skyeagle409 Posted August 12, 2012 #101 Share Posted August 12, 2012 1993 World Trade Center bombing (No Collapse) The 1993 World Trade Center bombing occurred on February 26, 1993, when a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in New York, NY. The 1,336 lb (606 kg)urea nitrate–hydrogen gas enhanced device[1] was intended to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both towers down and killing thousands of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 12, 2012 #102 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Thanks Q, for a very understandable explanation of the NIST best case/worst case exercise. I had heard mention of it before, but never quite understood it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted August 12, 2012 #103 Share Posted August 12, 2012 NIST compared the “best estimate” case and “severe case” to photographic evidence of the actual building damage. What they found is that the “best estimate” (which remember, did not lead to collapse in the simulation) provided the best match to that observable reality. This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality. So what did NIST do? In their conclusion NIST, for no reason other than a desire to provide the politically pre-conceived answer, discarded the “best estimate”/best match case in favour of the “severe case”/non-best match. You know perfectly well that you are being deceptive here. For both towers, NIST determined that the less severe case gave the worst match. This means that the best match actually lies somewhere between "best estimate" and "more severe", and whether or not one of these remaining two cases gives a better match just determines where in the range the best match point lies. In both cases, NIST found that the tipping point for collapse initiation was also between the same two cases. You consistently claim that this means that a collapse couldn't happen because the severe case was "beyond reality". However, the "best estimate" case is similarly "beyond reality" in the opposite direction, but you don't consider that this is significant. Instead, you have this totally unrealistic idea of how different the probabilities of the two cases are. The fact is, if a building is predicted to collapse within the range of probable measurement errors, no one in their right mind would stand inside it. The error ranges that you mistakenly think have such low probabilities of being exceeded are far smaller than the typical safety factor put on structural engineering calculations to allow for uncertainties in materials and construction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 12, 2012 #104 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Swan I am not qualified to judge the merits of the points you make, but really, don't you think that in the scheme of things the NIST simulations were only that? They prove nothing, they merely hypothesize about what might have happened? Assuming your points above are valid, the NIST simulations do not talk about the debris field, do not talk about the collapse times, do not talk about the explosions and molten steel, do not talk about the analysis of the dust, do not talk about thermal imaging reports. They are a look and a hypothesis trained on a wee tiny part of the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted August 12, 2012 #105 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Swan I am not qualified to judge the merits of the points you make, but really, don't you think that in the scheme of things the NIST simulations were only that? They prove nothing, they merely hypothesize about what might have happened? What the NIST simulations show is that the fires in all three buildings were sufficiently likely to cause collapse. That means that the "demolition" theory needs some evidence behind it, it can't just claim that the fires wouldn't do the job. Assuming your points above are valid, the NIST simulations do not talk about the debris field, do not talk about the collapse times, do not talk about the explosions and molten steel, do not talk about the analysis of the dust, do not talk about thermal imaging reports. They are a look and a hypothesis trained on a wee tiny part of the big picture. I'm afraid that the mere mention of "molten steel" shows that you have not done your homework. While there is plenty of evidence of molten metal, there is not a single case of a temperature measurement, ie thermal imaging rather than a witness's opinion, that would indicate steel rather than a lower melting point material such as aluminium or lead. Likewise, the dust simply shows what would be expected from the collapse of large buildings, the collapse times are consistent with the buildings' structural responses following collapse initiation and the explosions' timings are not consistent with collapse initiation and appear to be the normal ones you get in any large fire. I don't intend to get into a debate with you, you can find my opinion on pretty much every engineering aspect of WTC in the forum archives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 12, 2012 #106 Share Posted August 12, 2012 No debate is fair enough Swan. As you probably already know, I rely alot on Common Sense in my analysis of the world around me. Common Sense tells me that in a steel & concrete building such as were the towers, the vast bulk of the metal involved is steel. That means that there is a high probability that any given sample of metal would be steel. Further, I know from my own experiments many years ago that aluminum and lead can be made molten quite quickly, and just as quickly they return to the solid state when the heat source is removed. Thus it is unlikely that the minority metals, if I may use the term, were the ones seen by firemen and others. Common Sense also demands that there be some sort of explanation for the SOURCE of the heat that made the metal molten and kept it that way. There is such an explanation, and part of it is that the source WAS NOT gravity and jetfuel. It is impossible for jetfuel and gravity to combine to produce the heat required. And what about the heat that melted tires, blistered paint and broke out windows on passenger vehicles on the street? Jetfuel, gravity and office furniture cannot do that, but something might. Perhaps you don't quite understand the dust issue. Samples were taken by several people, as the stuff was everywhere, and analyzed. What it showed was the presence of the chemicals that are