Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:
Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd:
In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.1
Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true. I am writing this list In order to help remedy this situation. All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up. Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are. I have provided the footnotes to prove it.
This is for anyone who still takes the NIST report seriously.
I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:
#10. Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.2
#9. This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.3
#8. They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.4
#7. They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.5
#6. Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.6
#5. Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.7
#4. They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.8
#3. Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.9
#2. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theory—they do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began!10
NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?
#1. Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”!11
This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal investigation, as well as a new investigation.
Most of this information is in an essay I wrote about the NIST report. For a more complete examination of the NIST report, read:
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard for Absurdity
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4324
2 This is NIST’s theory in their own words: “The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.”
Taken from: NIST: “Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers” page 4.
Therefore, the NIST theory is a “fireproofing theory”. If the fireproofing was not removed the buildings would not have collapsed according to NIST.
Plane damage was therefore insignificant:
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).
Professor Astaneh-Asl of University of California:said “‘The [plane] impact did nothing to this building,’ he said with admiration.” CNN News, Oct 5, 2001.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/10/05/inv.attacks.steel/index.html
See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032 Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006.
3 No steel framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fire in history according to the New York Times:
Glanz, James, and Lipton, Eric (2002). “Towers Withstood Impact, but Fell to Fire, Report Says,” Fri March 29, 2002, New York Times.
4 Kevin Ryan shows it actually disproved their theory:
“It took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation… there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been… [like] thousands of shotgun blasts [to cover] the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel.”
In other words, the shotgun blasts only removed the fireproofing where they were struck with the shotgun blast. Their own photos clearly show that the shotgun blasts removed little fireproofing, disproving their theory.
taken from: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#dislodged
See also: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=718236659434732032
Kevin Ryan, 9-11 Revealing the Truth: Reclaiming our future conference. June 4, 2006. at 36:06, and the NIST study that has photos of the shotgun blast tests.
5 Eyewitness testimony: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/eyewitnesses.html
6 As Seen from in NIST’s FAQ: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
“How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?”
NIST responds:
“…the momentum… of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. [Note: this claim contradicts a basic law of physics] The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.”
Jim Hoffman explains why this is impossible:
“NIST's assertion that the Tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" is absurd. It:
• Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.
• Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.
• Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.”
Physicist Steven Jones, who has written over 40 peer reviewed scientific papers, agrees [see page 28]:
“Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”
7 Here are NIST’s own test results:
• Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire"
• Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)
• Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
• NIST found that there was no floor collapse.
• "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
See here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#steelanalysis
and here: http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#labtests
8 “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
9 What data did NIST use for these computer models? We don’t know exactly, but they did reveal:
“The Investigation Team then defined three cases for each building by combining the middle, less severe, and more severe values of the influential variables. Upon a preliminary examination of the middle cases, it became clear that the towers would likely remain standing. The less severe cases were discarded after the aircraft impact results were compared to observed events. The middle cases… were discarded after the structural response analysis of major subsystems were compared to observed events.”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
This does not prove their predetermined conclusion so they change their data until they get the desired result—building collapse:
“The more severe case… was used for the global analysis of each tower... To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance… the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted...”
NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.
NIST’s theory couldn’t be proved with the original data, so they changed the data, which was different from the eyewitness reports. Does this “evidence” prove anything besides the fact computer simulations are fun to fool around with?
NIST also revealed:
“The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
Parker, Dave. "WTC investigators resist call for collapse visualisation," New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
10 NIST: “The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although [the investigation] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.
The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started.
11 I can’t believe they actually stated this on the record! NIST truly sets a new standard for absurdity.
NIST: “The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.” Read it here! http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html#13
NIST is trying to say that the molten steel was created after the building collapse. How do they know that? If so, why isn’t it mentioned in a 10, 000 page report to show this? This statement defies belief.
- Arabesque's blog
- Login to post comments
Excellent summary of the 10,000 page stack of kindling!
Talk about JUNK SCIENCE. And what is most alarming is that some of the same pseudo-liberals who claim to be outraged at the Bush admin's cherry picking of the work of junk scientists on issues like global warming don't seem to have a problem with this report.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Bert, Bert
Swishing in a skirt
Can't find his own thought
And he's more likely bought
Arggh!!! I KNOW, Anonymous, I KNOW!!! Stop rubbing it in!
I know that the jet fuel melted the steel even though it couldn't have. I KNOW that building 7 just collapsed because, well I KNOW there were no explosives involved. I KNOW that the people who reported multiple explosions in the towers all said so just to protect bin Laden and the other terrorists. I KNOW that evil muslims hijacked four planes and slammed them into their targets even if they don't appear in any security videos at the airports. I KNOW that finding a passport in the street is proof positive that the person pictured in it was on the plane that crashed nearby. I KNOW that our government did everything possible to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. I KNOW flight 77 vaporized once it hit the Pentagon. I KNOW that Mark Bingham is a bona fide hero. I KNOW the dancing Israelis were... JUST DANCING! I KNOW they weren't REALLY Mossad agents, even though it was reported in Israeli newspapers and TV shows. I KNOW that there really are bloodthirsty Muslims out to get me, and that because they're also out to destroy Israel, that I should naturally consider Israel my bestest buddy ever and not complain when they defend themselves by shooting little Palestinian kids with rocks. I KNOW those little rocks could put one of the IDF heroes' eyes out. I KNOW that because of our shared values that Israel loves and protects its bestest friend Amewica.
Thank you Anonymous for helping me to acknowledge that I have been LIVING A LIE!! I'm going to go immediately to sign up for Project David to help other Americans learn about the shared values and lack of ethnic cleansing going on in Israel, and how 9/11 truthseekers are just anti-semitic holocaust deniers who detest jews and want to defend muslim terrorists because they can't stand living with FREEDOM.
THANK YOU!! Keep fighting the good fight, Anon, you'll soon have us all singing the praises of America's Mayor AND our our own George "Winston Churchill" Bush!!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Anonymous... PLEASE tell me, though--
God DID make the unicorns, right? I mean--the UNICORNS are real, right??? Please tell me they are!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Plenty of evidence!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
Here are PLENTY of eye witnesses that talk about it!
One of the video clips you can CLEARLY hear an explosion happening!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
I deny it.
You can't deny it. It's in the record.
Where is it? And when you say something wasn't found, shouldn't you also say that it wasn't actually sought either?
And what is "explosive residue"? Is that, as it sounds, residue that explodes? Do you mean residue from explosives? I think maybe you do. Did the New York Times not report on the mysterious sulfidization of steel from the towers?
So who's blocking threatening info, Anon?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Ernie
Ernie has done us the courtesy of posting a good explanation of his own behavior in this post.
For trolls, denial is
"(a) defense mechanism where certain information is not accessed by the conscious mind. Denial is related to repression, a similar defense mechanism, but denial is more pronounced or intense. Denial involves some impairment of reality. Pathological denial is irrational denial in the face of conclusive evidence."
and
"The above series of studies may give rise to the speculation that self-deception does not differ from simple pathological denial. However, Paulhus and Reid (1991) demonstrated that although denial was one component of self-deception, self-deception contained a very strong ego-enhancement component. Presenting evidence that enhancement was more negatively correlated with depression than was denial, these authors concluded that self-deception has an active role in enhancing happiness. Thus, self-deceivers not only block threatening information, but actively search for information to enhance the self."
I think the fact that these guys compulsively repost the above text in various threads is really a cry for help.
Anon, you keep repeating
Anon, you keep repeating that you "demonstrated conclusively" the no explosisive residue was found in the WTC dust, yet you contiually refuse to provide any link or any data whatsoever to support your conclusion.
Do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously this way??
IDIOT!
You are a total bonehead RT. You forgot one other major point that we all know for a fact here in the real world...there are no video cameras on the Pentagon. None, zippo, nada...get it? There is no reason to secure this building, so we must be content with the Citgo tape because it is all the FBI has. Get the story straight there mister man!
?
?
Devils Advocate
:)
We Are All Idiots
We all just have to learn to accept that our local convenience store has better security cameras than the Pentagon.
.
The people who have really made history are the martyrs. ~ Aleister Crowley
Laurel and Hardy, that's John and Yoko. And we stand a better chance under that guise because all the serious people like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Kennedy and Gandhi got shot. ~ John Lennon
Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you angry! ~ Aldous Huxley
What do the nationalists say about killers punishing murderers and thieves sentencing looters? ~ Kahlil Gibran
Pentagon
I was being sarcastic, of course the Pentagon is loaded with surveillance cameras. They have the videos, and they are crisp and clear. They just can't share them.
I Knew That
I was too.
.
I meet the sincere man with sincerity and the insincere also with sincerity. ~ Lao Tse
An angry man opens his mouth and shuts up his eyes. ~ Cato
It is not power that corrupts but fear. The fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. ~ Aung San Suu Kyi
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? ~ Douglas Adams
So sad...
that I have to even wonder if people get it. :)
Really read the report!
The 10 points that are mentioned are just the tip of the iceberg of the NIST report. A closer examination of section 1-6 (A-D) reveals even more deceptive practices on NIST's part. For example,
In 1-6A NIST determine fire proofing loss using both their shotgun test and a computer model. Kevin Ryan has pointed out the energy required was simply not available, but giving NIST the benefit of the doubt, their modelling shows most of the loss would have been near the impact zones of the planes, and not for instance on the South face of WTC1. In 1-6B, NIST performs floor model tests on the floor assemblies and derive ASTM E-119 time temperature curves as well as fire endurance ratings. In 1-6C NIST attempt to concoct full floor computer models of the towers, but instead of using their actual results from 1-6B to establish baseline performance, NIST simplies the floors down and have them sagging at over 40 inches. NIST never validates it's full floor models against any physical tests, which are neccesary to validate the correctness and accuracy of any FEA approximation. Also in 1-6C, NIST can only get 2 out of 9 test cases to show significant inward pull forces on the exterior columns, and only using the most severe and unrealistic input. They require that all fireproofing be stripped off of the columns and floor assemblies over a 3 story area, temperatures that are higher than their previous modelling showed (see 1-5), and for longer durations than any of the fires were in any part of the tower. In 1-6D, NIST tries to put it all together into a global collapse model but they can't quite make it. First, they need their 2/9 test case to be true so they assume away all the fireproofing, completely contradicting their results in 1-6A (they even say that they were "mistaken", but don't bother to explain why or how!) Then they plug in the results from 1-6C floor model tests and guess what? No collapse and no bowing of external columns (they say this in the report). So they throw out 1-6C altogether and substitute direct pull in forces on the columns that are not derived from any experiement or logical process, but trial and error. After continued fudging, they finally get some bowing and clap their hands and say "Global collapse ensued."
I really recommend that everyone read the NIST report, on both sides, to see what it really does say and if NIST actually proved any of its Summary of Conclusions. A very careful reading of the report reveals that it does not indeed support the assertion of global collapse.
