a start, the way that the penthouses collapse shows an east-to-west progression for the internal collapse, the other columns do not "fail as one". However, the failure of the internal structure does not cause an immediate collapse of the outer walls. This happens several seconds later, an indication that it is linked with debris from the internal collapse causing damage at a low level in the building.

The above is all comprehensively explained by controlled demolition.

Which also explains the lack of other evidence for CD, see above?

How is damage from heavy debris directly impacting WTC5 in any way similar to low level fire allegedly causing an internal collapse in WTC7? The damage processes are very different with WTC5 being affected more severely than WTC7 and yet not collapsing.

I was just pointing out that WTC5 suffered internal collapse due to fire, which is a phenomenon you appear to dismiss as impossible in WTC7.

Reply to your question: because controlled demolition is the only method that has ever caused a steel-framed building to all at once, virtually symmetrically, at near freefall, collapse in its entirety.

You are begging the question here. Even without a counter-example, this is only true if it really was a CD, and yet you are trying to use it as proof that it was a CD.

I would have thought the momentum loss figure applies at the point of impact and is more a re-evaluation of the available energy based on 4.8m/sec rather than an energy loss as such. Anyhow, all of the papers dealing with the collapse after initiation assume an instant and symmetrical freefall drop just to get going. This is impossible unless every column fails simultaneously. That is, no bending, no individual buckling, no ‘domino’ progression, but all at once - a phenomenon that is only achievable through controlled demolition.

Quibble as much as you like, Ross' argument only works because he makes a very large amount of energy vanish, then complains that there is insufficient energy.

Load redistribution occurs at the speed of sound in steel, which is a lot faster than in air. The speed at which a progressive collapse can initiate is thus much faster than the time taken to drop a single story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

small nuclear device underneath the surface.

Why else would there be a pile of molten metal underneath the two towers for a month afterward?

who cares how they did it, i know who was responsible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an airline crash: to some lesser degree- severed building units, to a larger degree- compromising fires, which brought down each tower. WTC 1 and WTC 2 experienced sagging and snappingof differnetparts of the structure, in those buildings. It was all recorded and analysed for posterity and the world. The NIST work was more or less completed in 2005, I think.

The false flag concept makes no sense to me.

Do you have any idea about the financial havoc 9-11 played? Internationally, too. It is bizzare to think about. Cousin killing cousin. Men and women killing each other in New York and Washington. Families devastated. All for what?

False flag was not needed, for the aftermath > Afghanistan, Iraq, domestic security measures. All that could have been attempted the old fashioned way- round up the suspects, present the evidence, and go after their leader and cohorts.

As for money and power side of the false flag equation- it is not monolithic. So, numerous companies exist and provide for the military. They are always active (including special interests or self-interests, at times) and not just monolithic and one closely held conspiratorial group. Life is more complex than that. Granted, though, there were people in positions of influence who stood to gain from 9-11 reprisals. However, even if there weren't numerous self-interests, one can still not predict the outcomes after 9-11 and assume it would have been different.

Iraq could have been sold on the same premise. The threat probably exists- go after it, preemptively. It's that simple. The 2003 invasion of Iraq can be viewed as one of multiple self-interests, including potential national security interests. I think it will be several more years before we have a better understanding of any longer term outcome. It is definitely a mixed bag.

False flag for 9-11 is a cheap cop-out for studying then-current events, and the workings of american justice related institutions.

Things are more complex than false flag.

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

False flag was not needed, for the aftermath > Afghanistan, Iraq, domestic security measures. All that could have been attempted the old fashioned way- round up the suspects, present the evidence, and go after their leader and cohorts.

The PNAC, in their own words from the ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ document, stated a “new Pearl Harbor” was required to effect their plan for “global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces”. I don't think complaining that some Arabs were “plotting” against the US would cut it.

Things are more complex than false flag.