unique to the thermite reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 12, 2012 #107 Share Posted August 12, 2012 As you probably already know, I rely alot on Common Sense in my analysis of the world around me. Common Sense tells me that in a steel & concrete building such as were the towers, the vast bulk of the metal involved is steel. That means that there is a high probability that any given sample of metal would be steel. Check it out. Aluminum and the World Trade Center Disaster Aluminum was present in two significant forms at the World Trade Center on 9-11: (i) By far the largest source of aluminum at the WTC was the exterior cladding on WTC 1 & 2. In quantitative terms it may be estimated that 2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09 aluminum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the fa€ade of each Twin Tower. (i) The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings – all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys. Modern airframes are invariably constructed from series 2000 aluminum alloys. Alloy 2024 is a typical example containing 93 % Al, 4.5 % Cu, 1.5 % Mg, and 0.5 % each of Mn and Fe. These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 C for alloy 2024. This relatively low temperature indicates that the fires within the Twin Towers were quite capable of melting at least some of the Boeing 767 aluminum airframe structures remaining in the WTC before its collapse. http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf Further, I know from my own experiments many years ago that aluminum and lead can be made molten quite quickly, and just as quickly they return to the solid state when the heat source is removed. Thus it is unlikely that the minority metals, if I may use the term, were the ones seen by firemen and others. No one saw molten steel. Perhaps you don't quite understand the dust issue. Samples were taken by several people, as the stuff was everywhere, and analyzed. What it showed was the presence of the chemicals that are unique to the thermite reaction. I have posted videos of thermite reactions, which did not leave behind a pile of molten steel after a period of time, so you are incorrect on this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted August 12, 2012 #108 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Q, Okay, I've found some additional info on your Israeli intelligence agents, mostly from what appears to be an ABC News investigation. I wasn't aware of this so thanks for pointing it out. Most of the information comes from 'former intelligence officials', a consultant to ABC News, and that old media standby, 'sources', concerning some of the details tying in to the FBI and CIA; I'm not sure why these govt sources are believable but others are not. Why is ABC News even giving this story legitimacy if they are so tied in with the govt and part of the 'establishment'? What happened to this 'vetting' process where people's loyalty is being confirmed to the point of no risk being involved? Did this vetting process not bother to look into the possibility that their fellow conspirators are going to behave like immature frat-boys and take pictures of themselves dancing out in the open with the towers burning behind them? I'm having trouble finding a source for the detection of explosives in the van; they don't mention it on the ABC report concerning their ties to intelligence. The only other thing I saw on it just mentions 'sources'. Can you elucidate more what your theory is here? If they are part of the plot, why are they driving around on 9/11 with a van that stinks of explosives? Did they actually plant explosives that morning or something? The head conspirators didn't see how immature these guys are and decided to keep them around on the day of the attack? Let's say they are Israeli intelligence agents. What makes you think they are 'complicit' in 9/11? How do you know that their only involvement wasn't just possibly that they knew the specifics, and when to expect the attack? It's possible they did know details about the attack and purposely witnessed it; Israel had been warning the US preceding 9/11 anyway. How are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy' if we grant for a moment that they are 'agents'? It is a curious one, but there's still tons of missing information that I think you are filling in with pretty much guesswork. Which would be fine if you weren't saying on a previous comment concerning these agents, "What evidence must be come up with to convince people?" I don't know what you find so 'convincing' about this, there are other possibilities but maybe you have more detail to provide as to their exact role and what and when was their involvement with the plot. I can't be convinced of anything unless I know what they purportedly did and evaluate that possibility versus other explanations. More replies to come on your last comment and on 'foreknowledge' when I have time. Also, if possible I'd like to try and move away from discussing what could be possible. Again, I realize I'm responsible most likely for the multiple simultaneous threads, but I don't think I've ever said that anything 'couldn't' happen and thought I was dealing with the likelihood of certain points. At this point I'd like to focus mostly on why you believe so strongly in a demolition, which I'm assuming is based on more than just what could be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 13, 2012 #109 Share Posted August 13, 2012 You know perfectly well that you are being deceptive here. For both towers, NIST determined that the less severe case gave the worst match. This means that the best match actually lies somewhere between "best estimate" and "more severe", and whether or not one of these remaining two cases gives a better match just determines where in the range the best match point lies. In both cases, NIST found that the tipping point for collapse initiation was also between the same two cases. You consistently claim that this means that a collapse couldn't happen because the severe case was "beyond reality". However, the "best estimate" case is similarly "beyond reality" in the opposite direction, but you don't consider that this is significant. Instead, you have this totally unrealistic idea of how different the probabilities of the two cases are. The fact is, if a building is predicted to collapse within the range of probable measurement errors, no one in their right mind would stand