Really?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
Here are PLENTY of eye witnesses that talk about it!
One of the video clips you can CLEARLY hear an explosion happening!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Anonymous do you actually make any points?
Or do you just repeat over and over that others have refuted everything? That seems to be what all of you shills do. But see, you're only helping to convince those who are, like you, determined to believe what they want.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
I easily refuted you.
See the thread where I patiently helped you see that NO evidence of explosive residue was found in the WTC dust despite your denial.
Then you tell us here so all can see that you acknowledge that NO evidence was found.
Let's see if you are man enough. It's time for you to to show some integrity, RT. IF you have any.
You refuted nothing
"• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses
suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view."
NIST in thier OWN document state that they DID NOT investigate the use of CD! They NEVER tested for residue from explosives because they did not investigate the possibility of it!
NIST does not explain how the Antena on WTC1 fell first, when it was ATTACHED to the cores???? The cores could not have collapsed until the OUTER parts started to fall! Yet the Antena, which was supported by the cores, and connected to them, fell moments before the collapse. What caused the Antena to sink before the sides started to collapse?????? The core could not, would not, collapse in that fashion without an EXTERNAL force (and no the plane is not an external force in this case).
Please Mr. Wizard..... Enlighten us with your magic! Tell us all here how that Antena, supported by the Core, started sinking before the impact part collapsed!
PHYSICS says it's IMPOSSIBLE!!!! Statistically well over 100 TRILLION to ONE!
Enlightment for RB
\"NIST in thier OWN document state that they DID NOT investigate the use of CD! They NEVER tested for residue from explosives because they did not investigate the possibility of it!\"
Because there had ALREADY been a DOZEN or so INDEPENDENT studies of the CHEMICAL COMPOSITION of the dust starting in Oct 2001. The studies were initiated by NYC because of FEARS - justified - that there might be materials in the dust HARMFUL to the health of firemen, rescue workers, and cleanup personnel.
NONE of the studies found ANY residue from ANY type of explosives.
I have already been thoroughly through this with \"Truth for a Change\" who. despite his own research showing I am right, REFUSES to acknowledge the fact. Look up the thread.
Now, are you going to deny the results of those studies too, RB?
The devil is in the details
Never said anything about inside job, I am just pointing out that NIST failed to make the case for their probable collapse sequence. I fail to see the point in blithely accepting NIST's conclusions without first verifying the data to support it. If you didn't notice, most reports, essays, papers, etc. in academicia, economics, science, or business have something called a "body", that usually provides analysis and evidence to support the "conclusions". I guess you would advocate that we do away with that and merely state conclusions, since they must always be "true". Oh I forgot, that's the bias of the political method and has no place in the investigation of the murder of 3000 people.
You are in a minority
I find it especially odd that you would think that NIST\'s findings have been \"blithely\" accepted by vast majority of structural engineers and forensic scientists who are quite free and capable of challenging the findings.
Perhaps they are ALL afraid of speaking out, eh?
C\'mon, man, THINK for a change.
Not so fast
LOL, you do have have an overactive imagination. I assume nothing when it comes to "structural engineers" supporting the NIST report. I have heard that Leslie Robertson supports the report, but I have also heard that Charles Pegelow does not. At this point I have yet to hear definitive support or skepticism from the engineering community but I can tell you that ARUP in the UK has taken issue with the report (they do not model expansion due to heating) as well as the New Civil Engineer. The primary problem is that NIST is unwilling to debate its report, even with engineers who support the fire theory but have taken issue with NIST's particular theory. Need I remind you that the track record of the explanations for the collapses has not exactly been stellar:
1. (FALSE) Tower Meltdown (Bazant and Zhou, various "experts" in the days after) - 800C+ temperatures in core - No WTC7 explanation
2. (FALSE) Pancake theory (ASCE, FEMA BPAT, MIT) - Never a full collapse theory (the use of the phrase "possibly free standing columns" failing) and now disproven by physical tests and NIST, very improbable WTC7 explanation (by FEMA's own account)
3. (FALSE) Weidlinger report - Low temperature column failure with fire proofing loss - Similiar to NIST but contradicted by NIST's temperature estimates and collapse theory (role of floors) - No WTC7 explanation
4. (Yet to be determined) NIST report - Latest report on collapses, currently excludes WTC7
We've had a myriad of "explanations" that have are all mutually exclusive and promulgated by largely the same set of people. Now, as I recall many 9/11 truth researchers criticized these reports and at the the time proponents of each of these theories claimed large scale agreement among engineers and, similiar to your tact, that these researchers were merely talking out of their ass. Unfortunately for the "engineers" (and yourself), the truthers are batting 1.000 to their 0.000 so far. Does this mean that NIST is thus wrong? No, but it means that the blanket acceptance of the latest theory promulagated by "experts" should be taken as just that, a theory. Appealing to authority here is really laughable considering the appaling track record of these theories and anyone who chooses to merely restate NIST's conclusions without verifying their data and analysis is engaging in the worst form of doublethink and intellectual dishonesty.
way to spank the anonymous shill, Rich!
so true what you say--at every turn "all the structural engineers in the world" have agreed with whatever official story happens not yet to have been debunked.
The way these shills are screwing up I wouldn't be surprised if we have a breakthrough before X-Mas!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Lots of hearing , no data
You've "heard" that Leslie Robertson supports the report.
You have "heard" that Charles Pegelow does not.
You have yet to "hear" definitive support or skepticism from the engineering community
You can tell me that ARUP in the UK has taken issue with the report (they do not model expansion due to heating) as well as the New Civil Engineer.
When do you get to the part of providing the data to back up what you "heard?"
"The primary problem is that NIST is unwilling to debate its report,..."
As I have pointed on, objective facts are not determined by "debates." If your sources contest NIST, it would be in writing. So, when will you provide that to us?
"Does this mean that NIST is thus wrong? No, but it means that the blanket acceptance of the latest theory promulagated by "experts" should be taken as just that, a theory. Appealing to authority here is really laughable..."
You don't know what you are talking about. There is no "appeal to authority" here. Look up the definition.
You can't get around the fact that the preponderance of evidence supports the causes of the collapses of WTC 1 and 2 and that there is both NO evidence of explosives and NO need to resort to "explosive demolition" as the causes of the collapses.
That's the reality. Get used to it. "Truthers" have never batted anything but 0.
what IS the official explanation of the molten steel reported by
FEMA itself?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
NIST
Actually I think Creationism is a joke, just like the NIST report. My top 10 list proves it.
My claims are backed up by NIST's own statements. Maybe you forgot to read my footnotes (or don't want to).
Your list is nothing
I easily refuted your list, Arabesque. So did NIST.
Too bad you can acknowledge that.
But that's what your denial is all about.
You guys are really debating
You guys are really debating with this guy? Cmon he's just trying to stir us up...he knows it was an inside job he's just scared.
He says that WE want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job because we are in denial and it is a way to be peaceful and happy.
HOW DOES KNOWING THAT THE PEOPLE IN CHARGE DID 9/11 MAKE US PEACEFUL AND HAPPY?!
IT IS 102973012874021 TIMES WORSE THAN PEOPLE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY WANTING TO KILL US.
Anonymous, you're in denial, wetting your pants that the guys who are in charge are killing their own people so you believe some muslims in a cave hate us so much that they would kill themselves in Allah's name to get rid of us. After a rousing night of hard drinks, strip clubs and lapdances, of course. All in Allah's name.
Your comments are amusing
I don't see you proving anything. Who's more in denial: someone who tries to find out what happened using all (yes this means ALL) of the evidence to an event, or someone who goes anonymously on message boards denying everything we say? I guess the NIST report is perfect huh?
Your denial is transparent
It was easy to debunk your "10 points". You forget that you were debunked over 4 years ago on the same nonsense.
We'll just remind you until you get it. Your 9/11 Denial Movement isn't going anywhere.
Sorry, Arabesque, but live in a fantasy world.
You must have insider info
4 years ago? The NIST report was released in 2005! I guess that you are one of the people who believe the report while never actually having read it. Or maybe you got an advance copy of the report as prepared by the "create our own reality" administration.
You're WAY behind - still
Thierry Meyssan's book came out with the same nonsense in 2002, bunky.
He was quickly and thoroughly debunked.
Irrelevant
You need to read the post before you make comments. My post is about the NIST report, not "Meyssan". Therefore, your comments are irrelevant. Not only did you not read the NIST report; you didn't bother to read my post either.
OK, Mr. OCT-a-gone, explain these facts away if you can...
C'mon...you think you've got all the answers...let's see you explain facts that are indicting evidence of coverup and complicity (I can't wait to hear your deafening silence):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:
Plane Impact Times – Indicting New Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic_Proof___9.11_Was_An_Inside_Jo...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross
Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://www.st911.org /
One World Trade, September 11th, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)
8:46:30 UTC - LDEO/NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
Both times: real, accurate, precise to the second
Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event ~10 seconds before the aircrash?
A- The only possibility is: huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses.
Q- Who caused these explosions?
Notes:
The 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed, and NIST avoided these same eyewitness testimonies as well.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s reported time of the aircrash.
The Ginny Carr audiotape has an ~9.2 second-gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
Now is the time for the new 9/11 investigation, this time a real on with teeth!
Justice waits. {And there is no Statute of Limitation on murder.}
------------
------------
This data has not been refuted by anyone. It is from the two official government entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11. Both issued reports declaring these precision times to be real and accurate, and the times corroborate William Rodriguez and all the other eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified to explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before AA Flt 11 struck the building.
Many proponents of the "official conspiracy theory" by the US Government reject these times out-of-hand, stating these facts to be false; however, unfounded opinions with no factual basis are meaningless.
Why post debunked stuff?
"Many proponents of the "official conspiracy theory" by the US Government reject these times out-of-hand, stating these facts to be false; however, unfounded opinions with no factual basis are meaningless."
That's just another indication that you fell for your 9/11 conspiracy handlers by repeating that stupid canard
ALL of the evidence is independent of the Government and never controlled by it.
Try to stick to the facts, quick.
I am sticking to the facts and this is not debunked.
You write, "That's just another indication that you fell for your 9/11 conspiracy handlers by repeating that stupid canard"; this makes no sense, this lame comment of yours.
How can I have "9/11 conspiracy handlers" when I am the one who found these times on the internet put out for the whole world to see by the US Government?
And of course the government's times contradict one another because, as usual, they didn't know what they were doing.
People who deny the facts found in this paper are simply people who will not accept the truth; either that or they are intellectually dishonest (or cowards).
READ the report and wake up to the truth, if you have the guts for it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Plane Impact” Times: Incriminating Evidence of 9/11 Coverup & Complicity
“Seismic Proof – 9/11 Was An Inside Job (Updated Version II)”
Link: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Seismic_Proof___9.11_Was_An_Inside_Jo...