As you were not aware of the many explosions at the WTC site I am thinking there is probably a lot more you haven’t yet had the chance to research and this is affecting your judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Several things wrong with this argument, first, steel temperature and air temperature are not the same, second, 1000 deg is not an unusual air temperature for an office fire, even without added kerosene, third, the NIST collapse theory does not require steel temperatures anywhere near 1000 deg.

So which of those samples comes from a place in the building where the simulation predicted higher air temperatures and damage to the insulation was likely to let the steel get near to the air temperature?

First, of the many core and perimeter samples recovered and analysed, there is zero evidence that steel reached temperatures high enough to cause failure. There is no confirmation of temperatures over 250oC in the steel, much less around the 600oC required for the columns to fail. If steel temperatures high enough to cause failure existed then NIST could have found and presented them as evidence, but they didn’t.

Underwriters Laboratories tests of floor truss setups showed that with heating for a longer duration than the WTC fires and with actual steel temperatures of up to 700oC, no failure occurred. In NIST’s words, “All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two hours without collapse.

So without a shred of support from physical evidence or laboratory testing that the structures should have failed due to fire, NIST were forced to resort to computer simulations… allowing the creation of conditions far beyond what was to be expected…

Although 1,000oC temperatures can be obtained in office fires, the persistent and widespread depiction of these temperatures in the simulations is unusual. For instance, in the Madrid building fire which appeared to be far more severe than those at the WTC, the air temperatures were reported to have reached only 800oC.

The NIST report itself states, “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below.” Yet viewing the fire simulations it is apparent that temperatures near 1,000oC were included in fixed locations for 30-45 minutes.

Even NIST’s former Chief of Fire Science Division (whilst not arguing that the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions), has severely criticised the scope and conclusions of the fire simulations – “the validation of these modelling results is in question”.

All in all, no evidence and questionable computer models – there is no reason that this should be the case if the ‘official’ story were true. Assessing all of this, there is much logic and basis for anyone to oppose that fire caused the collapses. The only reason anyone could believe otherwise is through preconceptions and a desire that “they just did”.

Why is molten metal in a debris pile proof of CD? The only possible cause for such long-duration heat is a long-duration fire in the debris pile. This also explains high temperature corrosion. Where is the conflict with a "natural" collapse?

Fires would contribute to hot-spots in the debris pile but they could not attain temperatures to melt steel. 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. Thermite is easily capable of melting steel and, insulated by the debris pile and existing fires, the high temperatures persisted for a long duration.

As for the high temperature steel corrosion (of which samples were found below the Towers and WTC7), we know that FEMA described this as “a very unusual event” for which a detailed study was required to determine the cause. NIST did not take up this recommendation, completely ignoring evidence that may have revealed the use of thermite.

The problems with the CD theory also include the sheer implausibility of prepping an occupied building, the difficulty of getting the set-up to work after impact damage and fire, the lack of explanation for the observed bowing, the absence of physical evidence for explosives - damage to steel, residue, smell.

I’m not going to entertain your personal misgivings of whether the setup was plausible or not – they are irrelevant. In addition to that which I have already discussed above, I will further address the unfairly perceived lack of evidence for explosive residues. From NIST’s FAQ: -

Q.
Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) “slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.”

A.
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The question was posed again more recently to NIST’s spokesperson by investigative reporter, Jennifer Abel: -

Abel: “..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?”

Neuman: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.”

Abel: “But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?”

Neuman: “If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time...”

Do I recall you stating, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, flyingswan? That certainly could not be truer in a case where the ‘official’ investigation flatly refused to even look for that evidence.

The above is all the more unsatisfactory when we consider the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which states an area for consideration – “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.” Other guidance details preservation of fire scene evidence and how alternative hypothesis should be investigated – another two areas in which NIST failed.

Of course everything I am dealing with here is the lack of investigation carried out, without even getting into the list of evidence that has been found and is supportive of controlled demolition.

Read what I just said: if you mention your employer's name when expressing an opinion that is not your employer's, you must make it clear that it is not your employer's opinion or else you are committing a disciplinary offence. I would have thought that this was a pretty standard rule.