inside it. The error ranges that you mistakenly think have such low probabilities of being exceeded are far smaller than the typical safety factor put on structural engineering calculations to allow for uncertainties in materials and construction. It's as simple as this (representing NIST's three simulated cases on a scale of damage severity, compared to actual damage seen in photographic evidence): - You can try to conceal the extent of the problem, but what this set of results indicate is that the more severe case did not happen - the hypothetical probabilities it is based upon are therefore irrelevent. Further, a case closer to the best estimate (no collapse) case did happen. We both know what NIST had to do to prove an impact and fire theory - that is, find a collapse case within the range of actual damage, i.e. a best match that produced collapse. NIST did not do this - the best match did not produce collapse and the only collapse case on record is one which extended the damage beyond that present on 9/11. You can speculate there is a collapse case in that actual damage range all you like, but the fact is NIST never demonstrated it exists. All NIST did prove is that in likelihood the towers should not have collapsed: - The non-collapse range (from the less severe case to a point past the best estimate) was larger than the collapse range. The actual damage fell closer to the non-collapse case than the collapse case. Try looking at the pure results, not what you prefer to believe. I'm afraid that the mere mention of "molten steel" shows that you have not done your homework. While there is plenty of evidence of molten metal, there is not a single case of a temperature measurement, ie thermal imaging rather than a witness's opinion, that would indicate steel rather than a lower melting point material such as aluminium or lead. The witnesses described melted beams. Of course logically this indicates steel. There is also photographic evidence of melted steel sections. The FEMA analysis of physical samples confirms the steel was melted: - "Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 oC (1,800 oF) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel." Yes I know you like to quibble about the intricacies of "corrosion" and "melting" but in the end it makes no difference. You choose to focus on "aluminium or lead" only because that is what you prefer to believe, once again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 13, 2012 #110 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Most of the information comes from 'former intelligence officials', a consultant to ABC News, and that old media standby, 'sources', concerning some of the details tying in to the FBI and CIA; I'm not sure why these govt sources are believable but others are not. Why is ABC News even giving this story legitimacy if they are so tied in with the govt and part of the 'establishment'? I'm not sure why this is relevant. Are we supposed to ignore the reports? If you think my treatment of sources unfair then please give a specific case in contrast so that I might explain. What happened to this 'vetting' process where people's loyalty is being confirmed to the point of no risk being involved? Did this vetting process not bother to look into the possibility that their fellow conspirators are going to behave like immature frat-boys and take pictures of themselves dancing out in the open with the towers burning behind them? The vetting process I described was to determine those committed to the cause, not necessarily levels of maturity. I'm having trouble finding a source for the detection of explosives in the van; they don't mention it on the ABC report concerning their ties to intelligence. The only other thing I saw on it just mentions 'sources'. There were numerous unconfirmed reports of explosives discovered in the mens' van which were later retracted: - [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oi9rlP1_dHs[/media] The question to ask is, from where did these reports come? From thin air? There is usually some spark of truth that ignites false reports. I believe this news article may contain the answer: - Five men detained as suspect conspirators New Jersey News - Sep. 12th, 2001 This article contains some specific details and quotes where, rather than breaking news of the day before, there had been time to reflect and gather information on events. What is described is that the van was stopped and bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. As a precaution, Route 3 was shut down in both directions and after 30 minutes the FBI ordered evacuation of a nearby motel. Packages in the van were x-rayed by the bomb squad although no explosives were actually found to be present. What appears to have happened is that suspicion of explosives was triggered by reaction of the bomb-sniffing dogs and led to initial media reports overstating the situation. Then I looked into the accuracy of bomb-sniffing dogs and found it can be anywhere from 60 to 95%. Further, the dogs are more often found to be mistaken where detection of a substance is missed rather than reacting to something that isn’t actually there. Therefore it follows that there is at least a 60% possibility that the dogs did detect some type of explosive residue in the van. Can you elucidate more what your theory is here? If they are part of the plot, why are they driving around on 9/11 with a van that stinks of explosives? Did they actually plant explosives that morning or something? The head conspirators didn't see how immature these guys are and decided to keep them around on the day of the attack? The theory is that these men at some time transported the explosives used in the tower demolitions. Again we need an investigation to confirm the facts. Did this company ever visit the WTC, transporting goods to any of the tenants? Let's say they are Israeli intelligence agents. What makes you think they are 'complicit' in 9/11? How do you know that their only involvement wasn't just possibly that they knew the specifics, and when to expect the attack? It's possible they did know details about the attack and purposely witnessed it; Israel had been warning the US preceding 9/11 anyway. How are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy' if we grant for a moment that they are 'agents'? The celebration of the attacks. The indication of explosives in the mens' van (not to mention presence of the WTC demolitions). The failed lie detector tests. The fact the men were arrested at the scene, on the day, in direct relation to the attacks. The fact the front company owner did not want to answer questions. The fact that political powers wanted the investigation shutdown. If these were good guy agents who had tried to warn America but been ignored, then why not come clean, rather than all of the above? Perhaps I should ask, how are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy'? I would like a full and public investigation to determine all of this beyond doubt. Yet do you know what mention these men received in the 9/11 Commission report? Nothing, not a word. