Main Index     
        SearchSearch  Click here to create an account       <Font size=+1><B>R E G I S T E R</B></FONT>R E G I S T E R        Log inLog in     
     FAQFAQ       UsergroupsUsergroups        MemberlistMemberlist     
   World War VWorld War V     MedalsMedals     PoliMatchPoliMatch     StatsStats     
   
Newspeak Dictionary Newspeak Wiktionary

Physics Professor Thinks Bombs, Not Planes, Toppled WTC
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Originality
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
Interest
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
Scholarship/Prose
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating for this thread: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.newspeakdictionary.com Forum Index -> Guestbook
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 12

Post #36261
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2006-12-30 19:03 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist Country: American Empire

and now what?  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

so no Osama, no Saddam, what's the next gimick in Bush's hat?
_________________

What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 23

Post #36263
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2006-12-30 19:09 Reply with quote
Politics: Just plain NUTS! Country: Scotland

Re: and now what?  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

carldiesturmer wrote:
so no Osama, no Saddam, what's the next gimick in Bush's hat?


How about the Evil Empire of Iran: an imperialistic nation that invades other countries and imposes its political ideas on them?
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say


God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Total words in post - 408

Post #36265
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 848
Total Words: 107,193
Average words per post: 126.41
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2006-12-30 20:27 Reply with quote
Politics: Friggin Wacko! Country: United States

Nuke the humans!  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Quote:
As scatterbrained as the 9/11 conspiracy theories are, psikey, they pale in comparison to some of your posts. Wink


I can't help throwing in Osama jokes when people think an airliner can knock down a 100 story skyscraper that stood for 28 years in less than 2 hours. And none of them can come up with figures for the number of tons of steel and concrete on the floors where the planes hit.

It boggles the mind.

But it is really important that one plane had 9 tons of cargo and the other plane had 5 tons of cargo. NIST said so.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

Of course now the School of Engineering and Electronics, University of Edinburgh had to get into it.

On page 4 the experts at Edinburgh say this:

Quote:
The hottest temperatures are expected to exist near the region of the openings where there is sufficient ventilation. It is very unlikely that the temperatures could have been that high in the interior of compartments of such a large aspect ratio (height to width) and the consequent resistance to ventilation it would create (because of the complex multi-cell flow patterns in such geometries).


http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/1842/1216/1/WTCpaper.pdf

Now this begs the question, if the temperatures at the openings got so high then how was this picture taken?



Now the most shocking aspect of the entire business is the buildings coming down in less than ten seconds. If a report cannot explain how this happened then why waste time writing it. The shortest interval mentioned in the Edinbrugh report is 1000 seconds, more than 16 minutes. This entire report is devoted to trusses weakening and collapsing from fire Which people are implying caused the building collapse. I wonder if I conceded that all of the trusses failed simultaneously on 5 floors if anyone could demonstrate how that building could come down in less than 20 seconds. Because if they can't then all of this talk about fires and trusses is irrelevant.

I hope that was more than sufficiently scatterbrained to keep you amused.

Beam me up Scotty there is no intelligent life down here.
Laughing Laughing

psik

PS - One Of The Few, you've turned into a human again. This human looks lots more boring than the last one. Mr. Green
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 82

Post #36467
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Wed 2007-01-10 06:50 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth-Sherlock Holmes

Let's lay all the evidence on the table and see what is impossible. forget human motivations and cost, lets just get down to brass tacks and get some closure, because there is definately evidence going every which way, and the only way to know what happened is to look at all of the evidence. Why am I posting this? Because I have nothing better to do.
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
psikeyhackr
Inner Party Member
Total words in post - 251

Post #36587
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Posts: 848
Total Words: 107,193
Average words per post: 126.41
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Tue 2007-01-16 01:05 Reply with quote
Politics: Friggin Wacko! Country: United States

Klien Bottle Rabbit Hole  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth-Sherlock Holmes

Let's lay all the evidence on the table and see what is impossible. forget human motivations and cost, lets just get down to brass tacks and get some closure, because there is definitely evidence going every which way, and the only way to know what happened is to look at all of the evidence. Why am I posting this? Because I have nothing better to do.


The weirdness of this simple problem makes it totally repulsive.

We are talking about buildings designed before the moon landing. They should have known how much concrete was going into them before they started digging the hole for the foundation. But I get numbers all over the map for the amount of concrete in those buildings.


Quote:
Today those measurements are just numbers in a notebook. What I remember most are the happy tourists taking pictures of one another from atop the 100,000 tons of steel and 212,000 tons of concrete called Tower Two.

http://www.sas.org/tcs/weeklyIssues_2006/2006-09-22/editorial-p/index.html

Quote:
With roughly 600,000 tons of concrete in each WTC tower, the available energy from gravitational potential energy was only about 0.7 kwh per ton of concrete. However, given the uncertainty in the size of powder, the available energy is "in the ballpark".

http://www.erichufschmid.net/WTC_AnalysisRussell.html

Quote:
A bewildering array of materials are buried in the rubble. The WTC reportedly had 200,000 tons of steel, 955,000 tons of concrete and 43,600 windows. It had untold thousands of computers (each monitor has an average of about five pounds of lead), desks, and filing cabinets. There were numerous restaurants; cleaning closets; motor vehicles in the garages; miles of electric cables with dielectric fluids; law enforcement facilities with arsenals of firearms; a gold and silver repository; air conditioning units with freon; old electrical equipment, apparently with PCBs; and the remains of two hijacked jets.

http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/gerrardarticle.html

Quote:
`Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the Towers.' Hoffman estimates that the energy required to convert one Tower's estimated 90,000 tons of concrete into dust of 60-micron particle diameter is about 135,000 KWH. This researcher then considers another aspect of the collapse: `There was, however, another energy sink that was many times the magnitude of the gravitational energy: the energy needed to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of each tower within 30 seconds of the onset of their collapses.'

http://wtc7.net/books/greatcrimes/part5.html

Quote:
It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of "miscellaneous"building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significants amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf

Quote:
The dust was composed of asbestos, fiberglass, lead from 50,000 computers, and 1.2 million tons of concrete with dangerously high levels of alkalinity.

http://spewingforth.blogspot.com/2006/04/confirmed-ny-detectives-death-caused.html

Quote:
The twin towers were gigantic structures. Each floor of each building encompassed an acre, and the towers enclosed 60 million cubic feet each. Together, they contained 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards (about 25,000 tons) of concrete. The pile of debris in some places reached as high as a ten-story building. A month after the terrorist attack, it was estimated that only 15 percent of the debris had been removed, and it was estimated that it would take a year to clear the site.

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/18719/page/4;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0

Quote:
given that about 1.5 million tons of steel and concrete went into building the World Trade Center towers.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/19/se.06.html

Quote:
"Perhaps 100,000 tons of concrete in each tower was pulverized to a powder. This required a lot of energy. The powder was ejected with a velocity so high that clouds of dust expanded two or three times the diameter of the building. Thousands of steel beams broke at their joints, and breaking those joints required energy....The high temperature of the rubble required energy as well. Where did all this energy come from?"

http://www.rense.com/general60/ultim.htm

Quote:
200,000 tons of steel
425,000 cubic yards of concrete

Note: 425,000 yd3 x 33 (ft3/yd3)x (110)lb/ft3 x (ton/2,000 lbs)= 631,125 tons

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/StarWarsBeam2.html

425,000 cubic yards (about 25,000 tons) 0.059 tons/cu.yd. 118 lb. gotta be wrong

Lots of different places say the floors were light weight concrete. Apparently normal concrete is 150 lb. per cubic foot. But there are lots of different types of light weight concrete. It ranges from 40 to 110 lb. per cubic foot. but I have found two sites claiming 425,000 cubic yards weighs about 25,000 tons. ROFL

Of course the NIST web site says this:


Quote:
Why is NIST doing this investigation?
NIST scientists and engineers are world-renowned experts in analyzing a building’s failure and determining the most probable technical cause. Since NIST is not a regulatory agency and does not issue building standards or codes, the institute is viewed as a neutral, “third party” investigator.

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

How world-renowned experts fail to mention the amount of concrete in 11,000 pages about the collapse of a steel and concrete building is far beyond my comprehension.

psikeyhackr
_________________
Physics - can't - LIE!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 65

Post #36633
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Fri 2007-01-19 08:42 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weqBynRZGG8

this video says that the pancake collapse, which was included in the 9/11 commision report, is physically impossible without removing the outer walls, which were obviously mostly intact. also read some of the comments, the 9/11 conspracy theorists aren't dumb and they make sveral good points. I'm looking at another video right now, I will post again with the info I get from that
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 137

Post #36634
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Fri 2007-01-19 08:52 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

And while poking around wikipedia I found this:

That's a thermite reaction if I'm not mistaken
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
JOHNNYBEGOOD
Inner Party Leader
Total words in post - 182

Post #36636
Joined: 25 May 2006
Posts: 1142
Total Words: 133,166
Average words per post: 116.61
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Fri 2007-01-19 17:52 Reply with quote
Politics: Zionist Country: American Empire

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
And while poking around wikipedia I found this:

That's a thermite reaction if I'm not mistaken
Err...no. First of all, where the fuck would they get thermite? Second of all, if it were thermite, it would have collapsed even sooner. Third of all, you would have seen sparks flying from impact point if there was thermite there. And lastly, IF THERE WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THE EYEWITNESSES WOULD HAVE HEARD A FUCKING EXPLOSION FOR FUCK SAKES!
_________________
ಠ_ಠ
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 296

Post #36637
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Fri 2007-01-19 19:42 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Err...no. First of all, where the fuck would they get thermite? Second of all, if it were thermite, it would have collapsed even sooner. Third of all, you would have seen sparks flying from impact point if there was thermite there. And lastly, IF THERE WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THE EYEWITNESSES WOULD HAVE HEARD A FUCKING EXPLOSION FOR FUCK SAKES!

First off, thermite is simply iron oxide and aluminum (that I learned from Mythbusters, which means you can make it right at home, though I would recommend against it, and steel beams and aluminum inside the plane could cause it, thugh that's unlikely since at that point the plane had disintegrated, meaning something else was at work

Adn second there ARE multiple reports of additional explosions, including some from firefighters, and there is the small matter of the buliding comiing down in it's footprint (waits for groans to die down). If any anything makor were to happen to the building the top would have fallen off because on each tower, one to three side was compromised, not all four. also Psik's pic of the woman inside the crash zone pretty much refutes the commision's theory of the fires causing the collapse. Also watch the youtube link I provided, very interesting, and says that it's impossible for the pancake effect to happe With the walls Also that may have been an inadvertantly triggered reaction, they could have brought the whole thing down quickly anytime they wanted and if you look closely at the collapse, you'll see puffs of smoke coming from the side of the building ahead of the collapse, now the only wsy that would make sense is if the whole building was given a once over with explosives during the collapse. Also All reports I've heard hve the jet fuel fires burning at 1400 degrees, with steel melting at 2000, and most of the jet feul being burned at impact. It's all a big show to scare people.
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
safeguard
Outer Party
Total words in post - 1221

Post #36638
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 151
Total Words: 119,872
Average words per post: 793.85
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Fri 2007-01-19 23:38 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian Country: Canada

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
JOHNNYBEGOOD wrote:
Err...no. First of all, where the fuck would they get thermite? Second of all, if it were thermite, it would have collapsed even sooner. Third of all, you would have seen sparks flying from impact point if there was thermite there. And lastly, IF THERE WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION THE EYEWITNESSES WOULD HAVE HEARD A FUCKING EXPLOSION FOR FUCK SAKES!

First off, thermite is simply iron oxide and aluminum (that I learned from Mythbusters, which means you can make it right at home, though I would recommend against it, and steel beams and aluminum inside the plane could cause it, thugh that's unlikely since at that point the plane had disintegrated, meaning something else was at work

Adn second there ARE multiple reports of additional explosions, including some from firefighters, and there is the small matter of the buliding comiing down in it's footprint (waits for groans to die down). If any anything makor were to happen to the building the top would have fallen off because on each tower, one to three side was compromised, not all four. also Psik's pic of the woman inside the crash zone pretty much refutes the commision's theory of the fires causing the collapse. Also watch the youtube link I provided, very interesting, and says that it's impossible for the pancake effect to happe With the walls Also that may have been an inadvertantly triggered reaction, they could have brought the whole thing down quickly anytime they wanted and if you look closely at the collapse, you'll see puffs of smoke coming from the side of the building ahead of the collapse, now the only wsy that would make sense is if the whole building was given a once over with explosives during the collapse. Also All reports I've heard hve the jet fuel fires burning at 1400 degrees, with steel melting at 2000, and most of the jet feul being burned at impact. It's all a big show to scare people.


AceBrock basically said what I would've said, but I'll add a little anyway.

JOHNNYBEGOOD, there's no reason to get feisty. But, if you watch the 9/11 Mysteries video on google video (which has been posted here twice so far) you can get answers to those questions, even if you may not agree with them. I know not everyone has all day to watch tedious videos like us conspiracy theorists, but it wouldn't hurt to see the other side's viewpoint as put forward in 9/11 Mysteries.

There are indeed multiple reports of explosions before the collapse (many of which are shown in 9/11 mysteries), such as the ones here, here, and here. There were a lot of people that escaped from the buildings that heard, felt and were tossed around by multiple explosions while escaping the buildings.

A lot of times people point out that pic of the thermite reaction and say "No, that's liquid aluminum from the planes that melted from the intense heat." I don't believe that because liquid aluminum retains its silvery colour and that pic clearly shows red and yellow liquid. Also, in another video I already posted of Steven Jones giving a presentation at a conference at U.C. Berkley (see here), he shows what liquid aluminum looks like and what thermite looks like, clearly showing the difference in colour. You can actually see the full video that pic was taken from in 9/11 Mysteries, and in Alex Jones's TerrorStorm.

Look over my previous post above, because I posted a lot of this already.

"Steel melts at temperatures of 2750 ºF and above, attained only in a blast furnace or when a powerful incendiary such as Thermite is used. Steel or any substance that is burned will never become hotter than the temperature of the fire or heat applied to it. An open air hydrocarbon fire reaches a maximum temperature of some 1200 ºF in a dirty or uncontrolled burn, characterized by red-orange flames." - From 9/11 Mysteries; also see wikipedia's article on steel.

On the pancake theory of collapse, yeah thats pretty unlikely. Not only because when you watch the collapse a bunch does it not look like a pancake collapse, but also because if the floors came down one on top of the other in succession the collapse would've been much more drawn out (even if it only took 1 second for each floor to fall, thats like 110 seconds). If the floors were collapsing like that wouldn't the huge steel core be standing? Even according to the people who hold it was a pancake collapse this is true (PBS did a documentary on the pancake collapse theory):







Now, by their own logic after the collapse of the floors the core should be left standing to at least some degree, but in reality what was left of the core disappeared within seconds after the collapse. Ofcourse that is a computer model...

Something I don't see a lot of people addressing is the collapse of WTC 7 which wasn't hit by a plane, had very little fire damage/damage from falling debris and was the building that was furthest away out of all the WTC buildings; and yet it collapsed directly in on itself. Here's the video of its collapse. Also if you notice you can see the top floor pent-house begin to fall first, which is strange if you stick to the official story.