Let’s cut to the chase – would Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones have been removed from their positions for agreeing with the ‘official’ theory? Of course they wouldn’t. The fact is, it is acceptable to support the ‘official’ theory but unacceptable to voice genuine reservations.

If you don't scale up the cut height, you have only to remove four times the material, but if you don't scale up the cut height, you only scale the volume of the device by a factor of four. Same difference.

Yes, you prove my point - a steel rod of twice the dimensions in the video, to achieve the same effect, requires only a device of approximately x1.6 the dimensions, ie 1.63 = 4 times the volume. Though this is not the “same difference”, as your original assumption was that the device had to be scaled to the same factor as the steel.

Very convincing comparison with the car, you take a picture that overexposes the thermite and makes it look a lot bigger. As you have no reason to believe this overexposure effect is the same in the two videos, you have no comparison at all. How about looking at the lower end of the cascade where it has cooled and you can get a much better idea of the size of the lumps?

I don’t think the exposure makes the thermite look “a lot” bigger. The area in the car picture is covered in thermite and the exposure or brightness does not actually change the quantity of thermite there. It hardly makes a difference as the pictures I superimposed over WTC2 representing the flow estimate are wider than the actual thermite flow witnessed, ie even if fully half of the colour is due to overexposure then my estimate is still correct.

Anyhow, I have explained to a reasonable level of detail the reasons for my estimate of approximately 200kg. Your speculation is fine but now can you explain, what evidence do you have that the thermite flow must be larger?

Possibly because I can't recall any tall buildings being hit by aircraft at cruise speed, either.

This line of discussion was centred on how structural steel should react to heating prior to and during collapse. The structure should deform similarly due to heating whether impacted by an airliner or not. I have given an example in the Madrid building fire where severe and obvious distortion of the steelwork is visible prior to even a partial collapse. There is no real-world situation to oppose that fire in a steel-framed building should lead to collapse any other way.

And WTC2, is that also in the wrong place? If not, what argument do you have?

You have the nerve to produce that video and then claim that the Chinese paper is a joke? There isn't even a mention of how the building was modelled or the methods used. It could simply be a piece of movie-type CGI. You'll have to come up with a lot of supporting detail before that has any technical plausibility.

The WTC2 impact appears to be in the correct location. The argument I have is that the WTC1 impact is in the wrong location – a gross error in the ‘simulation’ that you say allows you to know what a ‘natural’ collapse should look like. You have linked to this paper with a blatantly incorrect ‘simulation’ twice now and I can only assume that either you do not check what you are posting or do not care for its accuracy.

I have asked you whether you agree with the WTC1 impact location 3 times and you have avoided the question on each occasion. It is apparent you are afraid of fair and open discussion.

Loads do not collapse. Structures collapse. Just because a structural element has failed, for instance because a part of it has buckled or broken, does not mean that all the loads that column was supporting vanish.

It is obviously possible a load may be removed from a structure to an extent if a partial collapse occurs – the load relying on and exerting a force on a column to cause its failure, will in part be removed with the collapse of that column. All I am saying is that loads of the penthouse and the below structure, themselves did not need to be redistributed.

You completely misunderstand the situation. For a start, the way that the penthouses collapse shows an east-to-west progression for the internal collapse, the other columns do not "fail as one". However, the failure of the internal structure does not cause an immediate collapse of the outer walls. This happens several seconds later, an indication that it is linked with debris from the internal collapse causing damage at a low level in the building.

You actually believe that all of the internal columns had progressively failed prior to the main visible collapse of WTC7 which was literally just the outer walls? So do you believe that the internal columns fail individually one after another or simultaneously? Can you describe exactly and put a timeline on your theory beginning from the penthouse/column 79 collapse through to the main structure collapse? There are 7 seconds between these events to fit in 25 internal column failures. We have the building plan so this should not be difficult for you to describe your theory precisely.

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, they said it wasn't their policy to release data on members. AE911T would have had the same difficulty if they had asked, but they hadn't asked.