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 13, 2012 #111 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) What's the melting point of steel? That depends on the alloy of steel you are talking about. The term alloy is almost always used incorrectly these days, especially amongst bicyclists. They use the term to mean aluminum. What the term alloy really means is a mixture of metals, any kind of metals. Almost all metal used today is a mixture and therefore an alloy. Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F). Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel. http://education.jla...ngpoint_01.html Aluminium, Melting point 1,221° F (660.4° C) Lead, Melting point 621.5° F (327.5° C) Edited August 13, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 13, 2012 #112 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) About the NIST World Trade Center Investigation Team Members http://www.nist.gov/...eam_members.cfm SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft. The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse. In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors. In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel. The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact. In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower. NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view. http://www.nist.gov/...c/wtc_about.cfm Edited August 13, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 13, 2012 #113 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) The Five Israeli Men: No ‘Pre-Knowledge’ Sources also said that even if the men were spies, there is no evidence to conclude they had advance knowledge of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The investigation, at the end of the day, after all the polygraphs, all of the field work, all the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advance knowledge of 9/11," Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA __________________________________________________________________________________ Police confirm arrests but deny explosives find NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike. However officials denied any explosives were found in the van. http://www.911myths....d_of_explosives On CBS Tuesday night there was a report -- originated by its New York station, WCBS -- that a van filled with explosives had been found on the George Washington Bridge. Though men in a van were detained, the vehicle did not contain explosives. Still, CBS said the report was based on trusted sources and the station corrected it when it learned that the report was in dispute. (New York Times Edited August 13, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted August 13, 2012 #114 Share Posted August 13, 2012 It's as simple as this (representing NIST's three simulated cases on a scale of damage severity, compared to actual damage seen in photographic evidence): - Thanks for the diagram, it makes my point very well. The tipping point for collapse is between the "best estimate" and "more severe" cases, so therefore the range of possible tipping points overlaps the range of best match to the damage. Your "beyond reality" is a complete misrepresentation of this situation. The FEMA analysis of physical samples confirms the steel was melted: -"Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure." "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 oC (1,800 oF) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen and sulfur that liquefied the steel." Yes I know you like to quibble about the intricacies of "corrosion" and "melting" but in the end it makes no difference. It is not a quibble, the two processes are completely different. You are highlighting words that don't mean what you want them to mean. One process leads to a pool of molten metal, the other leads, at much lower temperatures, to a crumbling away of the surface layers. Since the whole "molten steel" argument is about temperatures, evidence for the presence of a lower-temperature process is not relevant. I've explained this before to you. I'm sorry you don't seem able to understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted August 13, 2012 #115 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Perhaps you don't quite understand the dust issue. Samples were taken by several people, as the stuff was everywhere, and analyzed. What it showed was the presence of the chemicals that are unique to the thermite reaction. On the contrary, the closest match found so far for the alleged thermite is actually a type of primer. http://oystein-debat...e-standard.html This is old news, you shouldn't rely solely on sources on one side of the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 13, 2012 #116 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I see, a type of primer for paint? I wonder who this Oystein guy is? And a jetfuel fire and gravitational collapse created all the dust somehow, and the dust contained the primer for the paint, in quatities large enough to cover half of Manhattan with dust a few inches thick? That sounds mysteriously like the claim to Weapons of Mass Distraction. It sounds a bit suspicious, considering the others who have identified the dust as being the by-product of the thermite reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 13, 2012 #117 Share Posted August 13, 2012 (edited) And a jetfuel fire and gravitational collapse created all the dust somehow, and the dust contained the primer for the paint, in quatities large enough to cover half of Manhattan with dust a few inches thick? That sounds mysteriously like the claim to Weapons of Mass Distraction. It sounds a bit suspicious, considering the others who have identified the dust as being the by-product of the thermite reaction. He is correct, and no evidence of thermite cutting was ever found on the steel columns. So once again, have you ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by demolition companies? Edited August 13, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 13, 2012 #118 Share Posted August 13, 2012 ALWAYS consider the source..