Now I don't claim to know everything about this subject, and actually there probably are some perfectly logical explinations for some of this stuff, but I don't see what's wrong with trying to figure it out ourselves if the government and appointed commissions choose to overlook some evidence. I'll admit to being a 9/11 'conspiracy nut', and I'll also admit to a confirmation bias at some points (although I always ask myself "what if it wasn't an inside job?" at some point when I'm reading about 9/11). Both sides (conspiracy theorists and official story conspiracy theorists) may contradict themselves at some points, but I tend not to side with the government on things like this anymore; I've lost trust in the government. And even if most of the 9/11 Truth movement's theories get debunked tomorow that wouldn't make me trust the government or it's talking heads.

I'm sure I've left some shit out about thermite that I wanted to say but I'm pressed for time at the moment (see my above post for thermite reaction demonstrations).
_________________
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is far more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death." - Socrates, in Plato's Apology


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 85

Post #36639
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-20 00:10 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

A little? that's a lot. It makes perfect sense, though. Now I find it interestng how when the twin towers collapsed betwen 9 and 10 am, why did WTC 7 collapse at 5:20 pm? several hours after they fell, the world trade center 7 fell, when it had minimal damage. that makes almost no sense to me. And how did the fires start in WTC7? was there an arsonist on the loose?, did a piece of flaming debris hit it?. definately something fishy about that.
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
safeguard
Outer Party
Total words in post - 362

Post #36646
Joined: 18 Dec 2006
Posts: 151
Total Words: 119,872
Average words per post: 793.85
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sun 2007-01-21 02:00 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian Country: Canada

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
A little? that's a lot.


Yeah I got carried away I suppose. Not unusual for me.

At the risk of destroying my view/argument on this issue, I'll post 2 sites that bring forward the other side in this debate (the official fire story) and debunk my point of view. I do this to make sure that I am not being hypocritical, so I don't continually fall prey to the confirmation bias, and to expand the debate for both sides here.

Debunking 9/11
9/11 Myths

The only thing I really dislike when looking over these sites (or viewing comments by people who side with this view) is how official story supporters characterize all people who subscribe to the 9/11 truth movement's point of view as crazy 'nuts' and 'kooks', and then use the fact that they endorse that view as a way to discredit everything that person says (usuallly the case when bringing up Alex Jones). While a select few may actually be just that, not everyone is crazy for taking another stance on an issue like this. There are definetly fanatics on both sides, but many people most likely do just want the truth. If it really was fire and pancaking and warped trusses etc. then ok; but that doesn't make me or people of this point of view 'crazy', even if they choose to stick with that side (asuming that 'conspiracy theorists' were proven wrong). That would just be willful ignorance (which a lot of people on both sides do already about many other things in reality).

If I am someday convinced that 9/11 was not a controlled demolition or false flag operation, that wouldn't devastate my whole world view. As I said above it wouldn't make me trust the government any more, nor would it make me side against 'conspiracy theorists' in general. Until then I believe it (9/11) was a highly convoluted, tragic false flag operation.

So in closing: I'm not crazy. Mr. Green
_________________
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; it is far more difficult to avoid wickedness, for it runs faster than death." - Socrates, in Plato's Apology


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 881

Post #36757
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 01:09 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

Yikes, I thought people knew this stuff was debunked already  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

I feel slightly annoyed that to this day this kind of crap is circulating about 9/11. Crazy
If you seriously want answers to these mostly mundane questions, see this video;
or read the criticism section on the Loose Change article which I spearheaded. Twisted Evil

I'll answer the easiest stuff I've come across in this thread. I'm not here to debate the issue, because there isn't a debate so long as you are diligent and understand the details of what occurred and listen to what (experienced individuals) say... who I will add to the end in brackets.

* Pulverized concrete: That is what you get when a building collapses, rather than a controlled demolition. As a controlled demolition will break up and weaken the entire building; making it come down at the same time. Whereas with a collapse you literally have the top section (which has tremendous potential energy) pounding the rest of the building to the ground. (structural engineer)

* Symmetrical collapse: If you look at photos/video of the initiation of the collapse, it wasn't even close to symmetrical. However, as it progressed it had the appearance of symmetry and a controlled demolition for a very simple reason; the strong exterior columns. A design feature unique to the twin towers; which (mostly) contained (and focused) the collapse downward. (another reason for so much pulverized concrete) (structural engineer)

* People standing at the holes: Fire needs air intake. What you see are people standing in areas where air is being rapidly drawn into the building to feed the above/interior fires. This creates an air current that cools the areas in question. (fireman)

* Secondary explosions: Are common in any large fire. Let me repeat this, it is normal to have secondary explosions. There are many things apart from the obvious which explode in fire conditions; such as electrical transformers. (fireman)

* Molten metal: Aluminum mixed with office equipment, dead bodies, paper, carpet; would not be pure silver; as it is obviously not pure aluminum. This is an high rise fire, not a science experiment. (metallurgist, scientist... well at least a scientist without a conspiracy theory to promote; I guess you should stick to metallurgists Very Happy)

* Steel: The melting point of steel is almost irrelevant; it is the carrying capacity and strength of steel at higher temperatures which is relevant in a fire situation; especially if the structure is seriously compromised. After all, they spend a lot of money on fireproofing steel for a reason. (although of course, sometimes they cheap out, particularly on larger projects... and that has unfortunate consequences) (structural engineer)

* WTC 7: Had massive structural damage in its foundations and a large fire raging which couldn't be contained. Because the damage was at the bottom, it of course collapsed differently than WTC 1 and 2. Conspiracy lazyasses point to a photo like this to somehow illustrate the damage to WTC 7.

That is a gross distortion... doesn't anybody want to see the other side of the building??? Not just a sliver shown by a corner? It makes me laugh to no end, as this is a typical example of incomplete evidence provided from which theorists will then pounce on the doubt generated from their carefully selective evidence. (fireman, emergency workers... pretty much anybody at the scene can more accurately convey the damage, and fires, than one zoomed in photo on the wrong side of the building)

The video I provided above a some point shows a more comprehensive view of the WTC 7 damage; far more than Loose Change, or other conspiracy theory sources that seem to almost exclusively focus on the intact side of the building... rather than actually trying to give people an accurate perception of what is going on. The WTC 7 collapse is much more akin to a controlled demolition, but that is obviously a result of the damage it suffered on its unique foundations. (engineers who actually designed WTC 7)

* Explosions ahead of the collapse: Elevators, floors, walls, debris all falling ahead of the main collapse (which isn't perfectly symmetrical remember) can and would create sudden air pressures that would blow out windows. (demolition experts, fireman who have witnessed collapses)

If you feel there is something important I haven't covered, I will answer ONE solid, make or break point each of you would like to put forward... and I'll do my best to answer you, or direct you to a resource that does that better than myself. But I would add its pretty easy to explain most things with a little background and explanations by experts; and please do not write a huge thesis attempting to prove or calculate something. Just made a simple point/question (with a link if necessary) that you think could really change the official story of 9/11. Think
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 508

Post #36760
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 02:30 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

Debunked? No.  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

RoyBoy wrote:
I feel slightly annoyed that to this day this kind of crap is circulating about 9/11. Crazy
If you seriously want answers to these mostly mundane questions, see this video;
or read the criticism section on the Loose Change article which I spearheaded. Twisted Evil
And I feel slightly annoyed when it's called crap
Quote:

I'll answer the easiest stuff I've come across in this thread. I'm not here to debate the issue, because there isn't a debate so long as you are diligent and understand the details of what occurred and listen to what (experienced individuals) say... who I will add to the end in brackets.
And I'll offer my criticisms of some of these ideas, many of which don't make a lick of sense when I think about it

Quote:
* Pulverized concrete: That is what you get when a building collapses, rather than a controlled demolition. As a controlled demolition will break up and weaken the entire building; making it come down at the same time. Whereas with a collapse you literally have the top section (which has tremendous potential energy) pounding the rest of the building to the ground. (structural engineer)
Demolitions experts and other structural engineers say otherwise. Pulverizing concrete involves smashing it, and it's easier to rip apart concrete than pulverize it and if it was pulled apart then it would have been in large chunks raining to earth, where it would become powder

Quote:
* Symmetrical collapse: If you look at photos/video of the initiation of the collapse, it wasn't even close to symmetrical. However, as it progressed it had the appearance of symmetry and a controlled demolition for a very simple reason; the strong exterior columns. A design feature unique to the twin towers; which (mostly) contained (and focused) the collapse downward. (another reason for so much pulverized concrete) (structural engineer)
The closer I look the more symmitrical it looks to me, and really the top would have fallen off according to some structural engineers, also in regards to the collapse, why did it happen so quick? Most reports, including the 9/11 commission's(!) say that it would be physically impossible for the towers to pancake that fast with the walls on the building, so why did they?

Quote:
* People standing at the holes: Fire needs air intake. What you see are people standing in areas where air is being rapidly drawn into the building to feed the above/interior fires. This creates an air current that cools the areas in question. (fireman)
If that were the case then the winds from the air rushing in should cause he clothes to look like their rustling, and posibly bowl her over. Your argument hardly makes a lick of sense to me

Quote:
* Secondary explosions: Are common in any large fire. Let me repeat this, it is normal to have secondary explosions. There are many things apart from the obvious which explode in fire conditions; such as electrical transformers. (fireman)
But I doubt those would be sufficient to knock a building down, and remember, this was supposedly the first steel frame tower to collapse because of fire.

Quote:
* Molten metal: Aluminum mixed with office equipment, dead bodies, paper, carpet; would not be pure silver; as it is obviously not pure aluminum. This is an high rise fire, not a science experiment. (metallurgist, scientist... well at least a scientist without a conspiracy theory to promote; I guess you should stick to metallurgists Very Happy)
Sitll it would have hardened when it cooled, with all of the stuff trapped in it, that argument disproves nothing

Quote:
* Steel: The melting point of steel is almost irrelevant; it is the carrying capacity and strength of steel at higher temperatures which is relevant in a fire situation; especially if the structure is seriously compromised. After all, they spend a lot of money on fireproofing steel for a reason. (although of course, sometimes they cheap out, particularly on larger projects... and that has unfortunate consequences) (structural engineer)
Most reports I've seen have most of the jet fuel burning at impact, then the rest burning out in ten minutes while the office equipment fires burned out in 20, so why did it take so long to actually collapse?

Quote:
* WTC 7: Had massive structural damage in its foundations and a large fire raging which couldn't be contained. Because the damage was at the bottom, it of course collapsed differently than WTC 1 and 2. Conspiracy lazyasses point to a photo like this to somehow illustrate the damage to WTC 7.
Where did the structural damage and fire come from? do tell or the argument is fairly moot

Quote:
That is a gross distortion... doesn't anybody want to see the other side of the building??? Not just a sliver shown by a corner? It makes me laugh to no end, as this is a typical example of incomplete evidence provided from which theorists will then pounce on the doubt generated from their carefully selective evidence. (fireman, emergency workers... pretty much anybody at the scene can more accurately convey the damage, and fires, than one zoomed in photo on the wrong side of the building)
your evidence is incomplete as well, possibly less complete than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists

Quote:
The video I provided above a some point shows a more comprehensive view of the WTC 7 damage; far more than Loose Change, or other conspiracy theory sources that seem to almost exclusively focus on the intact side of the building... rather than actually trying to give people an accurate perception of what is going on. The WTC 7 collapse is much more akin to a controlled demolition, but that is obviously a result of the damage it suffered on its unique foundations. (engineers who actually designed WTC 7)
see my other wtc7 argument

Quote:
* Explosions ahead of the collapse: Elevators, floors, walls, debris all falling ahead of the main collapse (which isn't perfectly symmetrical remember) can and would create sudden air pressures that would blow out windows. (demolition experts, fireman who have witnessed collapses)
then why were the explosins coming out of the concrete? do tell

Quote:
If you feel there is something important I haven't covered, I will answer ONE solid, make or break point each of you would like to put forward... and I'll do my best to answer you, or direct you to a resource that does that better than myself. But I would add its pretty easy to explain most things with a little background and explanations by experts; and please do not write a huge thesis attempting to prove or calculate something. Just made a simple point/question (with a link if necessary) that you think could really change the official story of 9/11. Think
too bad, I point out flaws in all your arguments. because I can. Edit: I'm curious, why did you limit it to pointing out one flaw in your argument per user?
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.


Last edited by Acebrock on Sat 2007-01-27 03:04; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 4001

Post #36762
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 02:47 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

here's more for you to chew over:
From http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20060129&articleId=1846


1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers

Shortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.

But what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.

With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.

No Prior Collapse Induced by Fire

The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact. Indeed, the supposedly definitive report put out by NIST---the National Institute for Standards and Technology (2005)---even implies that fire-induced collapses of large steel-frame buildings are normal events (Hoffman, 2005).[4] Far from being normal, however, such collapses have never occurred, except for the alleged cases of 9/11.

Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners. The towers, however, were designed to withstand the impact of airliners about the same size as Boeing 767s.[5] Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001). And even Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11). Likewise, the NIST Report, in discussing how the impact of the planes contributed to the collapse, focuses primarily on the claim that the planes dislodged a lot of the fire-proofing from the steel.[6]

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.

One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.

There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: “steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel.” Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: “It was the fire that killed the buildings. There’s nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted” (Barter, 2001).[7]

These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800° Fahrenheit.[8] And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700°F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel.[9] We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.[10]

Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.[11] For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300°F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.

But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes,[12] after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were “probably only about 1,200 or 1,300°F” (Eagar, 2002).

There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, “only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250°C [482°F],” and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).

NIST (2005) says that it “did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors”. That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST’s findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.

Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300°F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.[13]

For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300°F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.

Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into “towering infernos.” But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall."[14] Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only “two isolated pockets of fire.”[15]

The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump.

In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting.[16] The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that “very intense” fires “burned for a long time.”[17] But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.

To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building’s 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia’s One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building’s 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although “[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage” (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building’s top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.

Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows.

Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: “Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900°C (1,500-1,700°F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments” (1988, Appendix A).

These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST’s claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.[18]

A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service” (Glover, 2002).

Multiple Evidence of Controlled Demolition

There is a reverse truth to the fact that, aside from the alleged cases of 9/11, fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse. This reverse truth is that every previous total collapse has been caused by the procedure known as “controlled demolition,” in which explosives capable of cutting steel have been placed in crucial places throughout the building and then set off in a particular order. Just from knowing that the towers collapsed, therefore, the natural assumption would be that they were brought down by explosives.

This a priori assumption is, moreover, supported by an empirical examination of the particular nature of the collapses. Here we come to the second major problem with the official theory, namely, that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used. I will briefly describe these eleven features.

Sudden Onset: In controlled demolition, the onset of the collapse is sudden. One moment, the building is perfectly motionless; the next moment, it suddenly begins to collapse. But steel, when heated, does not suddenly buckle or break. So in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show,[19] there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes. The buildings were perfectly motionless up to the moment they began their collapse.