I got that e-mail response (three responses actually) from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I am left in absolutely no doubt that the verifiers do their utmost to confirm member credentials. I will not reproduce the full text here but below are the main bodies.

This was my initial e-mail: -

I have recently been involved in a forum discussion regarding the WTC investigation where upon citing AE911T in support of my case, it was claimed a number of the members and their respective professional qualifications may be 'made-up'.

Of particular interest are two UK members – David Scott and Graham Inman who are both listed in their Bio as members of the Institution of Chartered Engineers (ICE).

Please can you let me know if and specifically how credentials of your members are verified?

First response from AE911T: -

I checked Mr. Scott's credentials myself. He sent in about eight pages of images of his credentials, including as I recall a membership certificate for the Institution of Structural Engineers. He sent other information to me documenting his association with the Institution. His firm's website is here:

I have had many email contacts with Mr. Scott using the email address on the above website.

Mr. Inman I can not testify to myself. People in our organization have verified that Mr. Inman is a Chartered Engineer and obtained his licence number.

If you have information that our registration of either of these gentlemen is not what it appears, please let us know.

If you want the website so that you can contact David Scott personally you will have to ask for it yourself. Note that if you have any information disputing members’ credentials you are encouraged to contact AE911T.

Second response: -

We have stringent verification procedures, requiring all our architects and engineers to submit proof of their status: either a license, which we verify on the website of the issuing state, or a diploma from a college or university. Who are these people and what do they say is wrong with the credentials of these UK engineers?

Yes flyingswan, what are you saying is wrong with the credentials of the UK engineers? Perhaps you should e-mail AE911T with your accusations so you can discuss directly with them.

Third response: -

I can tell you that we verify the credentials of every architect and engineer who signs the petition. That is not to say that there are not mean people out there who have found it amusing to sign up fictional people with made up credentials to disrupt our work. We've had any number of fake petition signers from Osama Bin Laden to Mickey Mouse. More seriously, some mischief makers go to the trouble of finding architects out of the phone book or online licensing boards and sign up randomly selected people who have no idea that someone is using their name fraudulently. We catch them, of course, and delete them. It is because of these juvenile people that the verification standards have become, out of necessity, fairly exacting. I leave it up to you to decide whether or not it is likely that the people on the message boards who are claiming we have fake people on the petition, are the same ones who submitted them in the first place.

Regarding AE911's verification procedures, a process of elimination must occur on several levels:

1. All the architects and engineers that sign the petition have to email authenticate. That means they have an active email account,
at the very least
, and that email address is associated with a
real person
who clicked the link provided indicating that they intended to signed the petition and join.

2. Once they email authenticate, each architect and engineer who signs the petition gets a telephone call and a verifier speaks to them
personally
to make contact and again confirm that they signed the peition.

3. We verify all the licenses of architects and engineers by checking the state boards. If an architect or engineer is not licensed, but degreed, they MUST fax or email a scanned copy of their diploma from a credentialed architectural or engineering school. Once ALL THREE of those take place, only then is an architect or engineer considered verified.

For the two petition signers in question you emailed about, they are non-U.S. architects or engineers. For non-U.S. A/E's we do the same above checks, minus the personal telephone contact because of the cost of overseas communication. As far as I can tell, both people were properly verified to the best of our ability and there were no issues with their information.

This reply shows that there are thorough verification standards and, if not met, AE911T delete any account in question. The last sentence of the first paragraph above is certainly cause for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24-

As for those who, rather than work for NIST, are on the outside, let me just say this.

If I was going to court to sue someone, and needed a hired expert witness, there might be someone who would play the part of my advocate, for the price. Not everyone is a forensic (engineering/architectual) specialist, and they better have serious evidence for their opinion to hold up in court- regardless of whatever credentials.

And, if people have time and money to waste attacking NIST, that is their business. Good luck.

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 found two apparently corroborating videos of what may be the same event- after the collapse of WTC 1.