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 13, 2012 #119 Share Posted August 13, 2012 ALWAYS consider the source..... Let's just say, where the facts and evidence leads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted August 13, 2012 #120 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Re: foreknowledge The deformation you reference is not the type of a widespread or increasing severity witnessed in fire damaged buildings. The bulge at the south-west corner of WTC7 existed early in the day, from the time a corner was taken out of the building by the falling tower debris. There was then no further change in the building condition over the following hours right up until approximately 10 seconds prior global collapse initiation; a sudden event by all accounts which the prior deformation you reference (on the complete opposite side of the building) had nothing to do with. I'm sorry Q, but I have trouble reading this as something other than, 'yes, there was structural deformation which goes against the idea that 7 was demolished but it doesn't count'. With regard to foreknowledge, the reported bulging and leaning don't even necessarily need to have caused the collapse; they only need to concern the firefighters that 7 was at risk of collapsiing. From the other thread of yours, I believe this is your overall point: "Not one of the firefighters expected WTC7 to come down of their own independent judgment. The fire fighters expected the building to come down because that is what they were told was going to happen." That's one way of phrasing it. Another way is, 'the firefighters feared that WTC7 would collapse and that was buttressed by an unnamed technical expert'. I don't know if it's intentional, but you seem to be positioning this as if the firefighters had no reason to fear the collapse of 7, while standing in the rubble of WTC1 and 2, which I find absurd. Also, I would call hours of fires spreading a 'further change in the building condition'. I'm not sure why this is relevant. Are we supposed to ignore the reports? If you think my treatment of sources unfair then please give a specific case in contrast so that I might explain. Vince Cannistraro is one of the people, if not the person, who noted that a couple of these Israelis were found in an intelligence database. As Sky noted above, Cannistraro also says there is no indication that they had foreknowledge of the attack. "Are we supposed to ignore the reports?" I'm not saying you are unfair, but you seem to have just accepted one finding from the same person and disregarded the other. The vetting process I described was to determine those committed to the cause, not necessarily levels of maturity. But you just admitted, "The risks and investigative leads certainly increase if the demolition were not covert.", and further that all 'they' needed to do is look at the agents' dossier to determine accurately what they need to know concerning their psychology. Why choose these dolts, surely there are many Zionist agents available? These guys certainly increased the risks and leads, but were for some reason still included. There were numerous unconfirmed reports of explosives discovered in the mens' van which were later retracted: - The question to ask is, from where did these reports come? From thin air? There is usually some spark of truth that ignites false reports. I believe this news article may contain the answer: - Five men detained as suspect conspirators New Jersey News - Sep. 12th, 2001 This article contains some specific details and quotes where, rather than breaking news of the day before, there had been time to reflect and gather information on events. What is described is that the van was stopped and bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives. As a precaution, Route 3 was shut down in both directions and after 30 minutes the FBI ordered evacuation of a nearby motel. Packages in the van were x-rayed by the bomb squad although no explosives were actually found to be present. What appears to have happened is that suspicion of explosives was triggered by reaction of the bomb-sniffing dogs and led to initial media reports overstating the situation. Then I looked into the accuracy of bomb-sniffing dogs and found it can be anywhere from 60 to 95%. Further, the dogs are more often found to be mistaken where detection of a substance is missed rather than reacting to something that isn’t actually there. Therefore it follows that there is at least a 60% possibility that the dogs did detect some type of explosive residue in the van. Dogs can also generate false positives due to tips from their handlers profiling the suspects, not sure if this is being included in your possibility calculation. Where did the reports that the State Dept had been bombed also come from on 9/11, if not largely 'thin air'? I do appreciate you hedging your confidence in this point however by noting that it may be overstated and recognizing the possibility of false positives. The theory is that these men at some time transported the explosives used in the tower demolitions. ..and that the conspirators did not think it was a good idea to get these guys out of the NY area and allowed them to keep driving the van they transported the bombs in. These guys are really top-of-the-line intelligence agents? Regarding your points why you think they are involved: The celebration of the attacks. - They would have reason to celebrate assuming they are pro-Israel and know who committed the attack, as they know the US will respond against their enemies. I'm sure they weren't the only Israelis who were pleased for that reason. You're assuming that the celebration is that the mission was completed successfully I think when there are more parsimonious explanations. The indication of explosives in the mens' van (not to mention presence of the WTC demolitions). - Possible explosives, which if detected are from an unknown source. Not sure what you mean by 'presence of the WTC demolitions', unless you're just explaining this from your point of view, since I'm not really convinced at this point that there was a demolition involved. The failed lie detector tests. - Polygraph test are notoriously unreliable. The fact