Straight Down: The most important thing in a controlled demolition of a tall building close to other buildings is that it come straight down, into, or at least close to, its own footprint, so that it does not harm the other buildings. The whole art or science of controlled demolition is oriented primarily around this goal. As Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, Inc., has explained, “to bring [a building] down as we want, so . . . no other structure is harmed,” the demolition must be “completely planned,” using “the right explosive [and] the right pattern of laying the charges” (Else, 2004).[20] If the 110-story Twin Towers had fallen over, they would have caused an enormous amount of damage to buildings covering many city blocks. But the towers came straight down. Accordingly, the official theory, by implying that fire produced collapses that perfectly mimicked the collapses that have otherwise been produced only by precisely placed explosives, requires a miracle.[21]

Almost Free-Fall Speed: Buildings brought down by controlled demolition collapse at almost free-fall speed. This can occur because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed, so that when the upper floors come down, they encounter no resistance. The fact that the collapses of the towers mimicked this feature of controlled demolition was mentioned indirectly by The 9/11 Commission Report, which said that the “South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, p. 305).[22] The authors of the report evidently thought that the rapidity of this collapse did not conflict with the official theory, known as the “pancake” theory. According to this theory, the floors above the floors that were weakened by the impact of the airliner fell on the floor below, which started a chain reaction, so that the floors “pancaked” all the way down.

But if that is what happened, the lower floors, with all their steel and concrete, would have provided resistance. The upper floors could not have fallen through them at the same speed as they would fall through air. However, the videos of the collapses show that the rubble falling inside the building’s profile falls at the same speed as the rubble outside[23] (Jones, 2006). As architect and physicist Dave Heller (2005) explains:

the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?. . . In [the method known as controlled demolition], each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously, and in virtual freefall. (Garlic and Glass 6)

Total Collapse: The official theory is even more decisively ruled out by the fact that the collapses were total: These 110-story buildings collapsed into piles of rubble only a few stories high. How was that possible? The core of each tower contained 47 massive steel box columns.[24] According to the pancake theory, the horizontal steel supports broke free from the vertical columns. But if that is what had happened, the 47 core columns would have still been standing. The 9/11 Commission came up with a bold solution to this problem. It simply denied the existence of the 47 core columns, saying: “The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped” (Kean and Hamilton, 2004, 541 note 1). Voila! With no 47 core columns, the main problem is removed.

The NIST Report handled this most difficult problem by claiming that when the floors collapsed, they pulled on the columns, causing the perimeter columns to become unstable. This instability then increased the gravity load on the core columns, which had been weakened by tremendously hot fires in the core, which, NIST claims, reached 1832°F, and this combination of factors somehow produced “global collapse” (NIST, 2005, pp. 28, 143).

This theory faces two problems. First, NIST’s claim about tremendously hot fires in the core is completely unsupported by evidence. As we saw earlier, its own studies found no evidence that any of the core columns had reached temperatures of even 482°F (250°C), so its theory involves a purely speculative addition of over 1350°F.[25] Second, even if this sequence of events had occurred, NIST provides no explanation as to why it would have produced global—-that is, total--collapse. The NIST Report asserts that “column failure” occurred in the core as well as the perimeter columns. But this remains a bare assertion. There is no plausible explanation of why the columns would have broken or even buckled, so as to produce global collapse at virtually free-fall speed, even if they had reached such temperatures.[26]

Sliced Steel: In controlled demolitions of steel-frame buildings, explosives are used to slice the steel columns and beams into pieces. A representative from Controlled Demolition, Inc., has said of RDX, one of the commonly used high explosives, that it slices steel like a "razor blade through a tomato." The steel is, moreover, not merely sliced; it is sliced into manageable lengths. As Controlled Demolition, Inc., says in its publicity: “Our DREXSTM systems . . . segment steel components into pieces matching the lifting capacity of the available equipment.”[27]

The collapses of the Twin Towers, it seems, somehow managed to mimic this feature of controlled demolitions as well. Jim Hoffman (2004), after studying various photos of the collapse site, said that much of the steel seemed to be “chopped up into . . . sections that could be easily loaded onto the equipment that was cleaning up Ground Zero.”[28]

Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials: Another feature of controlled demolition is the production of a lot of dust, because explosives powerful enough to slice steel will pulverize concrete and most other non-metallic substances into tiny particles. And, Hoffman (2003) reports, “nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine power.”[29] That observation was also made by Colonel John O’Dowd of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. “At the World Trade Center sites,” he told the History Channel, “it seemed like everything was pulverized” (History Channel, 2002).

This fact creates a problem for the official theory, according to which the only energy available was the gravitational energy. This energy would have been sufficient to break most of the concrete into fairly small pieces. But it would not have been anywhere close to the amount of energy needed to turn the concrete and virtually all the non-metallic contents of the buildings into tiny particles of dust.

Dust Clouds: Yet another common feature of controlled demolitions is the production of dust clouds, which result when explosions eject the dust from the building with great energy. And, as one can see by comparing videos on the Web, the collapses of the towers produced clouds that are very similar to those produced by controlled demolitions of other structures, such as Seattle’s Kingdome. The only difference is that the clouds produced during the collapses of the towers were proportionally much bigger.[30]

The question of the source of the needed energy again arises. Hoffman (2003), focusing on the expansion of the North Tower’s dust cloud, calculates that the energy required simply for this expansion---ignoring the energy needed to slice the steel and pulverize the concrete and other materials---exceeded by at least 10 times the gravitational energy available.

The official account, therefore, involves a huge violation of the laws of physics---a violation that becomes even more enormous once we factor in the energy required to pulverize the concrete (let alone the energy required to break the steel).

Besides the sheer quantity of energy needed, another problem with the official theory is that gravitational energy is wholly unsuited to explain the production of these dust clouds. This is most obviously the case in the first few seconds. In Hoffman’s words: “You can see thick clouds of pulverized concrete being ejected within the first two seconds. That’s when the relative motion of the top of the tower to the intact portion was only a few feet per second.”[31] Jeff King (2003), in the same vein, says: “[A great amount of] very fine concrete dust is ejected from the top of the building very early in the collapse. . . [when] concrete slabs [would have been] bumping into each other at [only] 20 or 30 mph.”

The importance of King’s point can be appreciated by juxtaposing it with the claim by Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, that although the clouds of dust created during the collapses of the Twin Towers may create the impression of a controlled demolition, “it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception" (Popular Mechanics, 2005). The pancaking, according to the official theory being defended by Sunder, began at the floor beneath the holes created by the impact of the airliners. As King points out, this theory cannot handle the fact, as revealed by the photographs and videos, that dust clouds were created far above the impact zones.

Horizontal Ejections: Another common feature of controlled demolition is the horizontal ejection of other materials, besides dust, from those areas of the building in which explosives are set off. In the case of the Twin Towers, photos and videos reveal that “[h]eavy pieces of steel were ejected in all directions for distances up to 500 feet, while aluminum cladding was blown up to 700 feet away from the towers” (Paul and Hoffman, 2004, p. 7). But gravitational energy is, of course, vertical, so it cannot even begin to explain these horizontal ejections.

Demolition Rings: Still another common feature of collapses induced by explosions are demolition rings, in which series of small explosions run rapidly around a building. This feature was also manifested by the collapses of the towers.[32]

Sounds Produced by Explosions: The use of explosives to induce collapses produces, of course, sounds caused by the explosions. Like all the previous features except the slicing of the steel columns inside the building, this one could be observed by witnesses. And, as we will see below, there is abundant testimony to the existence of such sounds before and during the collapses of the towers.

Molten Steel: An eleventh feature that would be expected only if explosives were used to slice the steel columns would be molten steel, and its existence at the WTC site was indeed reported by several witnesses, including the two main figures involved in the clean up, Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction, and Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Incorporated. Tully said that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the site. Loizeaux said that several weeks after 9/11, when the rubble was being removed, “hot spots of molten steel” were found “at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels” (both statements quoted in Bollyn, 2004).[33]

Also, Leslie Robertson, the chief structural engineer for the Twin Towers, said: “As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running” (Williams, 2001). Knight-Ridder journalist Jennifer Lin, discussing Joe "Toolie" O'Toole, a Bronx firefighter who worked for many months on the rescue and clean-up efforts, wrote: "Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. 'It was dripping from the molten steel," he said'" (Lin, 2002). Greg Fuchek, vice president of sales for LinksPoint, Inc., which supplied some of the computer equipment used to identify human remains at the site, described the working conditions as "hellish," partly because for six months, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees or higher. Fuchek added that "sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel" (Walsh, 2002). And still more witnesses spoke of molten steel.[34]

This testimony is of great significance, since it would be hard to imagine what, other than high explosives, could have caused some of the steel to melt.

The importance of the nature of the collapses, as summarized in these 11 features, is shown by the fact that attempts to defend the official theory typically ignore most of them. For example, an article in Popular Mechanics (2005), seeking to debunk what it calls some of the most prevalent myths about 9/11 fabricated by “conspiracy theorists,” completely ignores the suddenness, verticality, rapidity, and totality of the collapses and also fails to mention the testimonies about molten steel, demolition rings, and the sounds of explosions.[35]

2. Testimonies about Explosions and Related Phenomena in the 9/11 Oral Histories

Most of these 11 features---all but the slicing of the core columns and the molten steel in the basements---are features that, if they occurred before or during the collapses of the towers, could have been observed by people in the area. And, in fact, testimonies about some of these phenomena have been available, since shortly after 9/11, from reporters,[36] fire fighters,[37] police officers,[38] people who worked in the towers,[39] and one prominent explosives expert, Van Romero, [40] who said on that very day after viewing the videotapes, that the collapses not only resembled those produced by controlled implosions but must, in fact, have been caused by “some explosive devices inside the buildings” because they were “too methodical” to have been chance results of the airplane strikes (Uyttebrouck, 2001).[41] Some of these testimonies were very impressive. There were, however, only a few of them and they were scattered here and there. No big body of testimony was readily accessible.

But this situation has dramatically changed. Shortly after 9/11, the New York Fire Department recorded over 500 oral histories, in which firefighters and emergency medical workers recounted their experiences of that day. [Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department(Dwyer, 2005a).] Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, however, refused to release them. But then the New York Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit and, after a long process, the New York Court of Appeals ordered the city to release the bulk of these oral histories, which it did in August 2005[42] (Dwyer, 2005b). The Times then made them publicly available (NYT, 2005).[43]

These oral histories contain many dozens of testimonies that speak of explosions and related phenomena characteristic of controlled demolition. I will give some examples.

Explosions

Several individuals reported that they witnessed an explosion just before one of the towers collapsed. Battalion Chief John Sudnik said: “we heard . . . what sounded like a loud explosion and looked up and I saw tower two start coming down” (NYT, Sudnick, p. 4).

Several people reported multiple explosions. Paramedic Kevin Darnowski said: "I heard three explosions, and then . . . tower two started to come down” (NYT, Darnowski, p. 8).

Firefighter Thomas Turilli said, “it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight" (NYT, Turilli, p. 4).

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from . . . the south tower. . . . There were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down” (NYT, Carlsen, pp. 5-6).

Firefighter Joseph Meola said, “it looked like the building was blowing out on all four sides. We actually heard the pops" (NYT, Meola, p. 5).

Paramedic Daniel Rivera also mentioned “pops.” Asked how he knew that the south tower was coming down, he said:

It was a frigging noise. At first I thought it was---do you ever see professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'? . . . I thought it was that. (NYT, Rivera, p. 9)

Collapse Beginning below the Strike Zone and Fire According to the official account, the “pancaking” began when the floors above the hole caused by the airplane fell on the floors below. Some witnesses reported, however, that the collapse of the south tower began somewhat lower.

Timothy Burke said that “the building popped, lower than the fire. . . . I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion” (NYT, Burke, pp. 8-9).

Firefighter Edward Cachia said: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down” (NYT, Cachia, p. 5).

The importance of these observations is reinforced by the fact that the authors of the NIST Report, after having released a draft to the public, felt the need to add the following statement to the Executive Summary:

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. . . . Instead, photos 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.

Firefighters Burke and Cachia presumably now need to ask themselves: What are you going to believe, your own eyes or an official government report?

Flashes and Demolition Rings

Some of the witnesses spoke of flashes and of phenomena suggestive of demolition rings. Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory said: “I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?” (NYT, Gregory, pp. 14-16).

Captain Karin Deshore said: “Somewhere around the middle . . . there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. . . . [W]ith each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building" (NYT, Deshore, p. 15).

Firefighter Richard Banaciski said: “[T]here was just an explosion. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions” (NYT, Banaciski, pp. 3-4).

Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick said: “It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV" (NYT, Fitzpatrick, pp. 13-14).

Horizontal Ejections

A few witnesses spoke of horizontal ejections. Chief Frank Cruthers said: “There was what appeared to be . . . an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse” (NYT, Cruthers, p. 4).

This testimony is important, because the official theory holds that the ejections were produced by the floors collapsing. So listen to firefighter James Curran, who said: “I looked back and . . . I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. I looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed" (NYT, Curran, pp. 10-11).

Battalion Chief Brian Dixon said, “the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor" (NYT, Dixon, p. 15).[44]

Synchronized Explosions

Some witnesses said that the explosions seemed to be synchronized. For example, firefighter Kenneth Rogers said, “there was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another . . . [I]t looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing" (NYT, Rogers, pp. 3-4).[45]

Why Does the Public Not Know of These Reports? If all these firefighters and medical workers witnessed all these phenomena suggestive of controlled demolition, it might be wondered why the public does not know this. Part of the answer is provided by Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac. Having said that “there were definitely bombs in those buildings,” Isaac added that “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact” (Lavello, n.d.). Another part of the answer is that when a few people, like Isaac and William Rodriguez, have spoken out, the mainstream press has failed to report their statements.

3. Implications

The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts. First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have all been produced by carefully placed explosives. Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least 11 characteristic features of controlled demolitions. The probability that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low. The probability that all 11 of them would occur is essentially zero.[46]

We can say, therefore, that the official theory about the towers is disproved about as thoroughly as such a theory possibly could be, whereas all the evidence can be explained by the alternative theory, according to which the towers were brought down by explosives. The official theory is, accordingly, an outrageous theory, whereas the alternative theory is, from a scientific point of view, the only reasonable theory available.[47]
Didn't post all of it because it's huge

edit: coding
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 791

Post #36765
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 04:52 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

Re: Debunked? No.  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
And I feel slightly annoyed when it's called crap

Fair enough.

Quote:
And I'll offer my criticisms of some of these ideas, many of which don't make a lick of sense when I think about it

Criticism is better than copying and pasting stuff.

Quote:
Demolitions experts and other structural engineers say otherwise. Pulverizing concrete involves smashing it, and it's easier to rip apart concrete than pulverize it and if it was pulled apart then it would have been in large chunks raining to earth, where it would become powder

Twenty or so floors of concrete, steel, offices falling on concrete structures floors below I think would qualify as being capable of smashing concrete. I can smash concrete with a sledge hammer, it doesn't take much imagination to think a building falling onto another building would pulverize everything beneath it. That's a lot of potential energy that needs to be dissipated.

Quote:
The closer I look the more symmitrical it looks to me, and really the top would have fallen off according to some structural engineers, also in regards to the collapse, why did it happen so quick? Most reports, including the 9/11 commission's(!) say that it would be physically impossible for the towers to pancake that fast with the walls on the building, so why did they?