Link 1

Link 2

However, since these are post-collapse (although, you may say pre-collapse of WTC 7), I suspect they could be anything that may have been a volatile, in those areas, set off by the damage of the collapsing WTC 1 and WTC 2.

You provide a link which backs this up. The newsman says such explosions are occuring hours post-collapse (although, you may say it was WTC 7 and dasterdly Larry Silverstein)

Important video clip of post-collapse events, explosions-

Link 3

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 will forever doubt it was a day, other than what we saw on T.V., and know from probable causes.

As for busting up arabs and egyptians in Afghanistan (as well as others)- we almost nuked Cuba. Remember that?

That was preceded by sloppy nonsense to get rid of Fidel. But, then we loaded the planes with you-know-what. All before either Havana or Moscow could react. We presented evidence and moved into position.

In 2001, I do think that the PTB could have made the case that given a chance, terrorists might try anything. And, that is worth preventing, once their plots were exposed.

You would do the same thing. Destroy your enemies, and seek corrective measures. Even if that meant military. Which today, the U.S. does in a few small scale, preventative measures around the world.

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.

It doesn't mean that came to fruition. Pure speculation to say so.

Edited by merril
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got that e-mail response (three responses actually) from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. I am left in absolutely no doubt that the verifiers do their utmost to confirm member credentials. I will not reproduce the full text here but below are the main bodies.

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.

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, of the many core and perimeter samples recovered and analysed, there is zero evidence that steel reached temperatures high enough to cause failure. There is no confirmation of temperatures over 250oC in the steel, much less around the 600oC required for the columns to fail. If steel temperatures high enough to cause failure existed then NIST could have found and presented them as evidence, but they didn’t.

Underwriters Laboratories tests of floor truss setups showed that with heating for a longer duration than the WTC fires and with actual steel temperatures of up to 700oC, no failure occurred. In NIST’s words, “All four test assemblies supported their full design load under standard fire conditions for two hours without collapse.

So without a shred of support from physical evidence or laboratory testing that the structures should have failed due to fire, NIST were forced to resort to computer simulations… allowing the creation of conditions far beyond what was to be expected…

Although 1,000oC temperatures can be obtained in office fires, the persistent and widespread depiction of these temperatures in the simulations is unusual. For instance, in the Madrid building fire which appeared to be far more severe than those at the WTC, the air temperatures were reported to have reached only 800oC.

The NIST report itself states, “At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000 °C was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500 °C or below.” Yet viewing the fire simulations it is apparent that temperatures near 1,000oC were included in fixed locations for 30-45 minutes.

Even NIST’s former Chief of Fire Science Division (whilst not arguing that the WTC collapses were controlled demolitions), has severely criticised the scope and conclusions of the fire simulations – “the validation of these modelling results is in question”.

All in all, no evidence and questionable computer models – there is no reason that this should be the case if the ‘official’ story were true. Assessing all of this, there is much logic and basis for anyone to oppose that fire caused the collapses. The only reason anyone could believe otherwise is through preconceptions and a desire that “they just did”.

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.

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 main point Quintiere is questioning is whether the insulation was up to standard, and NIST are working to address his issues. 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.

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

Fires would contribute to hot-spots in the debris pile but they could not attain temperatures to melt steel. 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. Thermite is easily capable of melting steel and, insulated by the debris pile and existing fires, the high temperatures persisted for a long duration.

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

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.

As for the high temperature steel corrosion (of which samples were found below the Towers and WTC7), we know that FEMA described this as “a very unusual event” for which a detailed study was required to determine the cause. NIST did not take up this recommendation, completely ignoring evidence that may have revealed the use of thermite.

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.

I’m not going to entertain your personal misgivings of whether the setup was plausible or not – they are irrelevant. In addition to that which I have already discussed above, I will further address the unfairly perceived lack of evidence for explosive residues. From NIST’s FAQ: -

Q.
Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) “slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.”

A.
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The question was posed again more recently to NIST’s spokesperson by investigative reporter, Jennifer Abel: -

Abel: “..what about that letter where NIST said it didn't look for evidence of explosives?”