the men were arrested at the scene, on the day, in direct relation to the attacks. - 'At the scene' being in New Jersey, but fine close enough. One of the callers to the police thought they were 'Palestinians' which was wrong. I don't know what the fact that they were arrested shows; I thought they were arrested mainly because they celebrated and were thereby suspicious. The fact the front company owner did not want to answer questions. - Ha, yes, because when you're being investigated criminally, all good lawyers recommend that you talk to the press and law enforcement... The fact that political powers wanted the investigation shutdown. - Wanted the investigation shut down or found nothing to link them specifically to the attacks? If these were good guy agents who had tried to warn America but been ignored, then why not come clean, rather than all of the above? They're intelligence agents supposedly. Aren't intelligence agents specifically trained to resist efforts to get them to 'come clean' about anything that suggests they're actually intelligence agents? Maybe they knew the specifics but didn't want to say anything hoping, correctly, that the attack would result in our attack of their enemies. That is orthogonal to whether there was a demolition involved or not. Perhaps I should ask, how are you differentiating the possibility of 'complicity' with that of 'apathy'? I'm not necessarily nor do I need to; I'm not claiming that it is a 'blatant' demolition and using these guys as evidence. I think apathy is at least as reasonable an explanation as them being part of a demolition plot which, at this point, I'm skeptical even needed to happen in the first place let alone that there's any good evidence for it. I would like a full and public investigation to determine all of this beyond doubt. Yet do you know what mention these men received in the 9/11 Commission report? Nothing, not a word. There are a couple possibilities why they weren't mentioned. One is that they were indeed involved in a demolition and 'they' in the govt covered it up. Another is that they are actually Israeli intelligence agents with an undefined mission and were investigated and not found to have any involvement in the attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Liquid Gardens Posted August 14, 2012 #121 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) No, let’s not confuse different threads of the discussion. The mention of extremists was in response to your suggestion that those responsible were ‘in it for the money’ or would have some unspecified reason to ‘turn on one another’. It also answers the question of how those responsible for planning the operation knew who was ‘faithful to the cause’ – those extermists were charged with the implementation. This is all discussed in my post #78, response to your final quote box, to which you did not respond, other than to state you disagree with my analysis of these peoples’ psychological makeup. The mention of extremists had nothing to do with scientists, the media or a few hundred million citizens. Again, I think this is just confusion of us simultaneously discussing possibilities at the same time as the evidence for your theory; I was just summarizing that I was objecting to the faith you have in your ability to know how people think, both in the separate cases of the extremists and of the population as a whole, which I agree is confusing. I’m not sure you understand – the implementers are selected specifically because they are extremists who think the way I have described. I’m not trying to guess anyone’s thoughts here; extensive psychological profiling is carried out prior to the operation, with implementers chosen on that basis. One of these guys is going to need a complete meltdown to blow the operation. Depends on what you mean by 'blow the operation'. As noted in my previous comment, this extensive profiling either inexplicably missed that these five dancing Israelis were morons, or they knew that and risked it anyway, even though the discovery that Israeli agents were involved in 9/11 definitely blows the operation as far as trying to pin the blame on AQ. Well did Port Authority staff strap on a harness and pop up the elevator shafts to examine Turner Construction’s progress? I’m not sure that’s to be expected. And if they did, chances are they would never see the charge with each device installed and concealed quickly: firewall removed, place charge, firewall replaced. And if they did see that non-descript box, why do you expect it would cause panic? It’s just a toolbox... obviously. Where is the risk? Well, since I can't find any reference or precedent for thermite charges with the capability to cut through the steel at WTC that are only the size of a toolbox, and the main thermite demolition from 70+ years ago involving over 1000 lbs of explosives, I'm not sure you're being realistic about what evidence there actually was to find. To the second imagined ‘risk’ – a bomb threat – there is no full sweep of the building in each case, nevermind searches behind firewall inside the elevator shafts. In fact, warnings no more specific than, "there's a bomb in the building” were ignored altogether. It’s going to require a bomb threat specifically stating “there’s a bomb behind the firewall in the elevator shaft”. It’s not going to happen. So where is the risk? It's that difficult to walk some bomb-sniffing dogs through the building? In addition, I think you are also trying to smuggle in the unrealistic idea that the conspirators thought they could foresee every potential risk, which I see no reason to believe, especially in a heavily-trafficked building and with millions of people watching the event occur. I have never looked in detail at the WTC7 simulation since its release. After determining the methods used for the twin tower simulations, released earlier, I didn’t have to. I know that NIST’s simulations do not necessarily compare to reality. Again I will say I have confidence in the physics, material science, computer modelling and the results derived from them (though it is imperative to understand exactly what NIST is simulating). What I do not have confidence in is NIST’s impartiality or narrative conclusions. I guess I'm confused; the NIST simulations do not necessarily compare to reality but you have confidence in the computer modeling and their scientific background. Not saying your inconsistent, it's just not clear to me; I think you are saying, yes, they did