Look more carefully, the initial collapse was not symmetrical;
Do you actually require me to find the proof myself... sheesh.

The top may have actually almost fell off...
however the weakened interior ensured that wouldn't happen.
Also when did those engineers say that, and do they still say that?
One thing theorists rely on is immediate off the cuff analysis done
in the first hours/days/weeks of 9/11.

It didn't pancake, so I'm unsure how pancaking is relevant or should even be mentioned these days. Old theory, old news.

Quote:
If that were the case then the winds from the air rushing in should cause he clothes to look like their rustling, and posibly bowl her over. Your argument hardly makes a lick of sense to me

What makes you think for a nanosecond her clothes weren't rustling?
You should also notice she is hanging onto the structure,
furthermore nothing I said would require the airflow to be strong enough
to bowl anyone over; hanging onto the building or not.

Add on top of that the airflow by that time may be above her level.
That "criticism" reminds me of the flapping flag on the moon according to
conspiracy theorists putting the moon landings into doubt.
Both equally harmless points if the context of the situation is properly understood.

Quote:
But I doubt those would be sufficient to knock a building down, and remember, this was supposedly the first steel frame tower to collapse because of fire.

News flash: The first tower(s) to be hit by large aircraft,
at high speeds and with a lot of fuel.

WTC was not designed like a typical box framed skyscraper...
and was taller as a result. So comparing them is a non-starter.
Furthermore trusses (which is what supported the floors for the WTC)
do not perform well in fires. Another key different for the WTC towers.
Firemen have a saying: "Don't trust the truss."

Steel framed buildings can and have collapsed from fire;
that's why building codes require steel to be fireproofed.
You were careful to specify "tower", but the WTC design and 9/11
were very different from other towers and other fires.

Even you must recognize that comparing WTC towers to other towers
because they are steel framed is a gross oversimplification.
It's like saying a Porshe and a Camry are both steel framed car,
and therefore will perform equally in crash tests. Sorry, they don't;
the devil is in the details of the crash; and in the design of the cars.

Quote:
Sitll it would have hardened when it cooled, with all of the stuff trapped in it, that argument disproves nothing

And if it didn't cool much because the heat was trapped by the debris
in a make shift oven, then it would remain molten. That's what happened.
If it wasn't exposed to open air until clean up crews dug it up;
it would be encapsulated and retain its heat.

Quote:
Most reports I've seen have most of the jet fuel burning at impact, then the rest burning out in ten minutes while the office equipment fires burned out in 20, so why did it take so long to actually collapse?

They didn't burn out, the fires continued on the floors above the impact zone.
That's how long it took to weaken the critical steel components;
and for enough exterior columns to buckle.
(which can be heard on various sources, as booms and secondary "explosions")

Quote:
Where did the structural damage and fire come from? do tell or the argument is fairly moot

I think a tallish building next to it had a minor collapse.
And by minor I of course mean massive;
taking a gouge out of a building is no small event.

Quote:
your evidence is incomplete as well, possibly less complete than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists

This coming from a guy who couldn't be bothered to look up a photo of
the initial asymmetrical collapse.

Quote:
see my other wtc7 argument

Okay.

Quote:
then why were the explosins coming out of the concrete? do tell

Not quite. If you want to know how it may look like that...
that's quite easy, do some construction and you'll find out.

Concrete flooring is actually quite thin, it needs to be
in order to keep the floors light. Drop a few floors of debris on it
and it will smash; even being pulverized against the steel grid
under it... kind of like cheese in a grater.

Throw in the odd elevator or two and you'll have
concrete dust fingers no problemo.

Quote:
too bad, I point out flaws in all your arguments. because I can. Edit: I'm curious, why did you limit it to pointing out one flaw in your argument per user?

You'll notice I said "If you feel there is something important I haven't covered", meaning you can raise an additional point I haven't covered and I'll respond to that as well.

Criticism/discussion is certainly welcome of points raised, this is a forum after all... but at the same time I don't want to be bogged down by 50 new irrelevant points; because I'll just get fed up and spend my time more productively elsewhere.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."


Last edited by RoyBoy on Sat 2007-01-27 05:45; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 181

Post #36766
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 05:20 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
here's more for you to chew over:

Didn't post all of it because it's huge

edit: coding

Thanks for the consideration. Rolling Eyes

I glanced over it; it essentially is what you've already asserted.
It's a bad article, based on lay (common) assumptions of building design;
and poor argumentation. No steel towers have collapsed in the past...
that means its umpossible!... not quite Mr. Internet Engineer(s).

Also there is a lot of eyewitness accounts;
done with non-experts at the heat of the moment.

Had I been there I would have probably said something very similar.
That does not mean however, I know what happened...
nor that I believe it was a controlled demolition. A fireman shown
on Loose Change describing the demolition style of collapse... said
it looked like a demolition; that doesn't for a second mean
he actually thought it was a demolition.

If there is a new point you think is important, please point it out.
Most of this has been addressed by the NIST FAQ sheet;
and by me in my previous post.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 1162

Post #36773
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sat 2007-01-27 21:56 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

Re: Debunked? No.  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

RoyBoy wrote:
Criticism is better than copying and pasting stuff.
No copy-pasting done on my part. Please don't make accusations

Quote:
Twenty or so floors of concrete, steel, offices falling on concrete structures floors below I think would qualify as being capable of smashing concrete. I can smash concrete with a sledge hammer, it doesn't take much imagination to think a building falling onto another building would pulverize everything beneath it. That's a lot of potential energy that needs to be dissipated.
yes, but that kind of collapse causing the concrete to be pulverized into dust, that hardly maakes a lick of sense, if that were true large fragments would fly off anyway. smasing downward and the fact that the concrete in the impact zone was most likely shaped like this:

| |
| |
\ |
\|

/|
/ |
| |
| |
(my own research and the hole would obviously be bigger) this would cause at least a few large chunks when the columns hit against each other, also when you hit a piece of concrete with a sledgehammer it splits into multiple fragments, and doesn't turn into powder
Quote:

Look more carefully, the initial collapse was not symmetrical;
Do you actually require me to find the proof myself... sheesh

The top may have actually almost fell off...
however the weakened interior ensured that wouldn't happen.
Also when did those engineers say that, and do they still say that?
One thing theorists rely on is immediate off the cuff analysis done
in the first hours/days/weeks of 9/11.
each wall was compramised to differing degrees, it would have fallen off, if not right away, then a few minutes after the impact.

Quote:
It didn't pancake, so I'm unsure how pancaking is relevant or should even be mentioned these days. Old theory, old news.
yes but the top of the tower should have fallen off anyway, rememer, each side was weakened to a different degree, and remember, even the 9/11 commision report says it was a pancake collapse, so now you're actually denying what the 9/11 commision said. Page 305 of the report says so.

Quote:

What makes you think for a nanosecond her clothes weren't rustling?
You should also notice she is hanging onto the structure,
furthermore nothing I said would require the airflow to be strong enough
to bowl anyone over; hanging onto the building or not.
I saw no evidence that she was being hit by any wind and she was leaning towards the column with her hands flat on it, not being blown backwards, and her clothes look remarkably settled.

Quote:
Add on top of that the airflow by that time may be above her level.
That "criticism" reminds me of the flapping flag on the moon according to
conspiracy theorists putting the moon landings into doubt.
Both equally harmless points if the context of the situation is properly understood.
The air would be rushing in from all possible points, lower points first becausevhe higher you get the the thinner the air gets, so if she's at the bottom there wold be air rushing in to feed the fire.

Quote:

News flash: The first tower(s) to be hit by large aircraft,
at high speeds and with a lot of fuel.
Newslflash: it was designed to take a hit from a fully loaded, fully fueled 707, and that craft and the 767 two craft are quite similar. One of the engineers said that in March 2001, before 9/11. Also the trip from New york to LA doesn't require the fuel tanks to be filled all the way, and most of the fuel was burned in the initial fireball.

Quote:
WTC was not designed like a typical box framed skyscraper...
and was taller as a result. So comparing them is a non-starter.
Furthermore trusses (which is what supported the floors for the WTC)
do not perform well in fires. Another key different for the WTC towers.
Firemen have a saying: "Don't trust the truss."

Yes but why did the trusses fail at less than half the temperature that the steel was rated for? The jet fuel fires burned at 1100 degrees and the steel was rated for 3000 degrees
Quote:
Steel framed buildings can and have collapsed from fire;
that's why building codes require steel to be fireproofed.
You were careful to specify "tower", but the WTC design and 9/11
were very different from other towers and other fires.
Give me three examples of steel frame buildings that have collapsed from fire, aside from 9/11. I've looked and found NO examples of such.

Quote:
Even you must recognize that comparing WTC towers to other towers
because they are steel framed is a gross oversimplification.
It's like saying a Porshe and a Camry are both steel framed car,
and therefore will perform equally in crash tests. Sorry, they don't;
the devil is in the details of the crash; and in the design of the cars.
All reports I've found say that WTC was a steel framed building, and you contradict yourself, you say the steel trusses are a critical component of the collapse and yet you say that the WTC was not a steel framed building

Quote:
And if it didn't cool much because the heat was trapped by the debris
in a make shift oven, then it would remain molten. That's what happened.
If it wasn't exposed to open air until clean up crews dug it up;
it would be encapsulated and retain its heat.
They were blowing holes in the massive cover from the day after the collapse, the heat had plenty of time to escape, so why was there still melty steel columns being found 16 days after the fact?

Quote:
They didn't burn out, the fires continued on the floors above the impact zone.
That's how long it took to weaken the critical steel components;
and for enough exterior columns to buckle.
(which can be heard on various sources, as booms and secondary "explosions")
Paper and fabric, don't burn hot enough to cause that kind of failure

Quote:
I think a tallish building next to it had a minor collapse.
And by minor I of course mean massive;
taking a gouge out of a building is no small event.
this is contradicted by the fact that the whole thing was pulverized into dust, and that doesn't explain the fires or the collapse going throughout the building instead of starting at the bottom where most of the damage was done

Quote:
Not quite. If you want to know how it may look like that...
that's quite easy, do some construction and you'll find out.
do explain, by making me do the research you are basically saying you have no evidence. Air blowsout through the weakest ponts, in this case windows, which doesn't explian the concrete exploding which I have seen when looking at all of the videos

Quote:
Concrete flooring is actually quite thin, it needs to be
in order to keep the floors light. Drop a few floors of debris on it
and it will smash; even being pulverized against the steel grid
under it... kind of like cheese in a grater.
If that were the case then the whole tower would have the trusses standing and visible for a few seconds before they collapsed.

Quote:
Throw in the odd elevator or two and you'll have
concrete dust fingers no problemo.
What? you make no sense here.[/quote]

I'll make a few new points with links
External site

THE WTC WAS BOOBY-TRAPPED

Theory: The designer of the World Trade Center said it was built to withstand a plane crash. So why didn't it? It was rigged with explosives.

Evidence: According to the Albuquerque Journal, New Mexico's largest newspaper, a demolitions expert named Van Romero believes that explosive devices planted in the towers brought them down after the planes hit. Other experts have commented that the collapses resembled controlled demolitions. Also, the investigation into the cause of the collapse was a "farce," according to Fire Engineering Magazine, an industry journal for firemen and fire investigators, because all of the evidence was toted away in record time immediately afterwards.

Historical precedent: If conspiracy Websites are to be believed, the same kind of thing happened with the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 (no fertilizer bomb could have caused that sort of damage). Incidentally, a Maryland-based company, Controlled Demolitions, handled the clean-up of both disasters. Are you getting the picture?


you notice that the whole top part of the building fails just as it starts to collapse. this makes not a lick of sense.

Also the dates don't matter. it's still relevent

From http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html
A Ludicrous Claim
Skeptics of the official collapse theory were quick to point out that the claim that fires melted the steel is nonsensical. On October 21, 2001 J. McMichael wrote a now-classic article exposing many ludicrous claims by proponents of the gravity collapse theory, including the fire-melts-steel claim.

e x c e r p t
title: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!
authors: J. McMichael

I try not to think about that. I try not to think about a petroleum fire burning for 104 minutes, just getting hotter and hotter until it reached 1538 degrees Celsius (2800 Fahrenheit) and melted the steel
...
Whether the fuel burned gradually at a temperature below the boiling point of jet fuel (360 C), or burned rapidly above the boiling point of jet fuel, in neither case would an office building full of spilled jet fuel sustain a fire at 815 degrees C.
page: 911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm

Later, Eric Hufschmid appealed to people's experience with hydrocarbon-fueled fires, such as wood stoves and gas burners, to highlight the absurdity of the fire-melts-steel claim in the video Painful Deceptions.

In a slide show first presented on September 11, 2003, Jim Hoffman noted the vast difference between the temperatures achievable by open flames and those required to melt steel.

e x c e r p t
title: The Twin Towers' Demolition
authors: Jim Hoffman

The Killer Fires Theory is Pure Fantasy
The simple facts of temperatures:

1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.


site: 911research.wtc7.net page: 911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/meltdownre.html

_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 18

Post #36779
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sun 2007-01-28 01:18 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist Country: American Empire

Re: and now what?  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

One Of The Few wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
so no Osama, no Saddam, what's the next gimick in Bush's hat?


How about the Evil Empire of Iran: an imperialistic nation that invades other countries and imposes its political ideas on them?
...without wanting to be an America Basher this sounds like USA's foreign policy... Laughing
_________________

What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 2086

Post #36781
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sun 2007-01-28 05:08 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

Re: Debunked? No.  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
No copy-pasting done on my part. Please don't make accusations

Man you are quick to shot first and ask questions later.
I was simply referring to your pasting of the article...
but I did encourage a link; so I suppose I asked for it.

Quote:
yes, but that kind of collapse causing the concrete to be pulverized into dust, that hardly maakes a lick of sense, if that were true large fragments would fly off anyway. smasing downward and the fact that the concrete in the impact zone was most likely shaped like this:

| |
| |
\ |
\|

/|
/ |
| |
| |

Could you find me a picture to illustrate. I don't understand this;
nor do I understand why large fragments would need to "fly off."

Quote:
(my own research and the hole would obviously be bigger) this would cause at least a few large chunks when the columns hit against each other, also when you hit a piece of concrete with a sledgehammer it splits into multiple fragments, and doesn't turn into powder

Granted, I used the sledgehammer as an example of how easy it can be to fragment concrete. Now, what you need to do is imagine that impact happening dozens of times on the same concrete (and the fragments). Because with the WTC collapse the concrete wasn't just hit once, but multitudes of times by other floors, office equipment, pipes... but must importantly steel. A better example surrounding a steel structure in cement; and then bending the steel; you'll see the cement crack and give way. Then you need to imagine those chunks being mashed between other cement/steel floors; and being mixed in together with office equipment and steel beams. It's not a very nice environment.

Quote:
each wall was compramised to differing degrees, it would have fallen off, if not right away, then a few minutes after the impact.