By Craig T. Furlong & Gordon Ross, Scholars for 9/11 Truth: http://www.st911.org
The official times for plane "impact" [precise to the second] as declared by the US Government, from both the 9/11 Commission and from NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), are different and yet both are true and accurate times. What can this factual contradiction mean? Looking exclusively at WTC1, there is found the indisputable causal link:
One World Trade, September 11, 2001
American Airlines Flight 11 “impact” time:
8:46:30 UTC, per LDEO seismic data (National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2005)
8:46:40 UTC, per FAA last primary radar contact (9/11 Commission Final Report, 2004)
Q- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event that occurred 10 seconds before the actual aircrash at 8:46:40?
A- The only possibility is huge explosions, as corroborated by many eyewitnesses at the time.
Q- Who caused these explosions before the plane hit?
Notes:
In 2004, the 9/11 Commission avoided addressing the earlier seismic event time (which had been, in error, attributed by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, originally in 2001 as “plane impact”).
In 2005, NIST avoided addressing the 9/11 Commission’s later time for the aircraft’s actual impact time.
Both the 9/11 Commission and NIST avoided addressing the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements before the plane crashed.
Summary:
This precision data has yet to be refuted by anyone. It is from the two highest governmental entities charged with looking into what happened on 9/11, and both declared these times as accurate, and in doing so they corroborate William Rodriguez and the many eyewitnesses the morning of 9/11 who testified of explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1 before American Airlines Flight 11 struck the building. This is indicting evidence of governmental coverup and complicity.
Before it is too late, demand a new 9/11 investigation, except this time a real one.
Justice waits...{and there is no statute of time limitation on murder}
Why post debunked stuff?
"Many proponents of the "official conspiracy theory" by the US Government reject these times out-of-hand, stating these facts to be false; however, unfounded opinions with no factual basis are meaningless."
That's just another indication that you fell for your 9/11 conspiracy handlers by repeating that stupid canard
ALL of the evidence is independent of the Government and never controlled by it.
Try to stick to the facts, quick.
No one has been able to explain away to me how the towers
fell at a constant speed, when one of the most basic laws of physics is that bodies falling due to gravity accelerate at a rate of 32 feet per second/per second!
Is it a proven fact that the
Is it a proven fact that the towers fell at a constant speed? If so, could you provide a link or something.
I intend to write to some journalists about WTC, and I'm wondering if I could use that argument.
I don't have a link at the moment Vesa, I deduced this from
my "unscientific" viewing of many videos showing the towers collapse. It just looks to me that they fell at a very constant speed, when gravity of course would have caused rapid acceleration:
What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.
After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.
After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
And so on.
I hope some people smater than me can develop this idea further.
Please demonstrate
Please support your claim with evidence.
Evidence
first, please read the evidence I gave you.
Scientific method: consider all of the evidence:
Eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, scientific laws must be followed, looking to real life examples for a hypothesis, etc, etc...
NIST does none of the above. There is something seriously wrong in this world when we have an outrageous report like this ridiculous NIST garbage that manages to prove nothing we didn't already know on 9/11...
Cherry picking doesn\\\'t work
Sorry, Arabesque, cherry picking doesn\\\'t work. NIST consider ALL of the available evidence INCLUDING ALL the eyewitness testimony. The CONVERGENCE of ALL the evidence is what counts.
What counts is that NO evidence of explosives has ever been found, not that some eyewitnesses thought they \\\"heard\\\" explosions.
That you think NIST is ridiculous garbage only indicates you don\\\'t know how to evaluate evidence. Maybe you claim to be God, too.
If I'm not mistaken, the
If I'm not mistaken, the "acceleration" of a falling body is one of the arguments OCTs use to explain why the towers fell so fast. They say the reason the towers collapsed at near-freefall speed is because the top of the towers accelerated as it fell. This, they say, is why the commonly cited "freefall speed" argument is misleading.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean exactly?
I believe I see the top floors of the towers falling at about
the same speed as the bottom floors fell. According to Newton's law, if gravity were indeed driving down the collapse, the bottom floors should have fallen at a much accelerated speed.
(I think "freefall" speed already includes acceleration due to gravity.)
Another problem in the "official story" is that since the towers fell at virtually freefall speed, the massive steel & concrete offered no resistance, which is quite imposssible.
911 mysteries explains this briefly
they mention the demolition wave moving FASTER than gravity, which seems true from parts of the footage. So the tops were falling at near freefall speed as the demolition made room by the detonations progressing downward slightly faster. Since we don't know exactly what the explosives were breaking, and if indeed gravity had to take care of some of the structure not touched by explosives, it stands to reason that we wouldn't be seeing actual freefall acceleration, just something close to it. But again, the explosives had to go faster, which we can see, and which makes sense given that we don't see the tops stall at any point on the way down.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
proof
who did the research on explosives? Show me the report, please. Who was looking for explosives?
Many studies done
NYC initiated the first study of the chemical composition of the dust in October 2001. They feared and were RIGHT - that the dust could harm the firemen, rescue workers, and construction crews cleaning up the site. Subsequent studies confirmed that NO residue from explosives was found.
I have already been through this in another thread. Look it up: http://911blogger.com/node/4136?page=1
Here you go, shill - FEMA reporting on steel from Building 7
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
I expect silence from you. Everyone else should become familiar with appendix C of the FEMA report, the one that Steve Jones quoted the New York Times as citing in their story that mentioned the sulfidation of steel from the buildings.
On second thought, shill, why don't you explain this evidence from the government itself?
Shill? We're waiting--hop to it chop chop!
And oh yeah, you DO have a lawyer right?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Hey, lay off the shill so he can refute FEMA's findings!!
I tried to quote the above report but they sho don't make it easy! Wonder why...
This PostScript file was created from an encrypted PDF file.
Redistilling encrypted PDF is not permitted.
%%[ Flushing: rest of job (to end-of-file) will be ignored ]%%
%%[ Warning: PostScript error. No PDF file produced. ] %%
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
You're SO silly, RT.
I know you're angry that I showed you that there is NO evidence of explosive residue in the dust at WTC - which demonstrates that you DO NOT WANT THE TRUTH NO MATTER WHAT.
Now you claim that sulfidation came from EXACTLY WHAT, RT?
Oh Anonymous, bless your heart.
Here's what the anonymous shill wants everyone to believe he has debuinked: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
It's the government's own report that explains that evidence of extremely high temperatures causing steel from WTC7 (you remember, the one that collapsed straight down in seven seconds though it was barely scratched and had only a few deliberately set fires on a couple of floors, most likely SEC case files being burned) to also show highly suspicious signs including the presence of sulphur, a VERY common ingredient in? diesel tanks? No. Old Zionist landlords? Nope. Ummm... evidence of Wall Street fraud? Nope. Though all of those things were at one point or another to be found in WTC7, sulphur is in fact a common ingredient in EXPLOSIVES!
Yep. Explosives and incendiary substances like Thermate.
Now. Some people will say--but they didn't SAY explosives. Nope, and they never will unless put on a witness stand under oath. This is called covering your ass. The authors of the FEMA report must have been veeeery careful not to omit anything important and open themselves up to prosecution, like Anon here, for being an accessory after the fact to mass murder and war crimes. They made sure to include every fact, and when they got to parts like the steel that showed obvious signs of having been cut with a high temperature explosive/incendiary substance, they feigned ignorance and did not state their conclusion, just that it was an unexplainable aspect of their findings given the official story. This way they can say in court--"We didn't hide the evidence! But come on, NOBODY COULD HAVE IMAGINED that people were lying about that--especially the kindly old Zionist landlord." That's covering your ass 101.
Interestingly, while the MSM can go on and on about Britney's breakup, they haven't had much to say about the as yet unexplained collapse of building 7. Or the telltale residue from explosives on building 7 steel.
Anonymous, it must really suck to know that you're here alone because so many who you were counting on to help you defend murderers have goten cold feet now that it's clear that Americans are going to find out the truth about 9/11.
Can you imagine what the consequences are going to be for anyone who had a hand in it? They are going to be severe, and history will not very clearly exactly who did it, why, and the lengths they went to to cover it up. You'll be exhibit Z-93, so my kids probably won't read about you in their schoolbooks, but the people around you will know your shameful past. Worse than Nazis. The perps of 9/11 and their accessories like you are worse than Nazis (and Nazis did suck ass!). But you are so much worse in so many ways that the world is going to soon be learning about. That is a cold hard fact. God help you and yours!
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
You can\'t get away with it, RT.
The fact that you have to make debunked statements like:
WTC 7 \"
\"was barely scratched,
\"had only a few deliberately set fires on a couple of floors\",
reveals a desperation to hold onto you fantasies.
\"sulphur is in fact a common ingredient in EXPLOSIVES.\"
So what? It is also common in from other sources present.
Face reality, ReatTruther. NO physical evidence of EXLOSIVES was EVER found at the WTC site. Period.
You can\'t get around that fact.
shill thinks building 7 was loaded with sulphur!
Do tell, wise shill. What were the other sources of sulphur in the building, and how did they become part of a chemical reaction that attacked the steel in WTC7? You can't even explain the official reports. You're like the kid yesterday who claimed that Felipe David was burned by an elevator that fell all the way down the tower when a cable snapped. Until I explained to him that there were no elevator shafts going all the way down the building like that. Then he said, well, it fell from the 50th floor, with Felipe David in it. I looked at him and asked him if he was sure about that. The story changed a few times, while onlookers wondered why this kid was so agitated and changing his story so often. You can claim anything you want, shill, but who is going to believe you? I bet that kid would, actually. He also said that molten steel is not liquid. He was a quivering mass of jello and you could see the cognitive dissonance wracking his innards. It's over, shill. People know. Period.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
hey dumbass, the edit button
hey dumbass, the edit button is your friend. and get a name already coward, your cutting and pasting would have more bite that way.
just as soon as you find a
just as soon as you find a job, a girlfriend, a few REAL LIFE friends and a hobby. clearly you have none of these things and your life is hopelessly empty based on the fact that you come here so much to set us "9/11 deniers" straight. seriously, you have to get out more.
to talk with likeminded
to talk with likeminded people about an important issue. you come here because your life is hopelessly empty. pathetic.
You come here to deny reality
Denial is what you all practice. But you contribute nothing to the discussion.
"yer a 9/11 denier, you cant
"yer a 9/11 denier, you cant find a strutrctre enginer". its getting tired, get a new act dummy.
Yes, I'm sure the architects
Yes, I'm sure the architects are kicking themselves. "Ah! We engineered multiple redundancies capable of withstanding several airplane impacts or a 150-year storm, but we never considered that some insulation might break off and expose the multiple redundancies to weak office furniture fires that didn't exceed 600 degrees and were around 250 degrees in most cases! How could we be so shortsighted while building the tallest building in the world?!"