fine work analyzing the collapse but their conclusions do not follow from that analysis because they are not impartial. Perhaps if I describe NIST’s method of simulation and conclusion in case of the twin towers this will explain what I mean more… Ok, NIST began with a “best estimate” for the most important variables. This included factors such as the aircraft weight and speed, angle of attack (to impart more or less energy to the core structure) and building material strength, amongst others. The “best estimate” for these factors did not produce a collapse in the simulation – that impact and damage scenario left the tower standing. NIST also simulated a “severe case” whereby the factors were altered, within measurement errors, to increase damage to the building. It resulted that the “severe case” caused approximately twice the damage to the core structure and more readily led to collapse in the model. And this is all fine so far, I don’t have a problem with any of these simulations or results, until the following… NIST compared the “best estimate” case and “severe case” to photographic evidence of the actual building damage. What they found is that the “best estimate” (which remember, did not lead to collapse in the simulation) provided the best match to that observable reality. This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality. So what did NIST do? In their conclusion NIST, for no reason other than a desire to provide the politically pre-conceived answer, discarded the “best estimate”/best match case in favour of the “severe case”/non-best match. If you have followed all the above then you will know why I have confidence in NIST’s technical expertise and results but not in impartiality of their conclusions. I'm not sure of the whole previous conversation between you and frenat flying swan (edit), but it seems like he has some valid points here. (if either of you guys easily know how I could find a link or search to find your previous discussion please let me know). They had an explanation that caused the collapse within the measurement errors, and no good evidence of a demolition, along with the fact that it did indeed collapse. Did you expect them to say, just because of the the word 'best', to say, we have confidence that the towers did not fall without demolitions? Scientists don't work in 'proofs'; it's all in degrees of likelihood and their results are always tentative. And I don't think this is 100% an accurate way to paraphrase it: "This means that the “severe case” (which led to collapse in the simulation) had caused more extensive damage than was ever present in reality.". 'Present in reality' is okay if what you really mean is simply 'observed from the photographic evidence'; I'm not sure how we know for certain the exact damage. I'm not sure how, from photographic evidence, they are able to see the detail of the internal structural damage through smoke to give this that much accuracy, and probably has to do with why the error bars are large enough to encompass double the damage of the 'best case'. Is there photographic evidence that clearly shows that their 'severe case' is not valid? Of course precedent/experience is important. There is no precedent for office fire doing what we saw on 9/11. There is precedent for thermite melting steel, and that when the columns of steel framed buildings are simultaneously compromised then such a collapse as witnessed will take place. There is no precedent for demolitions that can do the job you are suggesting being hidden in devices the size of toolboxes. I thought there were other examples of collapses from fire after 9/11 of other steel buildings? Might be wrong on that. Do these thermite demolitions not have an audible explosive component? I've watched several demolitions on youtube since we've been discussing this, some symmetrical, some non-symmetrical, some pretty messy, but none that didn't involve loud clear explosions. If the charges are initiated simultaneously then damage across the structure will occur likewise until the point of collapse initiation is reached. What I'm driving at here is the explosion sounds. When WTC7 was demolished, is it your contention that, like all other demolitions I can find, at the time of detonation there was an audible explosion? I don't hear it on the videos I've watched. It is number 1. I think in the link I provided and further discussion on this thread I have already explained why all experts who disagree with the official theory are not necessarily prepared to fight it. I have also explained why many experts are content to accept the official theory. You introduce another category above – experts who are lying. I have not actually mentioned these individuals yet (except brief reference to Lysenko type scientists) and believe it a very small, though influential, number. It may be correct they are a part of the operation, or otherwise in denial. Again, if the demolition is blatant to a non-expert, then it should be pretty risk-free to simply present these obvious facts and the undeniable reasoning supporting the demolition. You are insinuating that there is a gigantic secret that is obvious, and therefore easy to demonstrate from a scientific point of view, that is circulating amongst, I'd argue, tens if not over a hundred thousand experts, and they can't get enough interest or critical mass to blow this story open? The influence of our govt is so great, in protecting the actions of a former administration, that there are no international experts either? The only reason these experts would be 'accepting' the official theory is if they hadn't looked into it enough given how obvious it supposedly is, and I've already explained that I don't think that the number of experts who have looked into the greatest building collapses in history is that significantly smaller than the raw number of experts; even half is a huge number of people. A 'small number' of experts who are lying and might be in on the operation? I've found well over twenty experts who disagree with the demolition possibility who clearly have examined it, there goes our minimal number of people involved. It may also be correct that your experts are in denial, are letting what they want to be true to cloud their objective evaluation of the demolition possibility, or may just be one of the many myriad people who like to draw attention to themselves for all kinds of reasons. And please, Lysenkoism is really not a good analogy; the closed Soviet