Neuman: “Right, because there was no evidence of that.”

Abel: “But how can you know there's no evidence if you don't look for it first?”

Neuman: “If you're looking for something that isn't there, you're wasting your time...”

Do I recall you stating, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, flyingswan? That certainly could not be truer in a case where the ‘official’ investigation flatly refused to even look for that evidence.

The above is all the more unsatisfactory when we consider the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations, which states an area for consideration – “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.” Other guidance details preservation of fire scene evidence and how alternative hypothesis should be investigated – another two areas in which NIST failed.

Of course everything I am dealing with here is the lack of investigation carried out, without even getting into the list of evidence that has been found and is supportive of controlled demolition.

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

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.

Let’s cut to the chase – would Kevin Ryan or Steven Jones have been removed from their positions for agreeing with the ‘official’ theory? Of course they wouldn’t. The fact is, it is acceptable to support the ‘official’ theory but unacceptable to voice genuine reservations.

They would have been if they worked for organisations who were promoting the "inside job" theory. Look at the bust-up between Steven Jones and Judy Wood.

Yes, you prove my point - a steel rod of twice the dimensions in the video, to achieve the same effect, requires only a device of approximately x1.6 the dimensions, ie 1.63 = 4 times the volume. Though this is not the “same difference”, as your original assumption was that the device had to be scaled to the same factor as the steel.

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.

I don’t think the exposure makes the thermite look “a lot” bigger. The area in the car picture is covered in thermite and the exposure or brightness does not actually change the quantity of thermite there. It hardly makes a difference as the pictures I superimposed over WTC2 representing the flow estimate are wider than the actual thermite flow witnessed, ie even if fully half of the colour is due to overexposure then my estimate is still correct.

Anyhow, I have explained to a reasonable level of detail the reasons for my estimate of approximately 200kg. Your speculation is fine but now can you explain, what evidence do you have that the thermite flow must be larger?

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.

This line of discussion was centred on how structural steel should react to heating prior to and during collapse. The structure should deform similarly due to heating whether impacted by an airliner or not. I have given an example in the Madrid building fire where severe and obvious distortion of the steelwork is visible prior to even a partial collapse. There is no real-world situation to oppose that fire in a steel-framed building should lead to collapse any other way.

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.

The WTC2 impact appears to be in the correct location. The argument I have is that the WTC1 impact is in the wrong location – a gross error in the ‘simulation’ that you say allows you to know what a ‘natural’ collapse should look like. You have linked to this paper with a blatantly incorrect ‘simulation’ twice now and I can only assume that either you do not check what you are posting or do not care for its accuracy.

I have asked you whether you agree with the WTC1 impact location 3 times and you have avoided the question on each occasion. It is apparent you are afraid of fair and open discussion.

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.

It is obviously possible a load may be removed from a structure to an extent if a partial collapse occurs – the load relying on and exerting a force on a column to cause its failure, will in part be removed with the collapse of that column. All I am saying is that loads of the penthouse and the below structure, themselves did not need to be redistributed.

The penthouse does not vanish into thin air, nor do the floors that column 79 is helping to support.

You actually believe that all of the internal columns had progressively failed prior to the main visible collapse of WTC7 which was literally just the outer walls? So do you believe that the internal columns fail individually one after another or simultaneously? Can you describe exactly and put a timeline on your theory beginning from the penthouse/column 79 collapse through to the main structure collapse? There are 7 seconds between these events to fit in 25 internal column failures. We have the building plan so this should not be difficult for you to describe your theory precisely.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-72391-1209655617_thumb.jpgpost-72391-1209655670_thumb.jpgpost-47-1045577181.jpgpost-72391-1209655702_thumb.jpgwhat the hell is wrong with you people? just because you don't want to believe that people hate america that much... maybe, if you spent all the energy that you spend ranting and frothing at the mouth like you have rabies on something productive, we wouldn't have such a screwed up world. you people disgust me. you are the ones that are going straight to hell.