Tell me again how the floors were only meant to withstand 1400 tons of static weight? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you know anything about how buildings redistribute weight? In your world, buildings higher than 10 floors are perennially risking total collapse. Oh! Don't jump up and down on the ninth floor! You might topple the building!
The NIST report reminds me of that old SCTV parody of Towering Inferno, in which the architects build this almost-elastic tower in order to save money.
Yes, please, show me another graphic of the hollow tube construction of the towers, swaying in the breeze like blades of grass.
and please tell us that the
and please tell us that the pulverization of the concrete was caused by cheap building materials
Anonymous Jackass:
Can you say the phrase "47 vertical box columns (running from bedrock to penthouse) constituting the CORE load bearing structure of the building"?
(when I fist ran a bit of cheap math on this subject.... I said 30KPSI.... I've since read that the box-column steel was actually 60KPSI steel. Could anybody confirm? Thanks.)
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
You're still in denial.
You already KNOW that neither the core nor the outer walls could stand on their own
And you completely deny the reality of the collapses. To you, it certainly MUST be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality.
SYMMETRICAL CATASTROPHIC FAILURE.... your argument.
You basicly assume that the floor at the point of collapse had a catastrophic failure which completely eliminated symmetrically all structural capacity of an entire floor... ZERO RESISTANCE.
SYMMETRICAL CATASTROPHIC FAILURE.... If one of the massive core columns had withstood the initial collapse intact.... the entire mass of collapse would have tipped.... if only for a split second.... would have altered the fall of the building.
The F'N building Dissentegrated.... if the floors collapsed as you say.... the debris should have remained fairly compact as it fell.... maintained by the outer structure of the building.... very little blow-out...
and the resistance would have slowed the collapse dramaticly.... taking at the very least three times longer to collapse....
the pancake theory would also maintain that the resistance would assit in keeping much of the concrete intact.... not pulverized.
have you looked into how much energy is required to pulverize concrete?
Reality
"the debris should have remained fairly compact as it fell.... maintained by the outer structure of the building.... very little blow-out..."
The outer walls could not stand on their own. Once the floor truss connections failed there was nothing to maintain the outer walls or the core.
"have you looked into how much energy is required to pulverize concrete?"
Yup:
The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11
I Read it....
I'm guessing that you did as well... and you fully understand it.
I'm pretty sure that they took a few liberties in their calculations.... and they sum it all up by saying
" That without the help of gravitational collapse the degree of concrete pulverization observed during the destruction of the WTC would have required 600 tonnes of high explosives"......
but you see.... the pulverization of concrete WAS assisted by the gravitational collapse.
also.... I may not understand all the numbers but there was a point where they doubled a number that I feel should have been halved because the energies were acting aganst each other.... not in unison. on the bottom of page 19.... the Ed calculation of 600MJ.... they doubled the calculation to 1200MJ as the upper floor of the lower building section and the lower floor of the upper section crushed each other. I don't feel this is an accurate assumed calculation on their part.... they are saying that the momentum doubled as these floors acted upon each other....
using this assumption from top to bottom of the collapse... would assume that resistance is a force assisting the progresive collapse... and that is a blatent miscalculation.
They also describe how the pulverization of the concrete is caused by the concrete impacting each other and absorbing the energy with certain percentages associated with that impact..... absorbing energy is called ......
RESISTANCE....
they never really talked about resistance..... or the time it took for the collapse of the entire structure..... youmay not understand this but RESISTANCE.... is an essential piece to the calculation of impact energy.
you may also notice how the pulverization of the concrete was very evident..... very early on in the collapse.
Interesting article.... alot of work went into that deception.... they were very motivated to support the government line.
Denial in action
What ever you \"feel\" is irrelevant. If Dr. Greening is incorrect he will be refuted by his peers. You haven\'t even demonstrated anything to support your claims.
The fact remains that no physical evidence of explosives has ever been found, the properties of construction of WTC 1 and 2 are well known and the progressive collapse resulted from that type of construction. That you want to \"pretend\" that the building \"should have\" provided resistance to stop the collapse is unsupported by any accepted calculation, and that the physics and physical evidence are entirely consistent with a gravity-driven progressive collapse without the need for explosives.
\"Interesting article.... a lot of work went into that deception.... they were very motivated to support the government line.\"
Sure. That claim reveals the nature of all 9/11 Denial Movement members: deny the evidence and provide nothing to support you claims.
BTW, you are confused about the use of \"they\". Dr. Greening is referred to as \"he\", not, \"they.\" Basic grammar.
We will see
Press Release – August 15, 2006
Contact: Ed Haas
Office: (843) 278-5021
Mobile: (843) 327-7598
efhaas@comcast.net
http://www.teamliberty.net
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Dr. Frank R. Greening to argue in support of government account of the events of September 11, 2001 at the National 9/11 Debate
The National 9/11 Debate is pleased to announce that Frank R. Greening Ph.D. has agreed to participate in the National 9/11 Debate on March 10, 2007 in Charleston, South Carolina. Frank R. Greening will be part of a seven-member debate team that will support the U.S. government’s official account of 9/11 events.
Frank R. Greening was born in London, England in 1947. He has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry and has carried out research in physics, chemistry, and materials science for 30 years in academic and industrial positions. He has published approximately 80 research reports and journal articles, including numerous articles supporting the government’s collapse sequence theories of World Trade Center Buildings 1 & 2.
While the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists remain invited to participate in the National 9/11 Debate, the Muckraker Report has expanded the potential government debate team members to any qualified persons that are willing to publicly defend the government’s account of 9/11 against the opposing debate team already assembled. Dr. Greening is the first such expert that has agreed to debate members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth as well as other experts that oppose the government’s account of 9/11 to include Philip J. Berg, James H. Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Steven E. Jones, George Nelson, Morgan Reynolds, and Judy D. Wood.
“Regardless of what you believe about the events of September 11, 2001, the need for a fair, public debate regarding the government’s official account of 9/11 is made apparent by the fact that nearly half of all Americans, and arguably, more than half of the world population does not accept the U.S. government’s final 9/11 reports as complete or factual. The goal of this debate has always been to give each side a safe public forum for honest debate where each side is allowed to completely express their views and debate the merits of these views,” says Ed Haas, National 9/11 Debate Coordinator. “With Dr. Greening coming on board, I am confident that others will follow and this much needed debate will occur.”
The format of the National 9/11 Debate will include a credentialed seven-member debate team that supports the government’s account of 9/11, a credentialed seven-member debate team that disputes elements of the government’s account, and a seven-member media panel that will monitor the debates and pose questions to the debate team members.
Any member of the media that would like to be on the media panel should contact Ed Haas promptly.
The direct link to the National 9/11 Debate index is http://www.teamliberty.net/id244.html.
To reserve your tickets for this debate, visit http://www.teamliberty.net/id279.html today.
What's your experience???
"#2. This reveals you know nothing about physics or structural engineering. As I already showed, once global collapse starts, it is irrelevant to model the actual collapse when the CAUSES precede the collapse. This is really a silly strawman of 9/11 Deniers."
I see that you go around telling people that they don't know what they are talking about, but please tell us what your qualifications are as a Structural Engineer or Mechanical Engineer????
You probably have ZERO experience! What experience do you have in a high math technical position???? How many years have you been in that position?
Physics proves that the buildings would not/could not fall in that fashion. If the tops were to collapse, they surely would not have fell all the way to the sub-basement and into nothing but dust. Sorry, but the force to do that was not part of that building! PERIOD!
Only PHYSICS!
You can't excape PHYSICS!
"You see, RB, I rely on people who KNOW what they are talking about. You won't find a structural engineer worth his salt that would claim other than what I stated."
NO! You rely upon people who CAN'T speak out freely! You rely upon those people who make their living from contracts from the government, or work for people who do!
It's pretty funny that if the NIST information is so ROCK SOLID that they won't debate scientists that have refuted MUCH of NIST's work. They absolutely will not debate them on the facts! That's a real strong case if they can't even present a face to face debate about thier results!
"But, instead, you declare your expertise in a subject for which you demonstrated you have no knowledge of."
Apparently YOU have a reading comprehension problem! Please show me where in my posts that I declare I am an "expert"?
"Perhaps, when you get around to refuting the hundreds of independent structural engineers and forensic scientists of, for instance, NIST - the refutation we continually wait for but is NEVER forthcoming - we will pay attention."
Perhaps if NIST would provide the computer simulations for the scientific community to evalulate, they might be taken seriously??? How about providing a 1/100 model to demonstrate the collapse is possible in the way that NIST states? How about something other than them just saying so and providing PROOF?????
Oh, and by the way...... There are plenty of Structural Engineers that question NIST's accounts of things!
How about providing ONE steel framed building that fell into pieces of dust from either fire, damage, or both in the history of man..... JUST ONE EXAMPLE!
You're getting more ridiculous
"It's pretty funny that if the NIST information is so ROCK SOLID that they won't debate scientists that have refuted MUCH of NIST's work. They absolutely will not debate them on the facts!"
Scientific facts are NOT established by debate. No one debates "facts". If your handful of deniers have "facts" that refute NIST, they have to go through the same process as any other scientist. Debate, as you should well know, is NOT that process.
The fact that your cadre of politically-motivated amateurs NEED to debate IN ORDER to appear to have credibility doesn't fool anyone, RB. Holocaust Deniers tried that ploy for decades and didn't succeed either.
"Please show me where in my posts that I declare I am an "expert"?"
Sure: "Physics proves that the buildings would not/could not fall in that fashion."
"How about providing ONE steel framed building that fell into pieces of dust from either fire, damage, or both in the history of man..... JUST ONE EXAMPLE!"
I've already been through that canard. It's IRRELEVANT.
But since 9/11 Deniers like to use the Madrid tower as an example, we've already pointed out that it had a CONCRETE core AND the steel framework on the top 10 floors collapsed from fire alone.
Give it up, RB. You've all been refuted years ago on all this. There's absolutely no physical evidence of explosives or that "9/11 was an inside job."
I'll keep waiting to see if you ever come up with ANYTHING credible, however.
Your the one who is Rediculous!
You can't even answer the questions! You can't because the evidence is on our side!
"*Scientific facts are NOT established by debate. No one debates "facts".*"
Your a MORON! Of course they do! I debate them all the time. Your so called "facts" are speculation! It has not been PROVEN as fact! Only accepted as fact, by idiots like you!
"*"Please show me where in my posts that I declare I am an "expert"?"
Sure: "Physics proves that the buildings would not/could not fall in that fashion."
"How about providing ONE steel framed building that fell into pieces of dust from either fire, damage, or both in the history of man..... JUST ONE EXAMPLE!"*"
Your about as numb as a pounded thumb!!!! You proved nothing in that reply! You FAILED to show where I state I am "an expert"!!!