society of 1948 cannot be compared to an open 21st Century American society where every single person is armed with global communication via the internet. And this does not explain why and how this Lysenkoism concerning demolition has been enforced internationally. Oh and BYU, former employer of Steven Jones, is a private university. What happened when this expert/physician/scientist attempted to raise the discussion in a professional capacity? Primarily it appears he was criticized for not putting his paper through the relevant scientific peer review and dotting his i's and crossing his t's before suggesting that 'government-sponsored' studies are not reliable. However, I've looked over his paper and don't agree with BYU's putting him on paid leave because of it; I personally think that universities of all places should bend over backwards to allow free expression, even if it's deemed kinda kooky. However BYU specifically has been critized in the past it appears for other incidents of not exactly supporting free speech, plus it's a religious university, so I don't know that it's representative of what awaits anyone daring to disagree with the govt, especially if it's obvious what actually happened. Again, I struggle with your explanations for this silence and deception on the part of experts who obviously also know that it was demolished given your thesis here. Yes, there's some validity to the psychological make-up of the 'masses', but the masses and this whole country is very political divisive. These experts are so intimidated and aren't willing to go against the official story despite the science clearly being on their side; this ignores that the scientific community is an international one and that we have a large and proud history of protesting the government, along with the opportunity for wealth and fame, depending on how much they can demonstrate. This is Nobel Peace Prize level stuff. I hope that went well! Thanks Q, hope you had a good weekend also! Edited August 14, 2012 by Liquid Gardens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 14, 2012 #122 Share Posted August 14, 2012 (edited) I see, a type of primer for paint? I wonder who this Oystein guy is? And a jetfuel fire and gravitational collapse created all the dust somehow, and the dust contained the primer for the paint, in quatities large enough to cover half of Manhattan with dust a few inches thick? That sounds mysteriously like the claim to Weapons of Mass Distraction. It sounds a bit suspicious, considering the others who have identified the dust as being the by-product of the thermite reaction. He is correct, and no evidence of thermite cutting was ever found on the steel columns. So once again, have you ever wondered why thermite is not widely used by demolition companies? Correction: In the post above, I accidently misdirected the post to flyingswan. My apology, flyingswan. Edited August 14, 2012 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted August 14, 2012 #123 Share Posted August 14, 2012 If one were trying to secretly rig a building for demolition, and one controlled the Security Company at that building, how hard would it be to control just when and where bomb-sniffing dogs were deployed? Not very. If one controlled the Security Company, one would pretty well have free reign on that property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted August 14, 2012 #124 Share Posted August 14, 2012 If one were trying to secretly rig a building for demolition, and one controlled the Security Company at that building, how hard would it be to control just when and where bomb-sniffing dogs were deployed? Not very. If one controlled the Security Company, one would pretty well have free reign on that property. On the contrary, there was no way to rig the WTC buildings and not attract attention, which would have taken many, many months of preparation. It took months of preparation just to demoliish a bridge in Corpus Christi, Texas with explosives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja_hRLKnZEg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q24 Posted August 16, 2012 #125 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Thanks for the diagram, it makes my point very well. The tipping point for collapse is between the "best estimate" and "more severe" cases, so therefore the range of possible tipping points overlaps the range of best match to the damage. There is no "range of possible tipping points"; there is a tipping point from non-collapse to collapse. If that point is not within the actual damage range then the collapse was not a result of the impacts and fires. NIST neglected to determine if that point occurred within the actual damage range. Oh I wonder why. It is not a quibble, the two processes are completely different. You are highlighting words that don't mean what you want them to mean. One process leads to a pool of molten metal, the other leads, at much lower temperatures, to a crumbling away of the surface layers. Since the whole "molten steel" argument is about temperatures, evidence for the presence of a lower-temperature process is not relevant. Ok, along with FEMA stating there was "melting" and that the steel "liquefied", let me highlight a few more accompanying words that mean what you'd prefer them not to: - Firefighter O'Toole remembers seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within Ground Zero, "It was dripping from the molten steel" he said. Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint Inc. stated, "In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel." Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe recounted, "I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally been melted because of the heat." The description is of the beams dripping and melted, which the photographic evidence you selectively ignore, further confirms: - We know the first picture of a metal in a semi-solid state is not aluminium or lead as this would fully liquefy well below the temperature seen (the colour indicating it is approaching 1,000oC). All of this evidence is corroborative - there was melted steel in the debris pile. The high temperature corrosion that FEMA described, if it occurred in large quantity, explains the observations. And let's not forget FEMA's conclusion: "It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure." Just please no more of this silliness, claiming that no steel was melted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now