When our hatred is violent, it sinks us even beneath those we hate. ~ Rochfoucauld

post-72391-1209655699_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

small nuclear device underneath the surface.

Why else would there be a pile of molten metal underneath the two towers for a month afterward?

who cares how they did it, i know who was responsible.

guess what happens when you set off a nuclear bomb? more than just two buildings go down. the blast would level a huge amount of land. besides, nukes don't come in adjustable sizes. have you ever been to new york and seen ground zero? no? then leave the research to people that know what they're doing. and the ground was hot because of freakin' jet fuel, you numbnuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not really a good idea to register to a forum for the sole purpose of insulting/denigrating those whose opinion you have problems with. Either temper your responses or suffer the consequences. Thank you for your co-operation.

Magikman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guess what happens when you set off a nuclear bomb? more than just two buildings go down. the blast would level a huge amount of land. besides, nukes don't come in adjustable sizes. have you ever been to new york and seen ground zero? no? then leave the research to people that know what they're doing. and the ground was hot because of freakin' jet fuel, you numbnuts.

Really, you know that nuclear weapons can be made, what mathematical equation do you possess that states that they cant have different sizes? Especially in a "secret false flag operation...".

I have spoken for hours with several people who went to ground zero up to a month later, and saw the faint glow of this "molten metal". Oh yes, after about five minutes of chemistry it would dawn on you kerosene(jet fuel) burns up quite quickly, and i cant even calculate the odds this would have of leaving a smoldering molten pile of metal for so long...

Leave your mind up to what the TV tells you.

Lets just let the US government get away with mass genocide, warmongering, and fooling people like you into think we are the "land of freedom" as we put dictators in power all of the world to serve our means.

You and everyone else here who cannot see that(even though it is known fact that false flag operations have been used since the dawn of time to start wars, bring death, and control the populace's opinion) are already doomed, you need to be smacked around a bit. Why?

Because there are millions of lives on the line, and noone seems to allow that reality to take hold.

We were not attacked by cave-dwelling Bin-Ladens, It is a fact the CIA trained Al-queda, and it is a fact one of the only flights after 9-11 was the bin laden family getting safe passage out of the US, It is also a fact that the US Embassy in the completely OBVIOUS New World Order's Capitol of Earth, Dubai, treated Osama Bin Laden after the deaths of some 3000 American citizens.

Will you stand on the side of what is right and true with the knowledge i have given you, or are you fooled by the bread and circus? We are talking about loss of life, if you die by the hand of the NWO out of ignorance it helps noone.

P.S. Hunter Thomson was one of the greatest masterminds in the fight for free speech and keeping the government hand out of the cookie jar, he was one of very few people who had the power and the resolve to try and stop the corporate machine from infiltrating the people's rights. Not many people know what killed him.

He knew that in order for people to understand, the reporter must himself be a component of the story, to understand both the story, and the perspective it is seen from. Objective reporting was known to be BS, though it fooled the masses, and quieted the meek anyway.

just a quote id like to interject before i leave you

"The utter collapse of this Profoundly criminal Bush conspiracy will come none too soon for people like me. . . The massive plundering of the U.S. Treasury and all its resources has been almost on a scale that is criminally insane, and has literally destroyed the lives of millions of American people and American families. Exactly. You and me, sport -- we are the ones who are going to suffer, and suffer massively. This is going to be just like the Book of Revelation said it was going to be -- the end of the world as we knew it."

EDIT: very sorry about that magikman, quoted wrong, too tired to realize it.

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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:

QUOTE

Sure, I have a source for it - ME!

I made it up in jest.

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

It has absolutely nothing to do with using "more neutral sounding words".

Obviously, you can't (or won't) understand the fact that the need to explain that I made it up IN JEST is completely different than to "admit to lying"!!

Are you really that incapable of grasping such a basic concept as this?

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?

What utter nonsense. Until very recently, I hadn't even looked at the AH forum for over a year!