Stop with the 2nd grade reading comprehension and step up to the plate with at least a 6th grade level.
Those statements simply shows that I have a math background and know that NEWTON's 3 Laws, the Law of Gravity, the Conservation of Energy, and the many other physics laws say it just aint so!
"*I've already been through that canard. It's IRRELEVANT.*"
Of course it is! It's only irrelevant to YOU because YOU can't show any other steel framed building falling in that fashion for ANY reason! I guess we don't need science anymore? According to you, we know everything there is to about everything and what ever happens from here on out is IRRELEVANT!
Oh and by the way..... Here is one of those Structural Engineers that YOU say does not exist!
A Structural Engineer Discusses WTC Collapse Theories
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257
Homer
It isn't even worth discussing this with Homer. He has his nose so squarely shoved up George Bush's ass, you'd need the jaws of life to tear him loose. When Shit Hits The Fan, he will be one of those dudes that will make us all feel better and give us a little giggle when his knees buckle and he is praying to the holy mother of God...WHY DID THEY DO THIS??????????WHY?????????WHY???????????????
This is funny.
>\"*Scientific facts are NOT established by debate. No one debates \"facts\".*\"
\"Your a MORON! Of course they do! I debate them all the time.\"
\"You FAILED to show where I state I am \"an expert\"!!!\"
Obviously, you are not! You just showed you don\'t know about the scientific method.
\"\"How about providing ONE steel framed building that fell into pieces of dust from either fire, damage, or both in the history of man..... JUST ONE EXAMPLE!\"*\"\"
I have already addressed it in several posts. Too bad you still can\'t understand basic facts.
\"Oh and by the way..... Here is one of those Structural Engineers that YOU say does not exist!\"
How about the other hundred-thousand or so around the world?
You\'re a hoot, RB.
There are probably a handful
There are probably a handful of engineering firms in the world that could possibly handle an engineering challenge of this magnitude.... just guessing that NIST isn't one of them.
Be aware that NIST relys on the government and their contracts to exist on the level that they do.... they are government. they were given a task....and that task was to explain how the Towers went from what we saw.... the planes hitting.... to the final result.... the miniscule pile of debris.
They did what they were commissioned to do and they did a 20 million dollar job of it.
give me 100 grand and I could take one of the columns from the building and put a significant unbalanced load on the top then set it a blaze to see the affect on the column.... but they didn't do that simple test with their 20 million.....
but they did get a nice hand-out....as well as several other government contracts in the coming years.... not even guessing on the # of envelopes full of cash passed around that office.... Check on how closely they are related to Halliburton... you may find some ties there as well.
it's a very lucrative business
Irrelevant unless you demonstrate
\"Be aware that NIST relys on the government and their contracts to exist on the level that they do.... they are government. they were given a task....and that task was to explain how the Towers went from what we saw.... the planes hitting.... to the final result.... the miniscule pile of debris.\"
NIST was comprised of a majority of independent structural engineers and forensic scientists - about 200 of them - who each signed their name to the report.
Are you seriously questioning their integrity and their ability to object to the report if they disagreed?
You guys really need to get away from your conspiracy theory of life and start thinking rationally.
JENGA yes I am questioning
JENGA
yes I am questioning their means of experimentation and their results.... and if that means I am questioning their integrity then YES!
they did exactly what they were commissioned to do.... nothing more. They were just doing their job.... and that job has led to many others.
you must also remember that this task had it's overseers... just like the 9/11 commission... the investigation was guided.... and the results were skewed.
they di leave us some hints to the roots of their investigations and the alteration or manipulation of their resulting data.... you simply have to read their massive report.
how many Americans read more than 10,000 pages about subjects that they enjoy in a 5 year span?
guessing not many.... and even less would attempt to read this massive report.... thank God for the Cliff Notes... oh wait... they didn't make those for our convenience.
well.... maybe they'd attend a debate to discuss the evidence and answer some pressing questions?
MAYBE NOT!
Question all you want....
It's pretty clear that you are not too educated on the matter at all.
Last Word
Is this your attempt to get the last word in here?.... I'm sure that everyone here would agree with you.... I have absolutely no knowledge about 9/11 or the construction of the Twin Towers and no grasp of Phsyics.
Yet somehow.... I am still whooping your weak arse.
So go home.... get some rest.... and when you come back.... you best put on your BIG BOY BOOTS!
You think so
\"I am still whooping your weak arse.\"
Actually, what is observed is the complete opposite.
But dream on, JJ. It\'s the nature of the beast
It's amazing how easily the
It's amazing how easily the people of little practical knowledge can be swayed by technichal and professional sounding reports... even though these reports many times create false information..... .. but it all sounds so belivable when these people want so badly top believe.
there is a refernce to the hat trusses that were in the structure to support the TV antenna? and how these trusses are what were supporting the core columns..... what a blatent misrepresentation of the structure of this building.... the core columns were actually the structural members which were there to support the hat trusses and they were not in place with the sole intent to hold up an antenna.
The core columns were in place to structurally support the weight of the structure. These coulmns were massively overbuilt due to the fact that a structure of this magnitude had never been attempted before. The Twin Towers were over engineered to the extreme. The Core of these structures was the backbone of the structure...
there were 47 steel box columns which tapered in thickness from 4" at the base to 1" at the top.
There were 236 exterior box columns which were woven with horizontal bracing to create a web of steel designed to transfer and assist with distrubution of loads caused by wind sheer.
The weight of the structure was the responsibility of the core structure and the exterior coulns were in place mostly to handle the loads inflicted by outside forces such as wind.
Compromising 1/3 of the structure would not cause these buildings to fall in one hours time... no matter how much fire or lack of asbestos.
This is even before we speak about the physics of the collapse.
Resistance.... try stacking three aluminum soda cans on top of each other.... this is essentialls what the Towers were... there were in essence three seperate sections of the building..... now crush the cans.... tape them together if you think it will help..... the buildings were not cylindrical but they were symmetrical.... the structure was the same on all four sides.... you will never be able to crush these cans into one flat "pancake"...onto their own footprint.
The resistance will cause an assemetrical result...because the resistance will create a different result every time....EVERY TIME!!....
Poke holes in the side of the can and the resistance is even harder to control.... the symmetry is thrown out of balance... the loads will shift ant tip.
I'm not even sure why this has to be explained... no matter how you explain it there is no rationale from the other side of this arguement..... two structures which were struck in two completely different ways.... causeing completely unique structural damage...two completely unique fire distrubutions and intensities which were both obviously not at optimum burning capacities..... caused these structures to fall in exactly the same manner.... EXACTLY!
The same distribution of debris...the same height of debris.... the same rate of fall.... the same markers of controlled demolition.... all the same.... EXACTLY the same!!
and this is without even mentioning building #7.... the time to make eXcuses is OVER!!!!
Floor Trusses
sure.... the floors were important but not integral to the structural integrity of the building.... I'm pretty certain that the floors were seperate from the structural engineering of the structure....
Perhaps if they hadn't stopped publishing the books that described the construction and the engineering of the Towers perhaps we would have more reference material
Why they do that?..... me wonder?
the clips that held the floor trusses were designed solely for that... to hold up the floors..... not to handle any of the structural issues of the exterior columns or the interior core columns.... there were other structural members built into the framework to handle those stresses..... there were additional beams joining the exterior to the core where needed.
the floor trusses were supported by angle clips which had a sole purpose of supporting those trusses.... I beleive that you could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculations...
note: floor trusses are vastly different from the Hat Trusses we were discussing earlier.
The data is available
"he floor trusses were supported by angle clips which had a sole purpose of supporting those trusses.... I beleive that you could remove the floor trusses and not see any major effect on the structural calculations..."
No, the purpose was to provide rigidity to the entire structure BY connecting the core to the outer walls.
Without the floor trusses connected to the core and the outer walls by the angle clips, the core and outer walls could not stand on their own. Look it up.
You seem to know.... guide
You seem to know.... guide me... show me the path to your knowledge.... I'd like to know your source
RIGIDITY???
If they had wanted rigidity they would have used viagra. The towers, like most other tall buildings, were designed to flex in the wind.
Why do you lie so much?
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Plane damage insignificant
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).
Therefore the NIST theory is only a fire theory. No steel framed building ever completely collapsed due to fire. This is enough to prove that their theory is wrong. I didn't cherry pick any eyewitness testimony. Read it for yourself, there is plenty.
"You have two hundred and ten story office buildings. You don't find a desk. You don't find a chair. You don't find a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the keypad. The building collapsed to dust."
[1]
“You have 10-story buildings that leave more debris than these two 100-story towers, Where the f___ is everything? A serious week-long search and we've found 200 [bodies] in a pile of 5,000? What's going on? Where is everyone? Why aren't we finding more bodies? Cause it's all vaporized -- turned to dust. We're breathing people in that dust.”
[2]
[1]
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html
[2]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/contents.html see original source here: http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2001/09/19/dust/index.html
Yes, WTC-7 fell in sympathy for it's two cousins!
Or, "pull-it" & watch it collapse?
You're not thinking right
Kevin Ryan predicts 1 in a trillion odds. He’s quoted in Steven Jones’ WTC paper: on page 41
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand. And what are the odds that the office furnishings converged to supply highly directed and (somehow) forced-oxygen fires at very precise points on the remaining columns? Is it another one in a thousand? What is the chance that those points would then all soften in unison, and give way perfectly, so that the highly dubious "progressive global collapse" theory could be born? I wouldn't even care to guess. But finally, with well over a hundred fires in tall buildings through history, what are the chances that the first, second and third incidents of fire-induced collapse would all occur on the same day? Let's say it's one in a million. Considering just these few points we're looking at a one in a trillion chance, using generous estimates and not really considering the third building (no plane, no jet fuel, different construction [for WTC 7]).
Kevin Ryan vs the world
You expect anyone to accept Kevin Ryan versus hundreds of REAL structural engineers?
You don\\\'t see HOW ridiculous that is????
Bush Science
We aren't talking about Kevin Ryan versus hundreds of structural engineers.
We are talking about the Scientific method vs. "Bush Science."
9/11, NIST, and “Bush Science”: A New Standard For Absurdity
Don’t you see how ridiculous that is?
That\'s a new one
\"Bush science\". Gosh.
You guys don\'t get any more clueless about the way science works than that, Arabesque.
That\'s one reason it was so easy to show how clueless you were about your silly, debunked \"10 points.\"
Bush Science
If my comments are so wrong why are you so worried about them? I thought the conspiracy theorists were the ones who were paranoid. Bush Science: Here's my definition since you didn't bother to look it up:
The NIST report contains all of these elements; therefore, it is Bush science. Consequently, it is not credible and should be rejected as a completely false explanation for why the WTC towers completely collapsed.