You are staring to confuse me.
Are you saying it took too long to collapse?
Why would it only take a few minutes?
You are certainly aware the WTC was designed for an aircraft impact;
and was designed to redistribute the weight according.
(which it did successfully)

Quote:
yes but the top of the tower should have fallen off anyway, rememer, each side was weakened to a different degree, and remember, even the 9/11 commision report says it was a pancake collapse, so now you're actually denying what the 9/11 commision said. Page 305 of the report says so.

Could you help clarify that for me;
BTW I do appreciate the page number reference;
makes things much easier for discussion...
I'm looking at the following PDF:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

On page 305 of that particular PDF it doesn't seem to mention pancaking;
ahhh found it on page 308. Okay, when there is a footnote on something,
I suggest you look into it further. That is not the official position of the 9/11 commission;
but rather a non-expert description made by 170. FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2.
Its a layman description of how things looked, not how they actually were.
(just like the Loose Change fireman segment used WAYYYY out of context)

BTW pancake is mentioned once in a 585 page report...
I'm sorry... but that's a ludicrous representation of its conclusions.

I based my assessment on the NIST report;
which is slightly more detailed on the exact collapse mechanism.
This isn't about blindly following expertise; it is about having someone talking
about things with precise language... and not off the cuff description/commentary
about what they saw/heard in an interview;
which can be used out of context and confuse things.

The North Tower looked like it was pancaking
(which is what the fireman interviewed said), but it actually wasn't.

What we see is air whooshing out of a floor and snapping with an impressive boom as it is hit by falling building above. Just to clarify here; I'm talking about pancake as in a floor above, smacking a floor below with the core and outside columns largely intact. That did not happen as the core and exterior columns were collapsing with the rest of the building.

Quote:
I saw no evidence that she was being hit by any wind and she was leaning towards the column with her hands flat on it, not being blown backwards, and her clothes look remarkably settled.

Heh, I'll give you that one... kind of, if you can find video of that sequence that would help clarify the amount of wind she was experiencing at that point; but what I said is still correct... I simply I hadn't considered that the air flow may have moved further up by that point.

Quote:
The air would be rushing in from all possible points, lower points first becausevhe higher you get the the thinner the air gets, so if she's at the bottom there wold be air rushing in to feed the fire.

Thermodynamics a bit more complicated than that.
Thicker air is also slower moving... and the sides (tend) to have the least resistance.

While it does come from "all possible points"; the whole point of a firestorm
is that hot (used) air rises and new cool air rushes in from the sides.
(in a ground situation) In a high rise it is possible to get air flow below;
but it would need the path of least resistance... so stairwells, open doors
and elevator shafts. All of which tend to be covered up by debris; or blocked by
closed doors on floors below. So the main draw would likely be from the exterior
of the building since the windows were shattered.

Quote:
Newslflash: it was designed to take a hit from a fully loaded, fully fueled 707, and that craft and the 767 two craft are quite similar. One of the engineers said that in March 2001, before 9/11. Also the trip from New york to LA doesn't require the fuel tanks to be filled all the way, and most of the fuel was burned in the initial fireball.

Actually my understanding is fuel was never a major consideration in the aircraft impact considerations. The assumption always was, that it was a plane lost in fog trying to land. (little fuel)

Shit man, given the information you focus on, no wonder you think somethings up.
Where did you get that from? I'd like to have a look at it.
It should be noted the fireproofing was not exactly in tip top shape;
and wasn't up to design specs as the decades rolled by.

Occam's razor really comes into play here.
There are two much easier explanations:

* One: The engineers are telling the truth; and had not designed for a large amount of fuel. Which makes sense; and before you chime in with a half baked criticism; I'm sorry but a plane taking off gains altitude rapidly, isn't disoriented (since they just left the goddam airport), and has to fly using a well practiced air corridor. Add on top of that departures are routinely delayed and canceled as a result of dangerous weather.
* Two: They are lying or telling half-truths because they (and the companies they work for) don't want their asses sued into bankruptcy for putting inadequate fire protection in the event of a large avionic fuel fire that they anticipated, but did too little about it because of cost and/or incompetence.

Quote:
Yes but why did the trusses fail at less than half the temperature that the steel was rated for? The jet fuel fires burned at 1100 degrees and the steel was rated for 3000 degrees

That is an important and honest question, but please try to internalize things I've already pointed out. Again, the melting point rating of steel is irrelevant because you do not need to get anywhere close to 3000 degrees to SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the strength of steel. Important especially for a compromised structure.

Quote:
Give me three examples of steel frame buildings that have collapsed from fire, aside from 9/11. I've looked and found NO examples of such.

Why the hell do they fireproof STEEL!!!! Jesus Christ...
Don't get me wrong, I like you AceBrock... you're asking honest important
questions... but this is bit frustrating for me at times.
I actually backed off and went out to socialize for a few hours to chill out;
before coming back here.

You obviously didn't look at the video I provided.
I have a question for you, do you think I'm making any of this up?

Do you for a moment doubt that what I just told you is the cold hard reality...
a reality you obviously didn't give much thought to. I work with engineers on
a daily basis. (just to clarify, I'm nowhere near being an engineer...
I can't stand the math; but I like the science; but I do help ensure materials
we received are certified to ASTM standards) Not a single engineer I know is
scratching their heads, or doing a double take on the WTC collapse.
You have to look long and hard to find one that does... and if you give them
an internet connection and a website... suddenly "engineers/experts disagree".

No, not really... watch the video already and stop having me do your research!
I say your research because you really should have uncovered this already
if you are serious about understanding the WTC collapse.

And hopefully to put this to rest... when PhD's and professors with their pet
thermite theories come out of the woodwork seeking attention and
point out the color of slag coming from the building indicates they are right
and pretty much 99% of the experts are wrong...
makes me want to literally go nuts on them. Sorry Prof.
but aluminum can be that color too; just put enough crap in it.

And just like that *poof* he is discredited; and should be ignored.

Quote:
All reports I've found say that WTC was a steel framed building, and you contradict yourself, you say the steel trusses are a critical component of the collapse and yet you say that the WTC was not a steel framed building

No I didn't. I said comparing it to other steel framed buildings is a gross oversimplification.

Quote:
They were blowing holes in the massive cover from the day after the collapse, the heat had plenty of time to escape, so why was there still melty steel columns being found 16 days after the fact?

You're a little confused. Somehow you've just shown how they uncovered everything and exposed it on the first day? Obviously not, because ground zero was huge, and there was plenty of buried hot stuff in it... that was being continuously being exposed on a daily basis. They didn't expose it all the first day; so just drop it.

Quote:
Paper and fabric, don't burn hot enough to cause that kind of failure

It wasn't the heat alone.

Quote:
this is contradicted by the fact that the whole thing was pulverized into dust, and that doesn't explain the fires or the collapse going throughout the building instead of starting at the bottom where most of the damage was done

What whole thing was pulverized to dust? What the fuck are you talking about!?
Jesus, I'm going to pretend you didn't say that... steel doesn't get turned to dust.
BTW, in case no one mentioned it yet... plenty of cement wasn't turned to dust.

Quote:
do explain, by making me do the research you are basically saying you have no evidence. Air blowsout through the weakest ponts, in this case windows, which doesn't explian the concrete exploding which I have seen when looking at all of the videos

When a building collapses, the steel structures bend and collapse catastrophically.
If the steel is surrounded by cement, it breaks it apart as the steel is bent and put
under stress The equation is simple; steel is much harder than standard cement; and will break it apart when push comes to shove.

Quote:
If that were the case then the whole tower would have the trusses standing and visible for a few seconds before they collapsed.

No, that happens in a fraction of a second.

What I just explained is like pointing out in an accident the car impacts whatever it hits before your body impacts your seatbelt. Entirely true, but it occurs too quickly to really care about. The collapsing material slams into the cement (unevenly), the steel floor below puts up resistance; the cement is crushed between the two and the steel floor gives way; all in a fraction of a second.

Quote:
Quote:
Throw in the odd elevator or two and you'll have
concrete dust fingers no problemo.

What? you make no sense here.

I'm just pointing out one way to get puffs of smoke ahead of the collapse;
is for a elevator to slam into its bottom floor; or better yet, for debris to fall
down an elevator shaft; with less resistance it would to faster than the main
collapse.

Quote:
(no fertilizer bomb could have caused that sort of damage). Are you getting the picture?

Snipped most of that out.

Any website... ANY website that saying something is impossible to have happened;
should be outright ignored. I'm sorry, but you build a bomb big enough; I don't care
what you use; it can do some damage... and if its in an enclosed space under a foundation;
why couldn't it cause major damage? To say it couldn't is brazenly presumptuous.

Remember the movie Armageddon? Firecracker with a closed hand and open hand. That analogy is spot on; if there is nothing wrong in the first place... and believe me, there isn't; then it doesn't matter who cleaned up. Goddam black op CIA agents can clean up the sites for all I care.

Quote:


you notice that the whole top part of the building fails just as it starts to collapse. this makes not a lick of sense.

Yes it does. First because the collapse wasn't a pancake, it wasn't symmetrical and the WTC is certainly allowed to temporarily resist the debris above for a moment... until one too many floors pile up and it becomes a runaway train. Why would the bottom collapse at the same time? That doesn't make a lick of sense. You'll really have to explain this to me to help me figure out your mental picture of the collapse... why wouldn't the top section fall first??? It is the section pressing down on the compromised and weakened section of the building; which obviously gave way.

Quote:
Also the dates don't matter. it's still relevent

They do matter... especially if the next day, the person says...
whoops, I made a mistake. Have you ever done that? Made a mistake?
Got something wrong? Spoke off the cuff and was a little embarrassed?
These days, if you write it down and it finds its way online;
theorists will remember it like it was yesterday... and assume its still relevant.

Usually it isn't; and does not take into consideration more careful
analysis that comes afterward... such as pointing out the top collapse
was not symmetrical... yet to this day some theorist maintain the
collapse was "perfectly symmetrical, just like a demolition."

RoyBoy wrote:
Steel doesn't melt silly RoyBoy. (summation of link)

Listen, if I have to repeat myself on this point one more time;
it won't be worth it. I KNOW STEEL DIDN'T MELT!!!!
But it did soften; and that clearly was enough.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 2338

Post #36793
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Sun 2007-01-28 19:03 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

word count rising  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

RoyBoy wrote:

Could you find me a picture to illustrate. I don't understand this;
nor do I understand why large fragments would need to "fly off."
Do you really think the concrete would break any other way when hit like that? Really, you're starting to make me wonder.

Quote:
Granted, I used the sledgehammer as an example of how easy it can be to fragment concrete. Now, what you need to do is imagine that impact happening dozens of times on the same concrete (and the fragments). Because with the WTC collapse the concrete wasn't just hit once, but multitudes of times by other floors, office equipment, pipes... but must importantly steel. A better example surrounding a steel structure in cement; and then bending the steel; you'll see the cement crack and give way. Then you need to imagine those chunks being mashed between other cement/steel floors; and being mixed in together with office equipment and steel beams. It's not a very nice environment.
If all of the concrete IN THE WALLS is flying away from the collapse, meaning that the chunks are not hitting against each other. but they're still in a giant dust cloud.

Quote:
You are staring to confuse me.
Are you saying it took too long to collapse?
Why would it only take a few minutes?
You are certainly aware the WTC was designed for an aircraft impact;
and was designed to redistribute the weight according.
(which it did successfully)
Let's see, the steel would not have weakened at the temperatues the ire was burning due to the fact that the fire was burnin at less than half the temperature the steel was rated for, so if it would have collapsed soon after the impact, not an hour afterward

Quote:
Could you help clarify that for me;
BTW I do appreciate the page number reference;
makes things much easier for discussion...
I'm looking at the following PDF:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

On page 305 of that particular PDF it doesn't seem to mention pancaking;
ahhh found it on page 308. Okay, when there is a footnote on something,
I suggest you look into it further. That is not the official position of the 9/11 commission;
but rather a non-expert description made by 170. FDNY interview 59, Battalion 2.
Its a layman description of how things looked, not how they actually were.
(just like the Loose Change fireman segment used WAYYYY out of context)
I should have said NIST report

Quote:
BTW pancake is mentioned once in a 585 page report...
I'm sorry... but that's a ludicrous representation of its conclusions.

I based my assessment on the NIST report;
which is slightly more detailed on the exact collapse mechanism.
This isn't about blindly following expertise; it is about having someone talking
about things with precise language... and not off the cuff description/commentary
about what they saw/heard in an interview;
which can be used out of context and confuse things.

The North Tower looked like it was pancaking
(which is what the fireman interviewed said), but it actually wasn't.

What we see is air whooshing out of a floor and snapping with an impressive boom as it is hit by falling building above. Just to clarify here; I'm talking about pancake as in a floor above, smacking a floor below with the core and outside columns largely intact. That did not happen as the core and exterior columns were collapsing with the rest of the building.
thenwhy wwas it in the NIST report? I found multiple sources saying it was in the NIST report, and I doubt all of them would be wrong.


Quote:
The air would be rushing in from all possible points, lower points first becausevhe higher you get the the thinner the air gets, so if she's at the bottom there wold be air rushing in to feed the fire.

Thermodynamics a bit more complicated than that.
Thicker air is also slower moving... and the sides (tend) to have the least resistance.

While it does come from "all possible points"; the whole point of a firestorm
is that hot (used) air rises and new cool air rushes in from the sides.
(in a ground situation) In a high rise it is possible to get air flow below;
but it would need the path of least resistance... so stairwells, open doors
and elevator shafts. All of which tend to be covered up by debris; or blocked by
closed doors on floors below. So the main draw would likely be from the exterior
of the building since the windows were shattered.[/quote]But the windows might not have been shattered, you do realize thatis possible. I see no reason for the windows to have been shattered, because a simple OXYGEN STARVED office fire doesn't burn that hot.

Quote:

Actually my understanding is fuel was never a major consideration in the aircraft impact considerations. The assumption always was, that it was a plane lost in fog trying to land. (little fuel)
Just because it's lost in the fog doesn't mean that it will only have a little fuel. After all it could have gotten lost soon after takeoff and crashed into the tower soon after that, meaning that if its fuel tanks were full it would create a huge fireball.

Quote:
Shit man, given the information you focus on, no wonder you think somethings up.
Where did you get that from? I'd like to have a look at it.
It should be noted the fireproofing was not exactly in tip top shape;
and wasn't up to design specs as the decades rolled by.

And as I said, please don't make accusations. I've looked at all of the info I've been able to get my hands on

Quote:
Occam's razor really comes into play here.
There are two much easier explanations:
Funny how occams razor sometimes doesn't give you the whole truth, sometimes the truth is anything but simple, such as here
Quote:
* One: The engineers are telling the truth; and had not designed for a large amount of fuel. Which makes sense; and before you chime in with a half baked criticism; I'm sorry but a plane taking off gains altitude rapidly, isn't disoriented (since they just left the goddam airport), and has to fly using a well practiced air corridor. Add on top of that departures are routinely delayed and canceled as a result of dangerous weather.
* Two: They are lying or telling half-truths because they (and the companies they work for) don't want their asses sued into bankruptcy for putting inadequate fire protection in the event of a large avionic fuel fire that they anticipated, but did too little about it because of cost and/or incompetence.
where'd you get this information? Also the temperatures would have to be incredibly high for steel to weaken and fail, even in that timespan.