If I had been posting at AH during this time, at least you would have a valid reason to claim I was deliberately avoiding questions.

But you're already aware of the reason I was absent from AH - my lack of free time - because I explained that as soon as I returned to AH. So cut the crap.

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.

"Whether the guest admits to lying..."??

That settles it. You clearly CANNOT differentiate between someone who needs to explain a misunderstood joke, and someone who "admits to lying"!!

So from that, do you also believe that virtually every stage and film actor, every comedian, and most authors, are all "liars"?

There is no hope of reasoning with someone who cannot grasp the significant difference between telling a lie and telling a joke/creating a work of fiction.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No. Barium is not a necessary component of thermate. Sulfur is, however. Thermite becomes thermate solely with the addition of sulfur.

There are variations of thermite which do not use barium, and adding sulfur to those variants creates thermate compounds that contain no barium.

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.

Are you serious? Even NIST admits that the steel would not have melted due to the fires....

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Not only are you wrong, you're even contradicting your own position (in support of NIST's theory).

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.

There were at least five other engineers who made the same claim (that the fires melted the steel) as Wise...

A report in the Arizona Daily Wildcat, entitled "Intense Heat Melted Steel Supports in Trade Center" quoted a structural engineer Richard Ebeltoft on the subject of fires melting steel:

Richard Ebeltoft, a structural engineer and University of Arizona architecture lecturer, speculated that flames fueled by thousands of gallons of aviation fuel melted the building's steel supports.

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager, speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

A September 14 report in the Cincinnati Business Courier paraphrases Elmer Obermeyer, president and chairman of Graham Obermeyer & Partners Ltd., a structural engineering firm in downtown Cincinnati. Obermeyer is considered the "guru in his field" according to the article. Obermeyer said the fire probably melted the steel beams of the World Trade Center towers, which were never designed to survive the kind of shot they took Sept. 11.

On September 17, the BBC quoted another expert, professor of structural engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton, on the subject of melted steel.

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer."

M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering Eduardo Kausel endorsed the fire-melts-steel idea a month after the attack, as a panelist at a public event in Cambridge, MA.

"I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements--floor trusses and columns--so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse."

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/meltdown.html

So here are at least SIX "experts" who claimed that the fires melted the steel (4 structural engineers and 2 civil engineers). That's hardly insignificant to counter your claim that "structural engineers are 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?

No. For the umpteenth time, I had to explain that I made up the quote for a joke, because it was misinterpreted.

But just because you're being dishonest about my case, does that mean all government CT's can be accused of dishonesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (IP: Staff) ·

Ahem.

I've just had to remove a couple of posts from this thread, so a quick reminder from the Forum's Terms and Conditions:

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Please debate the topic, and not the members posting.

Thanks in advance,

Tiggs

[Forum Mod Team]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, you're the one making things up again. This was my post..

Thankfully, we now live in a world of computer simulations - where pigs can fly, chipmunks can speak fluent Russian, and massive steel columns offer as much resistance as balsa wood.

You're the one who mentioned "film CGI", not me.

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

There is no evidence that WTC 7 was "severely damaged". The fires were very limited - small fires on 3 or 4 floors.

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.

Sorry - I thought you wanted to use the most relevant comparisons. I guess you'd rather compare the towers to the most completely different structures you can find instead? Like barns and warehouses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, it only makes Roberts' conclusions look even more ridiculous than before (if that's possible). I've already gone over the comment about bombs and explosives as being misinterpreted. And I've also explained that the so-called "greatest change" in his story is totally irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with his account of the events that morning. Many people have changed (or modified to some degree) their opinions regarding 'who was responsible" for 9/11. That includes myself. It has nothing at all to do with your claim (of Rodriguez changing his story on what happened).

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.

Where is your source for this? It would be most helpful if you could post a link...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

You mean it ISN'T supposed to be a joke?

I don't know about Q, but to me, it was the lack of technical matter to support the theory that makes it a joke - not the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.