Good joke
but, you need new glasses, I didn't say "Bush"--I said "Bush Science". No wonder you don't understand the official story is wrong. You can't even read!
You named it, not me.
I actually showed the absurdity of your claim, whatever you want to name it.
Another thing...... if the
Another thing...... if the floor trusses did slump and fail..... the clips holding the trusses to the vertical exterior and core columns would have failed long before they mustered enough strength to pull the steel box columns anywhere near far enough to buckle...
not just buckle.... but to simultaniously and symmetrically fail.... no matter how hot these fires were.
the thickness of these clips were nowhere near that of the columns.... and if these columns were so affected by the intense fires.... then I'm guessing the truss clips were experiencing the same conditions.
you can not tell me that the coulmns wer superheated... the trusses were super heated.... but the clips holding the floor trusses to the coulmns were in a safe environment.
Your arguments hold no logic
How did the 1st floor ever hold up the rest of the 109 floors?
"Any of you are capable of calculating what happened when the 120,000 ton block of WTC 2 fell 8 feet onto the first intact floor designed to hold only 1,400 tons of STATIC weight."
Wow, how did the 1st floor ever hold up the rest of the 109 floors then?
as prophecised in the Koran?
Especially after that fire in the 70's that consumed three floors of the building....and still held up 90 floors of the building.... musta been magic
has anyone gotten the e-mail about our devine purpose in the Middle East as prophecised in the Koran?
Why can't you read?
Why is it that you 9/11 Deniers have such problems comprehending the English language?
How could you POSSIBLY think that he first intact floor that was hit by the falling blocks of each tower was on the GROUND floor???
My God man, you guys are ridiculous! No wonder you need to be educated.
not one block used in
not one block used in construction of the Twin Towers..... please learn us
Ah, no. According to your reasoning, how did the 1st floor ever
survive enormous the weight of the 109 floors above it??? It was a 110 story building, so the 1st floor had 109 floors pressing down on it, the 2nd floor had 108 floors on top of it, etc. Get it?
Sorry but no.... what are
Sorry but no.... what are you trying to say exactly?... too much syrup and butter
The "official story" pushers make it sound like these buildings
could hardly support their own weight.
You\'re being absurd
You screwed up.
Read what I wrote.
Magical Molten Steel
OK let me get this straight. A building falls down and turns to dust leaving almost next to nothing left except mostly steel. And then melted steel just happened appear after the building collapsed?
Explain to me how this process works. Consider the fact that fire can't melt steel. Considering that fire can't evaporate steel. I’d love to know your explanation—considering NIST doesn’t explain it. I guess it just wasn't worth explaining.
None of this Nonsense about how there wasn't melted steel. It was in the New York Times. It was in the FEMA report. Therefore it exists.
Show us
Both your money where your mouth is.
Let\'s see the evidence of your famous \"melted steel\", how it was melted, and why it is relevant.
I\'ve been waiting for others to answer that but they run away.
Here's that Molten steel you keep "denying"
See here for pictures and comments from FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1
“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”
see also
“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
See here for pictures and comments:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html
Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:
Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’”[50]
Eyewitness:
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-molten-metal-under.html
You can pretend all you want that this doesn’t exist (i.e. “denial”): It must upset you to know that the truth is coming out.
It's "relevant" because the steel is what supports a building. I guess you didn't know that.
I answered your question now answer mine:
Given that normal fires (i.e. fire with jet fuel) can’t melt steel, then what did? If you ignore my question it proves that your opinion isn’t worth anything. Science does not ignore evidence.
The source?
"Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge."
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
NOTHING indicating explosives there.
"Eyewitness:"
As I've said many times there is anecdotal evidence.
Now, continue answering my question: how it was melted, and why it is relevant?
Of course, we know that explosives would not melt steel since their rate of detonation is FAR too fast to have time to melt steel.
And we know that Thermite could have resulted from natural processes that occurred during the catastrophe.
And we know that fires burned for months in the debris pile.
So, as always, your claims are empty ones.
Sorry to ruin your day.
who's really in denial?
Man I give up, they must be paying you to write this nonsense. Eyewitness evidence can be used in a court of law. But not for you I guess.
You just don\'t want to consider the evidence
You just want to believe what you want to believe. You could care less if the evidence is completely against you.
You can\'t even comprehend that ALL of the eyewitness testimony is considered, not JUST the ones that appear to support your position.
And you don\'t understand that ALL of the evidence has to be considered. And in the case of 9/11, NO physical evidence of explosives was ever found and the collapses have been shown to be entirely possible without the need of explosives.
The ball is in YOUR court and you keep fumbling.
shill deconstruction 101a
"And we know that Thermite could have resulted from natural processes that occurred during the catastrophe."
In other words, you acknowledge that the most likely cause of the clearly melted steel structure of WTC7 (and by extension the towers) is Thermite, which you say could have resulted from natural processes in the catastrophe.
point #1- you claim it could have resulted from natural processes, yet you cite no source for this claim (and please don't pull out the usual ït's been proven a million times--if it has, it should be easy enough for you to cite.) In fact there is no basis for your claim, isn't that so?
point #2- even if you were right, and a thermite type reaction could result somehow during the fire and collapse, thermite does not cause sulfidation since it is aluminum and iron oxide powders. Because the samples FEMA analyzed has evidence of sulfidation, and they correctly conclude that sulphur was part of the reaction, where are you claiming the sulfur came from? Instead of grasping for some convoluted possible scenario why can't you just bow to occam's razor (that you folks so often whip out) and accept that the sulfidation and oxidation of the steel structure of this building that "mysteriously" collapsed resulted from intentional use of Thermate (with an "a") that is Thermite with sulfur added to lower the melting point and make it easier to cut through steel?
This is what makes you and others such hypocrites when you claim that OUR version of the 9/11 events is so much harder to believe than yours. The opposite is true. You would have people believe that 3 different buildings fell this way for the first time in history withOUT involving explosives. Just a weird coincidence.
When presented with facts that support the obvious explanation, even from official sources you can't contest, you say there COULD be some other explanation, without offering up what it might be.
You really only end up convincing people who are either incapable of rational thought or more likely people who do not want to understand the truth because it will force them to accept that they have been suckered and that they will actually have a responsibility to make things right as a result.
You are losing adherents to the fantasy daily, shill. Your days are numbered, and you well know it. No amount of posturing here and feigning certitude is going to change the fact that people, like the girl at starbucks who saw my button and asked me for more information, know there's something werid going on. And you know Americans--they LOVE a good scandal. As tragic as 9/11 was, we have healed. The trauma is over, and the reality is now becoming clear. The truth is coming for you--do NOT think that you or any of your co-conspirators will be anonymous for long!
Everyone knows--police, military, academics, young people, old people, white people, black people, rich people, and poor people. We've been divided for so long by lies, do you know what that means? That the unity that will come out of this movement won't be fake like the one the media proclaimed after 9/11. It will be real. Americans will soon be setting aside all their differences in pursuit of justice.
A giant has been roused, one that neither you and I can control. I realize you are beyond redemption, but those many others reading this are not. To them I say think through these things--they are more important than anything else you will ever live through. And try your very best to pick the correct side, because there are always consequences for anyone who aids criminals.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Ding ding, ring the bell.
Dear Anonymous Meat Popsicle:
Take this heartfelt lesson from Real Truther, along with my most humble personal regards.... and report back to your Chain of Command... or whomever else you think gives a shit (because you're not serving yourself, no matter how much some dumb ass would pay for a junk mind like yours).
If you haven't figured this out YET, allow me to offer one last tid-bit..... I for one (and it seems I'm not alone) will not go along with this Global Plan of Disintegration. We have more interest in peace, love, justice and humanity (and the real balls to know what's worthy of fighting to defend) than any army of sycophants, hyper-macho gun totes, slick-suited control-freak button-pushing media-manipulating dissembling-malapropian-jingoistic-neonazi confidence tricksters to be put in the field.
You are not getting away with it, and You will NOT lull this giant back to sleep. If you want to, tell Them I, Erin Myers said so.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Your in the wrong thread
We\'re talking about the physical evidence of what happened on 9/11 and the fact that no evidence of explosives has ever been found.
You're turning in circles.
I see you still can't say the phrase "47 box columns". And no, I'm not in the wrong thread.
The closest response from you I've seen here, is your oft repeated and astonishingly deceptive meme about how neither the building's 'core nor the outer skin could stand independently'. Carefully, or not so, you seem to advance a mental picture where these buildings were doing all they could just to resist gravity. 'One swing with a sledge hammer and an hour-long fire..... poof, gravity wins.' Please stop pretending that engineering, tall building construction, and ironwork are such unpracticed and delicate arts where three buildings would succumb in near perfect symmetry to the 'overwhelming' force of gravity after asymmetrical lateral impact and highly asymmetrical fire.
Three buildings did this on one day, within hours of each others? Please, this was not the act of of an outside attack. For the demonstrated effects seen, MORE than airplanes and fire are needed. It's that simple. Something like an exothermic incendiary or other highly disruptive mechanism was deliberately added to the Shock and Awe "show" of planes and fire.
Please stop with this act. If it really is just an act... you're fast crossing the line into complicity in treason and mass murder by incessantly arguing to defend the same. (you really will need to consider legal counsel or where you'll seek asylum outside the reach of billions of humans.)
Please (I politely ask of you, even though you've long lost such consideration), please, I ask you to reexamine first the core structure ALONE. After that, incorporate the "top hat" component and the 'high tension" loadable spandrel design (both vertical and horizontal loading). Please do not insult people here with this silly business about flap-jack floors performing some delicate balance of holding up a "house of cards".
Also, this is a genuine request from me to you, please tryout a few simple math exercises. The expression such as "60KPSI" is common industry wide way for metal work to be calculated for strength. MOST ALL structural and/or performance failures are failures in tension loading. A one inch square cross-section equivalent of 30kpsi steel, tells a person that it would suspend a dead weight of 30,000 lb. load before failure. There are a number of other expressions to keep in mind like elongation, 'work-hardening' and performance certification value vs. absolute failure testing (which ALWAYS exceeds the certification number by healthy safety margins and percentages).
Tension failure is hard enough, compression failure is nearly "off the charts" by comparison. Even for concrete which is describe by its compressibility, fails ALWAYS with its precursor of tension failures (cracks and spalling are tension failures) at the edge and sides formed by compression loading through, and swelled out from, the center mass. Thus, ALL concrete failures are therefore a result of TENSION failure FIRST.
Do you comprehend these mental pictures, their meanings and implications? I hope, I do so hope, you are beginning to understand the unstoppable resolve of this calculous, and the unstoppable resolve of truth... short of blowing up the whole world.