Quote:
That is an important and honest question, but please try to internalize things I've already pointed out. Again, the melting point rating of steel is irrelevant because you do not need to get anywhere close to 3000 degrees to SIGNIFICANTLY decrease the strength of steel. Important especially for a compromised structure.
it needs to get to about 1250 to 1500 degrees to do so, these fires did not burn that hot. and I found this at the NIST's site: Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours. It did not get that hot!

Quote:
Why the hell do they fireproof STEEL!!!! Jesus Christ...
Don't get me wrong, I like you AceBrock... you're asking honest important
questions... but this is bit frustrating for me at times.
I actually backed off and went out to socialize for a few hours to chill out;
before coming back here.
Why do all the google results for my searches for such buildings come up with "The WTC are the the only steel frame buildings to have ever collapsed due to fire?" Every source, including the NIST's report, contradict what you are saying, YOU seem to need to get your facts straight. The fireproofing could have been done for peace of mind.

Quote:
You obviously didn't look at the video I provided.

Because I'm on a 56k and don't really have the time to.
Quote:

I have a question for you, do you think I'm making any of this up?
No I think you got some of your fact wrong though

Quote:
Do you for a moment doubt that what I just told you is the cold hard reality...
a reality you obviously didn't give much thought to. I work with engineers on
a daily basis. (just to clarify, I'm nowhere near being an engineer...
I can't stand the math; but I like the science; but I do help ensure materials
we received are certified to ASTM standards) Not a single engineer I know is
scratching their heads, or doing a double take on the WTC collapse.
You have to look long and hard to find one that does... and if you give them
an internet connection and a website... suddenly "engineers/experts disagree".
things might be different in canada, though I dobt that. Have they looked at all of the evidence available? I have looked at most of the evidence for the WTC buildings that I could find outside of video format, simply because I'm on a bit of a time budget

Quote:
No, not really... watch the video already and stop having me do your research!
I say your research because you really should have uncovered this already
if you are serious about understanding the WTC collapse.
I look at the evidence and follow it wherever it goes, that step 2 of getting to the truth, step one is become skeptical of every explanation

Quote:
And hopefully to put this to rest... when PhD's and professors with their pet
thermite theories come out of the woodwork seeking attention and
point out the color of slag coming from the building indicates they are right
and pretty much 99% of the experts are wrong...
makes me want to literally go nuts on them. Sorry Prof.
but aluminum can be that color too; just put enough crap in it.
What? Orange coloring? Paper, concrete, bodies, and wood don't turn aluminum orange, even in its liquid state. Also, have most PHds come out in faor of the NIST report?

Quote:
And just like that *poof* he is discredited; and should be ignored.
These people are willing to ask the tough questions, and shouldn't be discredited out of hand, instead if they're 100% false then they should be simple to disprove with a furnace and all sorts of crap as found in WTC

Quote:
No I didn't. I said comparing it to other steel framed buildings is a gross oversimplification.
It's still technically a steel frame building.

Quote:
You're a little confused. Somehow you've just shown how they uncovered everything and exposed it on the first day? Obviously not, because ground zero was huge, and there was plenty of buried hot stuff in it... that was being continuously being exposed on a daily basis. They didn't expose it all the first day; so just drop it.
New question: how did it get hot enough to melt the steel down there? Nothing in the towers made it that hot and yet they were finding molten steel, and firefighters described it as being in a foundry

Quote:
It wasn't the heat alone.
Then what was it? It obvously survived a direct plane hit, so something brought it down, and if it wasn't the heat, what was it?

Quote:
What whole thing was pulverized to dust? What the fuck are you talking about!?
Jesus, I'm going to pretend you didn't say that... steel doesn't get turned to dust.
BTW, in case no one mentioned it yet... plenty of cement wasn't turned to dust.
Rolling Eyes The concrete in all three buildings. That should have been obvious. and most of the non-pulverized concrete was at the bottom of the tower

Quote:

When a building collapses, the steel structures bend and collapse catastrophically.
If the steel is surrounded by cement, it breaks it apart as the steel is bent and put
under stress The equation is simple; steel is much harder than standard cement; and will break it apart when push comes to shove.
true, but proving nothing. And the steel was not being pushed outward, it was being pushed downward, but it still should have been visible for a few seconds

Quote:
No, that happens in a fraction of a second.

What I just explained is like pointing out in an accident the car impacts whatever it hits before your body impacts your seatbelt. Entirely true, but it occurs too quickly to really care about. The collapsing material slams into the cement (unevenly), the steel floor below puts up resistance; the cement is crushed between the two and the steel floor gives way; all in a fraction of a second.
the concrete would give way first.

Quote:
I'm just pointing out one way to get puffs of smoke ahead of the collapse;
is for a elevator to slam into its bottom floor; or better yet, for debris to fall
down an elevator shaft; with less resistance it would to faster than the main
collapse.
I'm talking about puffs of smoke from the side of the building, the elevators were on the center of the building

Quote:

Quote:
(no fertilizer bomb could have caused that sort of damage). Are you getting the picture?

Snipped most of that out.

Any website... ANY website that saying something is impossible to have happened;
should be outright ignored. I'm sorry, but you build a bomb big enough; I don't care
what you use; it can do some damage... and if its in an enclosed space under a foundation;
why couldn't it cause major damage? To say it couldn't is brazenly presumptuous.

Remember the movie Armageddon? Firecracker with a closed hand and open hand. That analogy is spot on; if there is nothing wrong in the first place... and believe me, there isn't; then it doesn't matter who cleaned up. Goddam black op CIA agents can clean up the sites for all I care.
Laughing that's just hilarious. you just ignore the evidence and say that any analysis that suggests the official story is wrong must be made by a bunch of idiots. Scepticism is the first step towards truth-Denis Diderot. Throw out yor beliefs and follow the evidence trail for best results. an open mind is always going to come up with more accurate results than a closed one

Quote:
Yes it does. First because the collapse wasn't a pancake, it wasn't symmetrical and the WTC is certainly allowed to temporarily resist the debris above for a moment... until one too many floors pile up and it becomes a runaway train. Why would the bottom collapse at the same time? That doesn't make a lick of sense. You'll really have to explain this to me to help me figure out your mental picture of the collapse... why wouldn't the top section fall first??? It is the section pressing down on the compromised and weakened section of the building; which obviously gave way.
still the phenomenon the NIST describes is quite similar, as in fairly unlikely and involving collapse of one floor after another.

Quote:
They do matter... especially if the next day, the person says...
whoops, I made a mistake. Have you ever done that? Made a mistake?
Got something wrong? Spoke off the cuff and was a little embarrassed?
These days, if you write it down and it finds its way online;
theorists will remember it like it was yesterday... and assume its still relevant.
Yes but they do know what they're talking about, and do realize that they may be wrong. Also, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. This looked like a controlled demolition, and sounded like one, so it's entirely possible to have been one

Quote:
Usually it isn't; and does not take into consideration more careful
analysis that comes afterward... such as pointing out the top collapse
was not symmetrical... yet to this day some theorist maintain the
collapse was "perfectly symmetrical, just like a demolition."
On the north tower it was, maybe not on the south tower, but it was on the north tower.

RoyBoy wrote:
Listen, if I have to repeat myself on this point one more time;
it won't be worth it. I KNOW STEEL DIDN'T MELT!!!!
But it did soften; and that clearly was enough.
You misinterpreted, Steel doesn't weaken at the temperatues that hydrocarbon fires reach, and either the fire burned quickly above jet fuel's boiling temperature of 700 degrees, or slowly below that temperature. I know you never said the steel didn't melt. Is it like you to misinterpret what people are saying, or is this fairly recent?
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 2632

Post #36794
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 02:06 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

Steel framed buildings do collapse  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Yeah, the word count is sucking; I'll try my best to Wikify my answers.

AceBrock wrote:
Do you really think the concrete would break any other way when hit like that? Really, you're starting to make me wonder.

Concrete can break many ways since it's an aggregate construction material;
but honestly I don't understand what you were trying to show me...
so I don't have a specific answer. I don't think it's terribly important though.

Quote:
If all of the concrete IN THE WALLS is flying away from the collapse, meaning that the chunks are not hitting against each other. but they're still in a giant dust cloud.

I think I'm lost again; but smaller concrete particles (such as dust)
would be blown out further from the collapse; obscuring the collapse.

Quote:
Let's see, the steel would not have weakened at the temperatues the ire was burning due to the fact that the fire was burnin at less than half the temperature the steel was rated for, so if it would have collapsed soon after the impact, not an hour afterward

That rating is based on intact fireproofing; the fireproofing wasn't exactly intact after
a plane hit the tower and created a massive fireball.

The temperatures of the fire were sufficient to soften the steel;
but of course that takes time.

Quote:
I should have said NIST report

I've had the NIST PDF report on my computer for about a year;
ever since I wrote the criticism section for Loose Change.
The filename is NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf and is 298 pages long.
It does not contain the word pancake.

The preliminary report done by FEMA does discuss the pancake theory;
but again, that is an old report, thoery and old news;
and has since been corrected by the comprehensive NIST report.
FEMA does not maintain the pancaking theory is plausible.
I came across the FEMA vs NIST meme on Wikipedia;
I ensured it was corrected and put in appropriate context.
It was removed when the criticism section was summarized...
perhaps I should put it back. Thanks for reminding me.

Quote:
thenwhy wwas it in the NIST report? I found multiple sources saying it was in the NIST report, and I doubt all of them would be wrong.

Well, to be brutally honest; I can't go through a conspiracy theory website for 3-4 minutes without coming across something verifiably wrong. However, in this instance I don't know what is going on. The final report I have as a PDF does not mention pancaking at all; FEMA does, and perhaps preliminary reports by the NIST do. But those would need to be pointed out to me... as I've always focused on the final report.

Quote:
But the windows might not have been shattered, you do realize thatis possible. I see no reason for the windows to have been shattered, because a simple OXYGEN STARVED office fire doesn't burn that hot.

Well its true windows higher up may not have been shattered;
but the gaping holes opened by the aircraft impacts were more than enough
to fuel the fire... even as it moved up the building.
Also don't forget people were smashing windows above.
Oh and I forgot! Air ducts are a good source of fresh air.

As to the fire being oxygen starved; that's untrue. See the NIST FAQ:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
The short answer is, the smoke was moved rapidly to cooler areas;
before the soot had a chance to burn off.

Quote:
Just because it's lost in the fog doesn't mean that it will only have a little fuel. After all it could have gotten lost soon after takeoff and crashed into the tower soon after that, meaning that if its fuel tanks were full it would create a huge fireball.

Commercial planes don't get lost soon after take off.
If it did; the pilot is incompetent and would have his license revoked.
Pilots have specific procedures they follow for each airport;
this keeps them from crashing into local topography and other planes.

Yes it does have little fuel; because the only reason a plane would be flying low
in dangerous conditions (fog for example) is because it needs to land.
Why would a plane need to land? Low fuel and/or emergency situation.
In an emergency situation it is standard procedure to dump fuel.

Quote:
And as I said, please don't make accusations. I've looked at all of the info I've been able to get my hands on

Accusations? What accusations?
Have a reference handy or don't bring it up.
No wonder you and Wikipedia didn't get along.

Quote:
Funny how occams razor sometimes doesn't give you the whole truth, sometimes the truth is anything but simple, such as here

Few things give you the whole truth;
but occam's razor is meant to get you there faster
and with less guess work and unsupported inferences.

Quote:
RoyBoy wrote:
* One: The engineers are telling the truth; and had not designed for a large amount of fuel. Which makes sense; and before you chime in with a half baked criticism; I'm sorry but a plane taking off gains altitude rapidly, isn't disoriented (since they just left the goddam airport), and has to fly using a well practiced air corridor. Add on top of that departures are routinely delayed and canceled as a result of dangerous weather.
* Two: They are lying or telling half-truths because they (and the companies they work for) don't want their asses sued into bankruptcy for putting inadequate fire protection in the event of a large avionic fuel fire that they anticipated, but did too little about it because of cost and/or incompetence.

where'd you get this information?

Which information; airplane takeoff procedures? Isn't that common knowledge?
Aircraft have to follow specific procedures, if they didn't all hell could break loose;
and planes would be flying into buildings after take off. They also have to
worry about noise abatement and other factors you nor I give much thought to.
Here's an article discussing air corridors and notoriously difficult airports:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=travel&res=9502E6DA1F38F932A05752C0A964948260

Quote:
Also the temperatures would have to be incredibly high for steel to weaken and fail, even in that timespan.

If a plane is flown into a building; it would take a shorter timespan fail.
And temperatures don't need to be incredibly high.

Wikipedia wrote:
There is no exploration on the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F."


Quote:
it needs to get to about 1250 to 1500 degrees to do so, these fires did not burn that hot. and I found this at the NIST's site: Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours. It did not get that hot!

I know that, I included it in the Loose Change article in Wikipedia a while ago.
To quote myself... forgive the cut and paste, but I did write it:

Wikipedia wrote:
Kevin Ryan the "expert" source from Underwriters Laboratories for steel certification is actually a non-expert from a subsidiary for water testing.[4] Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel,[26][4] and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004.[28] The NIST proved that the fireproofing was not intact by firing shotguns on fireproofed steel.

The last sentence wasn't written by me, but it's an important factoid to know;
assuming it's true, because I've never bothered to double check it myself.

Quote:
Why do all the google results for my searches for such buildings come up with "The WTC are the the only steel frame buildings to have ever collapsed due to fire?" Every source, including the NIST's report, contradict what you are saying, YOU seem to need to get your facts straight. The fireproofing could have been done for peace of mind.

In case you weren't aware, Google indexes what people put on the internet; and if people think its important they will write it a lot, and Google will be bombed with it and will prioritize the results thusly. People Googlebombed "dumb motherfucker" to bring up a site selling George W. Bush-related merchandise. I hate Bush, but Google doesn't make that label factually accurate; it merely reflects the opinions of people who have blogs and websites.

Sorry about you're dial-up, you just need to go to the associated website: http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
download the PDF and read; especially pages 8-9.
I'll paste the relevant section here for convenience:

From http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
No Steel Building has ever collapsed from fire before.

The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are
examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and
spray on material. The Meridian Plaza didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters
evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other
steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.
The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition
center. It, like the WTC, used long steel trusses to create a large open space without
columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire
protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steelconstructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after
the start of a small electrical fire."

http://www.wconline.com/CDA/Archive/24ae78779d768010VgnVCM100000f932a

The McCormick Place fire "is significant because it illustrates the fact that steel-frame
buildings can collapse as a result of exposure to fire. This is true for all types of
construction materials, not only steel." Wrote Robert Berhinig, associate manager of UL's
Fire Protection Division and a registered professional engineer. He also discusses UL's
steel fire certification much more knowledgably than Kevin Ryan. He is an example of
one more highly qualified engineer who supports the collapse theory.