Take care, and I do also hope that you've just been trying out some Devil's Advocate silliness or demonstration of the opposition's circular logic.
All my best to you and yours,
Erin.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
good points
I couldn't agree more. NIST says that the melted steel came after the building collapse. If they knew that then why didn't they mention it in their report? How could it get oxygen if it is under the rubble? How could it continue for 3 weeks or more? How could it create molten pools?—even the mayor of NY has described this stuff. I guess we should ignore his words too? How could all of this happen when normal fires can't melt steel? Of course Mr. Anon. won't answer these questions and just continues denying everything, while with his next breath saying we are the ones in “denial”!
Notice how he asks me to prove that the steel melted—and then next he says there is no proof of explosives. He keeps changing his questions and never takes any accountability for his arguments. His opinion is irrelevant for this reason. He's evading everything we say because he can't prove anything and he knows it. So he has to use cheap tactics like changing the subject and making random arguments about an issue that isn't relevant to the main argument.
The ball is in your court
\"When presented with facts that support the obvious explanation, even from official sources you can\'t contest, you say there COULD be some other explanation, without offering up what it might be.\"
You keep avoiding facing the reality, RT: NO physical evidence of explosives was ever found. Period. That is fact.
You can\'t just invent facts to suit your desired conclusion.
You\'re one of the more irrational 9/11 Deniers here, RT.
@ Arabesque
the attention you gain from the anonymous moron is a good sign- your second analysis is as brilliant as the first one.
The real world is passing you by.
The attention I get debunking you all shows you know I\'m right.
Get used to the rational world. It\'s passing you by
No Anonymous, the attention you're getting
is akin to that received by a bloody piece of fish dropped into a tank of starving sharks. shills like you are becoming more and more rare as more people realize that the truth will be coming out and protecting treasonous murderers is not worth risking getting nabbed as an accessory to their crime.
you would get a lot less attention if even one or two others had your courage and conviction--er, sorry I know that word scares you.
Tell me, by the way, how does it feel to know that your "grand scheme" is unraveling? Betcha you thought you'd get away with it. And you would have, too, if it hadn't been for those pesky TRUTHERS!
Good luck on the gallows, say hi to Saddam for us. :)
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
The problem with the official explanation...
The problem with the official explanation of the twin tower collapse can be summarized this way:
The south tower was hit by Flight 11 at the 80 story mark, so a 30 story block sat atop roughly 4 damaged stories and 76 undamaged stories. Let's assume that the combination of impact and fire sufficiently weakened the steel to cause it's failure. Let us imagine that a giant crane can pick up that 30 story block and drop it - through the air - next to the rest of the tower.
We would expect that 30 story block to hit the ground in roughly 9.7 seconds. Amazingly, this is how long the collapse actually took even though the 30 story block fell through a massively over-built, undamaged, cold, steel frame - the path of most resistance.
--------------------
All aspects of the truth are consistent
Sheesh
I can't resist answering with the logic of Anonymous...
"but they don't make cranes that big..... everybody knows you are wrong...... Sheesh"
I agree JJames
Anonymous can just keep taking the "official" line as long as he wants...but why even? If We are right(and I am quite certain that We are) and you know that We are, then what kind of American are you? The one who supports a cabal that has no qualms about murdering their own, torturing anyone they chose that questions them,detaining anyone they chose indefinatly, using our soldiers as pawns and then hiding behind them to further the public opinion to vote for these criminals. Yeah! Right!
Why don't you Anonymous support another, more thorough investigation to fill in the holes of the original 9/11 report so that you can prove us wrong or that We will prove We were right?
You already have been proven wrong
Your years behind, Mike. You\'ve never given any SOUND reasons NOR evidence for your side.
Stop wasting your time trying to invent reasons.
Have you seen any "invented" reasons in My comments?
Perhaps you would like to explain why the government resists so strongly toward people questioning 9/11and then accuse us as conspiracy theorists. I read the "Official 9/11 commision report" and end up with many questions unanswered along with the many ommissions in the report.
Lets have a debate...You go right ahead and have the report as your guide and I will shoot you down with the same report.
Now tell Me why the Patriot Act was the first action taken after 9/11. Considering,for instance, that the Patriot Act is supposedly used for "terrorists" walking around in the USA.
Considering that the "hijackers" spent a considerable time training here how to fly. Atta spent a few years here, in Florida, Venice to be exact. If I know this information, you can be sure the government knew it before I did. Which means they had the knowledge and numerous warnings about possible attacks.
But why resist people who want to know about obvious flaws in the report? We want answers and We deserve answers. Resisting us and lying along with covering up tends to point guilt rather than trust. Any investigator will tell you that, anyone with common sense will tell you that.
If you don't realize that, or just trust this government totally, then you have no idea what being a true American is all about.
You don't get it yet?
"Perhaps you would like to explain why the government resists so strongly toward people questioning 9/11and then accuse us as conspiracy theorists."
C'mon man, the "questions" you keep answering have been fully addressed for years BUT you don't like the answers and refuse to accept the irrefutable facts. Just look at the constant denial of evidence in this one thread alone by you 9/11 Deniers.
NO one is going to open another investigation on the basis of your constant whining that you don't like EVIDENCE. It's patently absurd.
NOTHING you 9/11 Deniers have ever presented refutes the massive, overwhelming scientific and forensic evidence of what occurred on 9/11. NOTHING you present has EVER remotely suggested that "9/11 was an inside job."
You just don't understand the nature of evidence and engage in the worst form of confirmation bias. It's really pathetic.
"Which means they had the knowledge and numerous warnings about possible attacks."
And you can't even spot the fallacious reasoning in that statement, can you?
Amazing.
Lets talk about the evidence
What evidence?? Where's your evidence for WTC 7? Was it struck by an airliner? Oh it had fires, but not Jet Fuel fires...funny thing,building 7, it collapsed just like WTC 1&2, straight down, and it's concrete was more pulverized than 1&2's. What about the people who are dying now? The ones who were told the air is safe.They trusted the government and look where that got them;in the grave before their time.
In this regard, the government had knowledge about the air quality but chose to supress the truth and were criminal in their responsibility toward the citizens. There is NOTHING fallacious in that statement, nor is there anything fallacious in claiming the government had warnings(ask Bushie about August 6,2001.Apparently He was thinking about the pig when the Germans gave him a crucial warning about possible attacks)
Even Fox news gave warnings;3 of them in one day.
Ever wonder why the wreckage of the trade centers were carted away asap to China to be used in their 3 Gorges dam?
Funny thing that one is since the U.S. gets much of their steel from...Oh maybe...China?
But I digress, let Me give some input on the collapse of the twin towers.
In less than 1 hour, the first WTC building had collapsed and covered Manhattan, in at least 1/3 of a Million Tons of particulate debris. Unless the jet fuel makes a final appearance and is again resurrected by NIST in it's 3rd miracle, benzene is buried under 1/3 of a million tons of particulate debris after 56 minutes of exposure. Benzene is also a component of gasoline. The assertion that cancer was the result of 56 minutes of exposure to minimal amounts of benzene is ludicrous. If that was true, everyone in the US would be suffering from cancers. As the 3rd WTC building falls, Manhattan is covered in two Billion pounds of pulverized and aerosolized building.
Two billion pounds seemed like an extremely large amount of particulate matter from buildings whose total weight has been quoted at around 3 billion pounds. Debris removal has been quoted at 1.2 billion pounds. Based on these rough numbers 2/3rds of the building was indeed turned to dust or vaporized.
"Live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs." "One could cut away all the first-story columns on one side of the building, and part way from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design loads and a 100-mph wind force from any direction." Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964.
JENGA!!!!
Anonymous played JENGA last night ....and the damn thing fell over after he/she pulled the first piece....
DAMN!!!
guessing that game was designed by NIST
It's My guess that Jenga fell at free fall speed
LMAO I'll wager that it did not look like Mt. St. Helens erupting on its way down, either!
I also like a "Legos" example. Blow a hole in it with a .45,
even set the hole on fire, but the thing still won't fall down. http://ct.pbase.com/g4/30/605830/2/52410241.Legos.jpg
Why didn't the 1993 WTC bombing, also done by our gov't
bring down a tower??? Those buildings were extremely strong, that's why.
http://www.arikah.com/encyclopedia/images/f/f2/WTC_1993_ATF.jpg
The NIST Report
Is unscientific, fraudulent and treasonous.
Why would a few upper floors being damaged & weakened cause the
entire buildings to come crashing down in some bizarre chain-reaction domino effect???
Those towers were exceedingly redundant! Damage/weakness
to portions of a few floors would not cause the entire system to undergo a catastrophic failure!!!
You forgot already?
You forgot the falling masses of the tops of each tower already?
Amazing.
Physics of falling bodies
Yes.... one mass which you refer... clearly starts to tip to the side and laws of motion conclude that this mass should countinue to move in that direction unless acted upon by an equal and opposite force.... the top of the building should have slid off the top and fallen off the side of the building.
but miraculously.... defying all laws of physics... the top righted itself and somehow moved straight down through the path of MOST RESISTANCE!!!
how could this occur?
they pulled the rug out from under it..... by imploding the building below it....allowing the tipping top portion to correct it's path of descent.
try this experiment.... balance a baseball bat or a broom in your hand in the upright position with the heavier end upward..... when the bat/broom begins to tip to the side....drop your hand downward as quickly as you can.... you will find that the bat/broom will attempt to right itself to a more vertical position or at the very least continue its current angle as it falls.... if you do not move to rebalance the bat/broom.... the bat/broom will continue in the path of least resistance and fall to the side.
now you are saying that the top of this building brought it's incredible downward force and drove right through the path of most resistance.... but the force you describe was moving in an angular direction... not moving vertical.... the force would be much less in the vertical direction.
the falling debris would have met much resistance.... if not simply slowing the descent of fall... it would of and should have tipped the falling debris away from the resistance leaving a majority of the building virtually undamaged.... the part of the building containing the innocent people trying to escape this dissaster.... 3,000 dead could have been reduced dramaticly.
but these people were more than innocent people..... they were innocent witnesses... many of which were firemen who would have and could have been expert witnesses
you see... our government needed not only destroyed buildings.... not only an attack on our soil... but the needed mass casualties... they needed heros to revere and suppport the non questioning backing of the American People.
this was designed to be big... to be real big... to reside in the minds of Americans for generations because this Neo-Con Philosophy will require the support.... errr.... unquestioning submission of the American People.... and this had to happen when it did so that these criminals would have the maximum amount of time to forward their agenda.... 9 months after their boy took over with hopefully 7 years to do their work.