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

About 2 years later the NYFD was concerned that a steel framed building that partially
collapsed during after a gas explosion might collapse entirely due to the resulting fire.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/TR-068.pdf

The Kader Toy Factory also collapsed due to fires. It had a steel frame.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/kade-m16.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kader_Toy_Factory

You can find more examples here, at the bottom of the page:

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm


Actually the following link points out the original source of the "no steel structures have collapsed" everyone is harping on. Its from that FEMA report; that is being misquoted of course:

Quote:
The FEMA report further states that until the attack at the WTC, no protected steel-frame buildings had been known to collapse as a result of a fire. The key word is "protected."

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/magazine/02_d/berhinig.htm

People might start forget to mention the protected part;
its a very significant oversight by people who don't understand the importance
of fireproofing; and why building codes require it. So there you go,
that's the source of the statement. That should go in Wikipedia too;
though its probably already there.

Quote:
Because I'm on a 56k and don't really have the time to.

I didn't realize that, my bad.

Quote:
No I think you got some of your fact wrong though

Certainly possible generally speaking,
but I didn't imagine pictures of collapsed steel framed buildings.
Answered this decisively below.

Quote:
things might be different in canada, though I dobt that. Have they looked at all of the evidence available? I have looked at most of the evidence for the WTC buildings that I could find outside of video format, simply because I'm on a bit of a time budget

Well no one has looked at all the evidence available; so of course not.
The thing is, someone would only try to look at all the evidence if they thought something was wrong with the official story. Do you see where I'm going with this?

Quote:
I look at the evidence and follow it wherever it goes, that step 2 of getting to the truth, step one is become skeptical of every explanation

Okay, I should apologize; that "your research" thing was a little too preachy;
which is not my style, so I'm sorry.

I totally agree with you, be skeptical of every explanation.
The problem, as I see it; is that you are not skeptical enough about the skeptics.

But personally, I only use the word "skeptic"
with someone with a proven track record and some relevant expertise.
Otherwise the term rapidly becomes meaningless.

Quote:
What? Orange coloring? Paper, concrete, bodies, and wood don't turn aluminum orange, even in its liquid state. Also, have most PHds come out in faor of the NIST report?

The NIST is the defacto explaination for the WTC collapse. So yes.

As to orange, that is the color hydrocarbon based materials glow when they turn to embers.
Like a log on a fire, the embers glow orange. Likewise with anything carbon based;
including bodies, paper; but of course not concrete...

... unless the mob put Hoffa in the cement!!! Laughing

Quote:
These people are willing to ask the tough questions, and shouldn't be discredited out of hand, instead if they're 100% false then they should be simple to disprove with a furnace and all sorts of crap as found in WTC

Tough questions are great, when a good explanation is given you move on.
I did not discredit him out of hand; it was the reply given by experts in the field
who know what they are talking about. (NIST FAQ)

This qualifies as a good explanation. If you want to try the experiment yourself;
I'd certainly encourage any young person to engage in experimental science...
so long as its safe.

Quote:
It's still technically a steel frame building.

It certainly is. I didn't say it wasn't.
Comparing it to others buildings is silly unless you take into account the differences;
I have yet to see a conspiracy theorist even come close to doing so.
That's why engineers don't see a glaring problem with the WTC collapse;
they are certainly curious how it happened; and they look to the NIST for answers.

Quote:
New question: how did it get hot enough to melt the steel down there? Nothing in the towers made it that hot and yet they were finding molten steel, and firefighters described it as being in a foundry

That wasn't melted steel; it was melted metal.
Metal from the airplane, metal from office equipment; metal from other stuff.
Just to clarify once again; no (structural) steel melted on 9/11.

People on the scene might have assumed it was steel;
but it wasn't nor could it be. As you correctly pointed out multiple times;
temperatures involved were not hot enough to melt structural steel.
I've never disagreed with that.

Quote:
Then what was it? It obvously survived a direct plane hit, so something brought it down, and if it wasn't the heat, what was it?

Multiple factors, structural damage (plane impact), fire (heat), design of the tower floors and inadequate fire protection (trusses and columns stripped of poor existing fire protection by the initial fireball), and something I personally think people don't mention enough, the extraordinary height of the towers (more floors above the fire zone). These all combined to doom the WTC; and have not been even close to being approached by other high rise fires and/or plane crashes.

Saying it was the "heat" implies you are focused on that as the key to the WTC collapse;
that is only one element in a series of events that made it vulnerable to collapse.

Quote:
Rolling Eyes The concrete in all three buildings. That should have been obvious. and most of the non-pulverized concrete was at the bottom of the tower

Well concrete at the bottom of the tower didn't have far to travel;
so there was less chance of it being mashed up by the steel and debris falling with it.

Quote:
true, but proving nothing. And the steel was not being pushed outward, it was being pushed downward, but it still should have been visible for a few seconds

Yes, but you neglect to apply the understanding that its wasn't a symmetrical collapse.

Also there were plenty of core steel columns that were upright.
Get a straw stand it upright and push down on it. It will bend out;
now that is an oversimplification; but steel elements in various positions were
being bent out of shape... they didn't just simply fall downward.
They were providing token resistance to the falling building; just as the straw
gives token resistance to your hand.

Quote:
the concrete would give way first.

You are confusing the situation, but yes that is accurate.
It gives way first because it is on top of the steel and is hit first;
but the steel flooring under it provides support for a moment.
In that moment the concrete is smashed; and then so is the steel.

Quote:
I'm talking about puffs of smoke from the side of the building, the elevators were on the center of the building

It's amazing what air can do when it is compressed by an elevator;
and/or debris falling down an elevator shaft. It creates a shock wave
that can and will go from the center of the building and explode out a window.

If you don't believe me, ask anyone with a decent science background;
such as a high school teacher.

Quote:
Laughing that's just hilarious. you just ignore the evidence and say that any analysis that suggests the official story is wrong must be made by a bunch of idiots. Scepticism is the first step towards truth-Denis Diderot. Throw out yor beliefs and follow the evidence trail for best results. an open mind is always going to come up with more accurate results than a closed one

But if the sites are wrong and made by idiots (they exist in abundance on the internet);
then I would be skeptical rather than a closed mind.
People saying something is impossible; from my experience; are closed minded idiots.
Saying something is impossible is a clear example of being closed minded;
because you reject any new evidence or possibilities, as you've declared it impossible.

I seem to recall theorists saying the collapse was symmetrical;
when it can be easily verified that it wasn't. And evidence that they
present is poor and should be ignored; after its been debunked of course.
If you hang onto it after its been debunked, then that's just stubbornness.

Quote:
still the phenomenon the NIST describes is quite similar, as in fairly unlikely and involving collapse of one floor after another.

No, the floors above the impact zone collapsing at the same time as the supporting columns failed is likely, and is what happened. I don't understand what kind of collapse is more likely than that.

Quote:
Yes but they do know what they're talking about, and do realize that they may be wrong. Also, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. This looked like a controlled demolition, and sounded like one, so it's entirely possible to have been one

But it didn't look like one, and didn't sound like one; so it wasn't one.
I'm not joking about this; your assertion is simply incorrect.

Look: Those puffs of dust; they occurred as the building was collapsing.
In a controlled demolition they appear before the building collapses.

Sound: A controlled demolition will have a series of booms, and then the structure will collapse. The WTC had booms, before, at, and after the initial collapse. (mostly to do with steel giving way) While the floors were giving out one after another as it collapsed did sound like to a controlled demolition; the booms in a controlled demolition typically all come before the actual collapse.

The booms, I reiterate, were coming from building giving token resistance to the collapse.

Quote:
On the north tower it was, maybe not on the south tower, but it was on the north tower.

I would disagree; and so would video/photo evidence and the NIST report page 40:

WTC1: "The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its decent."

WTC2: "The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its decent."

That's part of the executive summary.

Quote:
You misinterpreted, Steel doesn't weaken at the temperatues that hydrocarbon fires reach, and either the fire burned quickly above jet fuel's boiling temperature of 700 degrees, or slowly below that temperature. I know you never said the steel didn't melt. Is it like you to misinterpret what people are saying, or is this fairly recent?

I misinterpret all the time. Cool
I guess I should take my shades off.
Why did you say boiling temperature?

The WTC fire was big, as with all big fires they get very hot.
This is why fireproofing is put on structural steel;
so that it meets ASTM E119 certification and doesn't get so hot.

Word Count = 2632 (which doesn't include my equote)

Yikes, oh well, this is one of my best posts on this forum; but also reminds me why I left in the first place. I spend a lot of time doing research for others. Then again I might be able to use some of this for my Wikiwork; and continue the important task of exposing piss-poor evidence like the stuff used in Loose Change.

The down side is instead of chatting on Steam forums trying to get my buggy Counter-Strike server figured out (an issue that's been ongoing for about a year now)... I decided to do this instead. I hope it was worth it.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."


Last edited by RoyBoy on Mon 2007-01-29 03:05; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 70

Post #36795
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 02:12 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist Country: American Empire

911 Kulture Kampf:another manchurian candidate?  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

...conspiratorial talk is almost guaranteed to send the discussion off the rails and promote the conspiracy-speaker circuit in America.
Sadly, the ideology behind the war does not get a mention on this...Rense.com makes a mighty dollar out of this though...it all goes in circles and sends the congretations on a wild gooze chase...as always....it is about who can pinprick the physics of the WTC more than a structural engineer.....silly.. Laughing
_________________

What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 23

Post #36796
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 03:08 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 33

Post #36798
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 03:37 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist Country: American Empire

JFK feedback loop  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
_________________

What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 27

Post #36799
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 03:40 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

Re: JFK feedback loop  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Total words in post - 55

Post #36800
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Glorious Citizen of Oceania - 1st classOrder of Outstanding Oratory  - 3rd classMedal of Conspicuous Verbosity - 1st class
Comrade Ogilvy Citation for Continued Confrontation - 2nd classComrade O’Brien Prize for Persistent Proselytism - 1st classAverage Words per Day - 1st classAverage Posts per Day - 1st classWinston Smith Wordsmith Award - 2nd class


Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 04:13 Reply with quote
Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist Country: United States

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

RoyBoy wrote:
No steel towers have collapsed in the past...
that means its umpossible!... not quite Mr. Internet Engineer(s).


Wait a second, are you saying you're a professional engineer? Because whether or not you or he have valid points, you're no more of an expert on engineering than him, assuming you haven't received a degree in engineering. It sounds like you're calling him an armchair speculator when you yourself are one.
_________________


Yippykiaye motherfucker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Total words in post - 48

Post #36801
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Glorious Citizen of Oceania - 1st classOrder of Outstanding Oratory  - 3rd classMedal of Conspicuous Verbosity - 1st class
Comrade Ogilvy Citation for Continued Confrontation - 2nd classComrade O’Brien Prize for Persistent Proselytism - 1st classAverage Words per Day - 1st classAverage Posts per Day - 1st classWinston Smith Wordsmith Award - 2nd class


Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 04:15 Reply with quote
Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist Country: United States

Re: JFK feedback loop  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.


I don't think carl was criticizing you as you seem to have thought. After all, if carl espouses the idea that telepathy is possible, how could carl criticize a 9/11 conspiracy of all things without looking like a hypocrite himself?
_________________


Yippykiaye motherfucker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 36

Post #36803
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 05:28 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

Re: JFK feedback loop  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Mephistopheles wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.


I don't think carl was criticizing you as you seem to have thought. After all, if carl espouses the idea that telepathy is possible, how could carl criticize a 9/11 conspiracy of all things without looking like a hypocrite himself?
I look at carl's posts in this thread and he seems to oppose the conspiracy theories. conspiracy mill and such, though I may be wrong
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 279

Post #36805
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 06:48 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist Country: American Empire

Re: JFK feedback loops and Deja Vu  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Mephistopheles wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.


I don't think carl was criticizing you as you seem to have thought. After all, if carl espouses the idea that telepathy is possible, how could carl criticize a 9/11 conspiracy of all things without looking like a hypocrite himself?


NEOCONS SEIZING THE MOVEMENT

hmm telepathy? Just precognition will do for me thanks, the jury is out on this....

Perhaps I am cynical of conspiracy theories...more than anything...usually someone wants to sell you the book and wants you to spread the 'virus' to other people. The "conspiracy mill" is a Southener grievance against the Federal Government stemming from the American Civil War....so yes they are bound to oppose policies that are centralist and authoritarian and its precursor events.

Explosives or not, what does it take to take out the WTC tower? I mean terrorists were trying to bring it down for more than 10 years prior to 911...correct?


Operation Bojinka in Wikipedia shows the plans with long antecedents.....check www.rense.com see what I mean....

well, it is not so much who destroys the WTC but what you can do with the terrorist attack that counts....Saddam is off, Iraq invaded and near civil war, Afghanistan almost safe for the oil pipeline and the Seven Sisters and now time to pacify Iran and some fictional nukes, ignoring at the same time North Korea like doublethink....
You see the discussion is off track...sometimes people can get overly preoccupied with hyper minuscule analysis that lose sight of the bigger forest out there.... meaning who benefits from the prolonged state of war and military spending?
In any Society there will always be particular groups who will seek ascendancy over the rest of society, what better way to deflect criticism than to have people arguing about the technicalities of the WTC collapse to the nth degree?

Am I hypocritical? You tell me.... Think Question
_________________

What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM


Last edited by carldiesturmer on Mon 2007-01-29 06:58; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 73

Post #36806
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 06:53 Reply with quote
Politics: Libertarian-Socialist Country: United States of Oppression

Re: JFK feedback loops and Deja Vu  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

carldiesturmer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.


I don't think carl was criticizing you as you seem to have thought. After all, if carl espouses the idea that telepathy is possible, how could carl criticize a 9/11 conspiracy of all things without looking like a hypocrite himself?


hmm telepathy? Just precognition will do for me thanks

Perhaps I am cynical of conspiracy theories...more than anything...usually someone wants to sell you the book and wants you to spread the 'virus'm to other people. Usually the "conspiracy mill" is a Southener grievance against the Federal Government stemming from the American Civil War....so yes they are bound to oppose policies that are centralist and authoritarian and its precursor events.

Explosives or not, what does it take to take out the WTC tower? I mean terrorists were trying to bring it down for more than 10 years prior to 911...correct?


Operation Bojinka in Wikipedia shows the plans with long antecedents.....check www.rense.com see what I mean....

well, it is not so much who destroys the WTC but what you can do with the terrorist attack that counts....Saddam is off, Iraq invaded and near civil war, Afghanistan almost safe for the oil pipeline and the Seven Sisters and now time to pacify Iran and some fictional nukes, ignoring at the same time North Korea like doublethink....
You see the discussion is off track...sometimes people can get overly preoccupied with hyper minuscule analysis that lose sight of the bigger forest out there.... meaning who benefits from the prolonged state of war and military spending?
In any Society there will always be particular groups who will seek ascendancy over the rest of society, what better way to deflect criticism than to have people arguing about the technicalities of the WTC collapse to the nth degree?

Am I hypocritical? You tell me.... Think Question
Hypocritical? not really. So we've stopped seeing the forest for the trees, :-K . However I can't really resist a good debate as long as I can sink my teeth into it, as i can here
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Total words in post - 91

Post #36809
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Glorious Citizen of Oceania - 1st classOrder of Outstanding Oratory  - 3rd classMedal of Conspicuous Verbosity - 1st class
Comrade Ogilvy Citation for Continued Confrontation - 2nd classComrade O’Brien Prize for Persistent Proselytism - 1st classAverage Words per Day - 1st classAverage Posts per Day - 1st classWinston Smith Wordsmith Award - 2nd class


Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 18:34 Reply with quote
Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist Country: United States

Re: JFK feedback loops and Deja Vu  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

carldiesturmer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.