"Mission Acomplished".... the "MISSION" wasn't winning the war in Iraq.... the "MISSION" was getting us there
Now for more reality
Let\'s start here:
\"Yes.... one mass which you refer... clearly starts to tip to the side and laws of motion conclude that this mass should countinue to move in that direction unless acted upon by an equal and opposite force.... the top of the building should have slid off the top and fallen off the side of the building.\"
The collapse sequence of WTC 2 is quite clear. The damaged area from the crash of UA 175 gave way first. The block of WTC 2 tilted and ROTATED on a pivot point until that point broke. The speed of the gravity-driven collapse quickly exceeded any remaining horizontal motion of the block. In addition, the center of gravity of the block NEVER moved horizontally the 100 or so feet necessary for it topple off the building.
Those are the facts superseding your imagination about physics and structural engineering. Don\'t you think you should ACTUALLY do some research before relying on what the 9/11 Denial Movement wants you to believe?
Now is the time.
If your pivot point BROKE as
If your pivot point BROKE as you say... the momentum of the shifting mass would never allow the mass to return to square... it would not need to shift 100 ft as you say...20 ft displacement would have ruined all possibility for a symmetrical collapse....
you are still being creative with science... you seem to ignore much of the properties of physics.
time for "our own reality"
Bush doesn't pay you enough money to post this garbage.
You have a MASS.... but you
You have a MASS.... but you need MOMENTUM.
If this mass did collapse upon the lower floors you also must remeber that the falling mass is not a solid mass... being whole and complete.... if it fell and crushed a lower floor it would also crush a floor of it's mass.
so every floor it would crush in it's descent would also impact the integrity of the falling mass.... with this happening it would be even more impossible to maintain the symmetry of the descent.
so in my estimation 20 falling stories could crush no more than 30 stories below the falling mass... and every floor crushed would slow the momentum of the falling mass if the mass fell symmetrically as it appeared to do.
If you factor in the dissentigration of the mass as it fell you would eliminate probably 50% of the mass of the falling debris.... thus severely hampering the overall force of that falling mass
You missed one fact
\"so in my estimation 20 falling stories could crush no more than 30 stories below the falling mass...\"
Your estimation doesn\'t hold water with those who know the subject matter and practice it for a living. We can only wonder why you think you know more than they.
Bert is a master of the "appeal to authority."
They must teach that at shill school -- when all else fails or you don't want to take the time to argue your point because you want a cigarette break, reach for that good old "appeal to authority."
So the falling 20 floors
So the falling 20 floors which are no longer connected to anything.... contain enough kinetic energy to crush the resistance of 80+ floors of undamaged structure firmly connected to Planet Earth?
and this 80+ floors of structure connected to Planet Earth would not contain enough resistance to crush the force of the 20+ floors acting against it?... not enough resistance to offset this force?
you are saying not enough resistance to even SLOW THE COLLAPSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SYTEMATIC SYMMETRICAL CATASTROPHIC DENIAL
you are maiking excuses my friend.... can I talk to your supervisor? They need to send us some brainier busters
You've discredited yourself enough, JJ.
I wonder why you don't care to educate yourself.
Try this: The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11
Maybe you can logically discuss it.
Logic
I'm guessing that you did as well... and you fully understand it.
I'm pretty sure that they took a few liberties in their calculations.... and they sum it all up by saying
" That without the help of gravitational collapse the degree of concrete pulverization observed during the destruction of the WTC would have required 600 tonnes of high explosives"......
but you see.... the pulverization of concrete WAS assisted by the gravitational collapse.
also.... I may not understand all the numbers but there was a point where they doubled a number that I feel should have been halved because the energies were acting aganst each other.... not in unison. on the bottom of page 19.... the Ed calculation of 600MJ.... they doubled the calculation to 1200MJ as the upper floor of the lower building section and the lower floor of the upper section crushed each other. I don't feel this is an accurate assumed calculation on their part.... they are saying that the momentum doubled as these floors acted upon each other....
using this assumption from top to bottom of the collapse... would assume that resistance is a force assisting the progresive collapse... and that is a blatent miscalculation.
They also describe how the pulverization of the concrete is caused by the concrete impacting each other and absorbing the energy with certain percentages associated with that impact..... absorbing energy is called ......
RESISTANCE....
they never really talked about resistance..... or the time it took for the collapse of the entire structure..... youmay not understand this but RESISTANCE.... is an essential piece to the calculation of impact energy.
you may also notice how the pulverization of the concrete was very evident..... very early on in the collapse.
Interesting article.... alot of work went into that deception.... they were very motivated to support the government line..... very convincing for those who can not read between them
Previous post by me.....
Previous post by me..... JJames
just thinking.... it was all the energy of the colliding concrete slabs and particles that created massive friction which created heat....which in turn caused the steel to melt into it's liquid form which somehow lasted for several months...
JENGA.... I think I might start coming around here......
oh wait.... damn..... FRICTION.....
I think that involves RESISTANCE too?!?!?
back to the drawing board
Sounds good to me....
You know.... the other things about these reports.... they all try so damn hard to sound smarter than everyone who may attempt to read them.... If they sound smart then they must be correct.... so when people who do not understand these reports read them.... they simply check them off as correct... officially refuted the claims of the WACKOS!!
I have yet to read one that attempts to speak to the leyman.... to best explain to those who may not have the technical knowledge required to decipher their calculations...... I like how they always throw in a couple of graphs to assist their story... but to a leyman... simply pretty pictures.
sounding right does not make them right..... if they simply manipulate one number... it could jeopardize their entire calculation... and who's really going to catch them?
Thanks for you admission - finally
That you admit you really ARE a layman doesn\'t understand the physics is fine. That you then depend on what you \"think should have happened\" in contradiction to those who know and understand physics and structural engineering is nothing more than self-deception.
Implosion
I laugh in your general direction.... are you trying to say that you understand this paper that you referenced?
"Sounds good to me".... "Man those guys sound smart"...
they are so smart that they could manipulate 1 number in their calculation in order to get the desired result and you would never know.... I think I explained this in a prior post.
in their report they even referenced another report that called the collapse an "Implosion"
TRY AGAIN.
So a car going ten MPH slams
So a car going ten MPH slams into a car that is parked..... the moving vehicle even having twice the mass.... since it had more kinetic energy that the vehicle that was parked.... it would not suffer any damage... because it was moving?
hell it might just go right through that parked car
please answer
how could the mass above the impact zone crush the rest of the building if it turned to dust in midair, your pile driver dissapears, please explain that.
you cant rely on nist, for they dont analyze the behavior of the building after "collpase initiation"
Billy... We may have lost
Billy... We may have lost contact with JENGA.... he may have gone back to the well.... some of the topics discussed here may yet to have been added to the Pentagon play book....
We may see him again once he talks to his supervisor.... or they might just have to get the big boys to try and seal the deal.
Your facts are wrong
It didn\'t all turn to dust in midair. You might want to back that claim up.
\"you cant rely on nist, for they dont analyze the behavior of the building after \"collpase initiation\"
So, you want us to rely on YOU??? That\'s a hoot.
nist
this post is for the brain washed anon . the media ,condi rice , bush himself and the epa they all lied about the air quaility at and around ground zero . so anon u brain dead sheep . what makes you think they wont lie about explosive residue ! it ratrap
anonymous u brain dead sheep
a nun in n.y.c. is donating her body to prove that the epa , condi rice and bush lied about the air quaility at ground zero . people where sent back into their homes with all that toxic dust every where . 1st responders was told everythings A ok ,breath deeply you`ll be fine. it sounds like a joke and it probobly would be funny if it wasnt true . little children are dying over those lies ! the media even the n.y.times which is only a few block away dont think them lies are newsworthy enough or somebody with alot of power over the media is keeping it quiet . either way those lies are killing people to this day . so dont put it past none of the bush regime to cover up explosive residue of any kind . stop being the sheep for the bush regime .they have enough sheep .we need more americans with hearts like kevin barret james fetzer and the likes.and all the other scholars willing to show americans other versions of the official theory cuz the official theory is bogus .any one can try this. get some jet fuel and melt some steel or jus get it red hot even . and when you cant do it . laugh at what a sheepy idiot you been since 911
Another reading-challenged denier
I wonder why you guys have such trouble with reading comprehension. It seems to be an epidemic with you all.
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
there it is, shill, please refute.
____
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
A thought experiment
This is definitely the most interesting aspect of 9/11 truth for me, i.e., figuring out what happened to the WTC. One thing I'd like to know is at what floor the damage/fires would (on the official version) NOT have brought the buildings down. If we move the damage up the tower, one floor at a time, when do we reach a "safe" level (given the damage in each case)? (I take it a plane crashing into the top floor would not cause a whole WTC tower to collapse.) Or how much longer would the fires have to burn to initiate the collapse?
My sense is that engineers are not being curious enough about such things. Shouldn't they want to teach this kind of stuff to first year structural engineering students? Isn't it at least an interesting puzzle for classroom use? That's why I'm disappointed (and a bit suspicous) about the lack of an official simulation of the collapses all the way down.
Yes, what was the WTC's "tipping point" if you will?
"If we move the damage up the tower, one floor at a time, when do we reach a "safe" level (given the damage in each case)? (I take it a plane crashing into the top floor would not cause a whole WTC tower to collapse.) Or how much longer would the fires have to burn to initiate the collapse?"
Fire
at the very least.... untill they reached maximum efficiency and temperature able to produce white hot flames
at the very least.
fires which produce billowing black smoke are not burning at optimal efficiency.... thus not producing maximum temperatures.
Tipping Point?,,,, it would not have tipped per se..... but the debris would have and should have met resistance and slid towards an area of less resistance
I guess all superstructures have a "tipping point" that causes
them to undergo cataclysmic self-destruction & kill everyone inside like a runaway freight train, if you will.
Take-em down
Actually what is being implied is that all steel framed structures in the World should be taken down.
If one of the most stringently engineered steel structures crumbles to the ground due to hydrocarbon fires, then all steel structures are vulnerable and a risk to their inhabitants as well as surround ing structures and should be taken down.
Also every structure that exceeds the capabilities of the ladders of the local fire rescue equipment should not be allowed to remain standing due to the fact that people trapped higher than the ladders capabilities are at risk during a fire emergency
BOOM!!!
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/WTC1_redLines.gif
OK. I'll explain. Greening says that the top block of floors fell down through the intact structure below. Stage A.
Then, says Greening, the top block, now sitting on top of the pile of rubble, collapses floor by floor from the bottom up. Stage B.
Clearly, as shown in the gif, the top block begins collapsing from the bottom up. This is what Greening says happens, only he says this process begins after it pummeled all the way down though the intact structure to the ground.
How could he be so obviously wrong?
The reason is that he needs the mass to accumulate on the way down in order to continue the collapse. Once you admit the obvious, it becomes clear that the mass is not accumulating, it is disintegrating. By the time the "collapse" is half-over, the top block is obliterated.
This is true of both towers. Greening's notion that the top block remained intact until it hit the bottom is utterly and completely divorced from reality.