I don't think carl was criticizing you as you seem to have thought. After all, if carl espouses the idea that telepathy is possible, how could carl criticize a 9/11 conspiracy of all things without looking like a hypocrite himself?


NEOCONS SEIZING THE MOVEMENT

hmm telepathy? Just precognition will do for me thanks, the jury is out on this....

Perhaps I am cynical of conspiracy theories...more than anything...usually someone wants to sell you the book and wants you to spread the 'virus' to other people. The "conspiracy mill" is a Southener grievance against the Federal Government stemming from the American Civil War....so yes they are bound to oppose policies that are centralist and authoritarian and its precursor events.

Explosives or not, what does it take to take out the WTC tower? I mean terrorists were trying to bring it down for more than 10 years prior to 911...correct?


Operation Bojinka in Wikipedia shows the plans with long antecedents.....check www.rense.com see what I mean....

well, it is not so much who destroys the WTC but what you can do with the terrorist attack that counts....Saddam is off, Iraq invaded and near civil war, Afghanistan almost safe for the oil pipeline and the Seven Sisters and now time to pacify Iran and some fictional nukes, ignoring at the same time North Korea like doublethink....
You see the discussion is off track...sometimes people can get overly preoccupied with hyper minuscule analysis that lose sight of the bigger forest out there.... meaning who benefits from the prolonged state of war and military spending?
In any Society there will always be particular groups who will seek ascendancy over the rest of society, what better way to deflect criticism than to have people arguing about the technicalities of the WTC collapse to the nth degree?

Am I hypocritical? You tell me.... Think Question


Alright, if you're open-minded about something as, no offense, outrageous as precognition, why are you so closed-minded about a down-to-earth scenario in which a government perpetuates a scenario of terror against its own people? It's happened before (Collectivization, Reichstag, when Nero burned Rome, Pol Pot's extermination of intellectuals) and it'll happen again.
_________________


Yippykiaye motherfucker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 48

Post #36818
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Mon 2007-01-29 20:07 Reply with quote
Politics: Just plain NUTS! Country: Scotland

Re: JFK feedback loops and Deja Vu  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Mephistopheles wrote:
Alright, if you're open-minded about something as, no offense, outrageous as precognition, why are you so closed-minded about a down-to-earth scenario in which a government perpetuates a scenario of terror against its own people? It's happened before (Collectivization, Reichstag, when Nero burned Rome, Pol Pot's extermination of intellectuals) and it'll happen again.


Perhaps he's not as skeptical about the government perpetuating terror as he is the 9/11 conspiracy theory itself. And there's still a lot of doubt about how Nero fits in with the Great Fire, so that perhaps wasn't the most solid example.
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say


God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 74

Post #36823
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Tue 2007-01-30 01:03 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now

I can truly sympathize. Back in the day, this forum was unstable by itself;
and many hours were obliterated when an accidental key combo made the
page go back... and when you try to go forward, the text box an empty
abyss laughing at you! LAUGHING!!!

Then there were the times it failed the post; those were fun. Evil or Very Mad

I think I complained a few times to BB about it. Wink
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."


Last edited by RoyBoy on Tue 2007-01-30 01:14; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 212

Post #36824
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Tue 2007-01-30 01:07 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

I consider myself the air chair engineer  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Mephistopheles wrote:
RoyBoy wrote:
No steel towers have collapsed in the past...
that means its umpossible!... not quite Mr. Internet Engineer(s).


Wait a second, are you saying you're a professional engineer? Because whether or not you or he have valid points, you're no more of an expert on engineering than him, assuming you haven't received a degree in engineering. It sounds like you're calling him an armchair speculator when you yourself are one.

Being that sloppy would make me a pretty mediocre poster.
While I have let my emotions get the better of me at times on this topic,
and my word counts become uncharacteristically long, I'm not that sloppy.

More specifically, I'm calling the webmasters of those pages/blogs
piss poor air chair engineers and while I'm at it intellectual frauds...
using the internet (websites) to assert some level of competence/expertise.

I'm the air chair engineer; since I get my information from real engineers.
(as stated above, I'm not an engineer, but I do work with them on a daily basis)
Rather than trying to come up with original research to justify my preconceptions
of how I personally think one of the largest (and most uniquely constructed)
skyscrapers should have reacted and/or collapsed when hit hard by an airplane;
I listen to experts in person and online. I also consult experts generally when I hear
objections and questions raised by conspiracy theorists.

Not once, have I been left to wonder long if a theorist has come across a real inconsistency or a falsehood; every time, it has been incomplete, inaccurate or invalid arguments and/or evidence on their end. Particularly on matters of engineering and science.

Without exception.
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Mephistopheles
Filthy Animal
Total words in post - 81

Post #36828
Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 1
Total Words: 455
Average words per post: 455
PoliMatch: n/a
Glorious Citizen of Oceania - 1st classOrder of Outstanding Oratory  - 3rd classMedal of Conspicuous Verbosity - 1st class
Comrade Ogilvy Citation for Continued Confrontation - 2nd classComrade O’Brien Prize for Persistent Proselytism - 1st classAverage Words per Day - 1st classAverage Posts per Day - 1st classWinston Smith Wordsmith Award - 2nd class


Post Posted: Tue 2007-01-30 03:12 Reply with quote
Politics: Technocratic Syndicalist Country: United States

Re: I consider myself the air chair engineer  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

RoyBoy wrote:
Being that sloppy would make me a pretty mediocre poster.
While I have let my emotions get the better of me at times on this topic,
and my word counts become uncharacteristically long, I'm not that sloppy.

More specifically, I'm calling the webmasters of those pages/blogs
piss poor air chair engineers and while I'm at it intellectual frauds...
using the internet (websites) to assert some level of competence/expertise.


Aren't you doing the very same thing?

RoyBoy wrote:
I'm the air chair engineer; since I get my information from real engineers.


I'm sure Acebrock can say the same thing.

RoyBoy wrote:
(as stated above, I'm not an engineer, but I do work with them on a daily basis)


Being around mathematicians doesn't make you a mathematician.

RoyBoy wrote:
Rather than trying to come up with original research to justify my preconceptions
of how I personally think one of the largest (and most uniquely constructed)
skyscrapers should have reacted and/or collapsed when hit hard by an airplane;
I listen to experts in person and online. I also consult experts generally when I hear
objections and questions raised by conspiracy theorists.


*Yawn.* That's a classic argument Acebrock could also use. He's obviously listened to experts who disagree with your viewpoint.

RoyBoy wrote:
Not once, have I been left to wonder long if a theorist has come across a real inconsistency or a falsehood; every time, it has been incomplete, inaccurate or invalid arguments and/or evidence on their end. Particularly on matters of engineering and science.

Without exception.


I hope I've helped you realize you're still just an armchair engineer like Acebrock.
_________________


Yippykiaye motherfucker.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
carldiesturmer
Minister of Truth
Total words in post - 461

Post #36830
Joined: 18 Feb 2004
Posts: 4355
Total Words: 715,812
Average words per post: 164.37
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Tue 2007-01-30 03:41 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-capitalist Country: American Empire

Re: JFK feedback loops and Deja Vu  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Mephistopheles wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
Mephistopheles wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
carldiesturmer wrote:
AceBrock wrote:
I'll post my reply tomorrow. my last attempt just got fried for some reason and I'm too frustrated to try again right now



yeah there are some problems with posting....


I notice that there is a pattern to the conspiracy theories, it has the effect of sending questioning minds into circles..... Idea Think
Like reports that defy the laws of physics are any better. actually my browser crashed while I was loading a PDF document.


I don't think carl was criticizing you as you seem to have thought. After all, if carl espouses the idea that telepathy is possible, how could carl criticize a 9/11 conspiracy of all things without looking like a hypocrite himself?


NEOCONS SEIZING THE MOVEMENT

hmm telepathy? Just precognition will do for me thanks, the jury is out on this....

Perhaps I am cynical of conspiracy theories...more than anything...usually someone wants to sell you the book and wants you to spread the 'virus' to other people. The "conspiracy mill" is a Southener grievance against the Federal Government stemming from the American Civil War....so yes they are bound to oppose policies that are centralist and authoritarian and its precursor events.

Explosives or not, what does it take to take out the WTC tower? I mean terrorists were trying to bring it down for more than 10 years prior to 911...correct?


Operation Bojinka in Wikipedia shows the plans with long antecedents.....check www.rense.com see what I mean....

well, it is not so much who destroys the WTC but what you can do with the terrorist attack that counts....Saddam is off, Iraq invaded and near civil war, Afghanistan almost safe for the oil pipeline and the Seven Sisters and now time to pacify Iran and some fictional nukes, ignoring at the same time North Korea like doublethink....
You see the discussion is off track...sometimes people can get overly preoccupied with hyper minuscule analysis that lose sight of the bigger forest out there.... meaning who benefits from the prolonged state of war and military spending?
In any Society there will always be particular groups who will seek ascendancy over the rest of society, what better way to deflect criticism than to have people arguing about the technicalities of the WTC collapse to the nth degree?

Am I hypocritical? You tell me.... Think Question


Alright, if you're open-minded about something as, no offense, outrageous as precognition, why are you so closed-minded about a down-to-earth scenario in which a government perpetuates a scenario of terror against its own people? It's happened before (Collectivization, Reichstag, when Nero burned Rome, Pol Pot's extermination of intellectuals) and it'll happen again.

...either way even if the WTC attack was 'done' by the US Government it wouldn't matter, why you ask? Well it has the result of gelling the plans that dovetailed nicely with the Neo-conservative agenda as expounded by PNAC's report (comprehensive rearming, spending on the military-industrial complex et cetera). In case I am not making myself clear enough, the government does not need to level its own buildings, it needs to do nothing and let the terrorists do their work uninterrupted... of couse there bigger plans for the villains once they served the purpose, the Echelon system of signal intelligence used by NSA does this by way of international treaties such as UKUSA.
....if you read who Osama used to work for, you will understand that the government is not unfamiliar with sponsoring terrorists (in the Third World mostly) if they happen to promote its cause and interests of the mystical Uncle Sam...just visit Wikipedia for the "Sinking of the Maine", "The Lusitania", "The Gulf of Tonkim" and "Pearl Harbor" (the Jap code was crackedlong before the attack) how many people died on both sides...
I am a sceptic of the southern conspiracy mill (they want me to buy the info, this should be free! ), but I am far more sceptical of the Imperial US Government and its track record and the interests that line up their pockets when a "patriotic war" is proclaimed. You know wars prop up this huge military parasite on America's economy called the Military-Industrial Complex....so what are we gonna do? Think Question Exclamation The US Govt holds the information and can choose to release it pending FOIA or otherwise...
...so if explosives were used would they make any difference? Would the WTC still stand? It may have been demolished any way....for what I can figure...
The PNAC's ideological enemies are almost gone...left in the Middle East is Iran....so here we go....but the US Treasury is empty, the time is for a Democrat President to take over...
...now back to hair-splitting on the WTC and its collapse...any explosive traces in the rubble from the WTC?

PS:
Without wanting to sidetrack the thread, The Bush Admin decided to increase overall surveillance of its own citizens a few years back, but then how come it also decided to remove FOIA access to Bush Sr records, we don't have anything to hide yet value our privacy, however what the Bush Family does affects us all, what do they have to hide?

Quid Pro Quo...... Twisted Evil
_________________

What is a Democratic Socialist?
It is a Communist who is cowardly
enough to call himself what he's not, for fear of backlash on the Semantics. It is about the "Speed" of the "Revolution".
Like Hitler said "get them persuaded and us elected"
Caveat Emptor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Socialism
DO NOT USE BIG BROTHER'S LIBERTARIAN POLICIES AND BELIEFS AGAINST HIS HIMSELF AND HIS FORUM
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Total words in post - 265

Post #36892
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Wed 2007-01-31 22:08 Reply with quote
Politics: Very Interested Country: Canada

Re: I consider myself the air chair engineer  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Mephistopheles wrote:
Aren't you doing the very same thing?

I don't have a website; and I don't come up with original research based on my opinions.
Meaning I don't create information to use on my own pet theory of the WTC collapse.
The people who create these websites do that; and AceBrock uses some of that unverified
material to maintain a conspiracy occurred on 9/11.

Now I'm not saying there is no conspiracy; there is plenty of room for that...
just not based on bad science and engineering guesswork.

Mephistopheles wrote:
I'm sure Acebrock can say the same thing.

I doubt it having just looked over the list of Full Members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholars_for_9/11_Truth#Members

Mephistopheles wrote:
Being around mathematicians doesn't make you a mathematician.

If you listen; then you acquire their opinions and conclusions on things;
and are able to repeat those things to others who might be interested and see if
they have a counter-argument that is specific; and doesn't involve vague impossibilities.

Mephistopheles wrote:
*Yawn.* That's a classic argument Acebrock could also use. He's obviously listened to experts who disagree with your viewpoint.

A significant minority of "experts" with little or no relevant expertise
isn't a meaningful comparison, that's a classic case of equivocation.

Listen to them and take what they have to say seriously, absolutely! Think

After it's refuted -- easily -- and in such a way a layman can understand...
then it is old news and further yawns can be had; or better yet looking for
inconsistencies elsewhere would be good too.

Mephistopheles wrote:
I hope I've helped you realize you're still just an armchair engineer like Acebrock.

Heh, not really.
Since I already admitted I'm an airchair engineer, I didn't exactly need your help. Laughing

However, unlike AceBrock I can speak to engineers and ask them pointed questions (since I work with engineers);
interaction provides a greater level of understanding.
Don't you agree?
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 66

Post #36893
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Wed 2007-01-31 23:54 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-communist Country: United States of Oppression

Re: I consider myself the air chair engineer  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

RoyBoy wrote:
A significant minority of "experts" with little or no relevant expertise
who says the experts who have come out in facor of the NIST report have any expertise? Just because you say those who oppose the the ire theory have little or no relevent expertise doesn't make it true.
Quote:
However, unlike AceBrock I can speak to engineers and ask them pointed questions (since I work with engineers);
what if they're wrong or their bias inteferes with their reasoning? Engineers can be wrong, and if they are then your conclusions will be wrong.
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Acebrock
Minster of Plenty
Total words in post - 42

Post #36895
Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 1741
Total Words: 306,554
Average words per post: 176.08
PoliMatch: n/a



Post Posted: Thu 2007-02-01 00:58 Reply with quote
Politics: Anarcho-communist Country: United States of Oppression

  
  • Currently 0.00/4
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast)
 
 

Also when I said the steel was rated for 2000 degrees for 6 hours before failing, did you assume that that was with fireproofing, or do you have some source that doesn't try to disprove the conspiracy theories outright, like, say UL?
_________________
still not reading PMs

And Yes I have Asperger Syndrome.
Moving on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.newspeakdictionary.com Forum Index -> Guestbook All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





phpBB 2.1984 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Modifications made by newspeakdictionary.com, 2004, 2005, 2006