QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 11:13 PM)
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 13 2006, 11:03 PM)
common sense, you're the one with ridiculous lies.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
Just the way the other fifteen points in his post slipped by you? Perhaps. Got a link to that Firehouse article? I'm sure it was the WHOLE FDNY. Yeahsureyabetcha.
Of course I do.
Here's the follow up article, which includes the original one, "selling out the investigation". While he may not be "the whole FDNY", Bill Manning is the editor in chief of the 125 years old Fire engineering investigation. Make my day, call him a kook.
FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse
This 'spire' was certainly NOT in pristine condition. Any welds were not necessarily in good shape, the columns were not necessarily perfectly straight either. A whole freaking building just fell down around the 'spire' yet you assume it is as if it had been created , pristine, on the spot!
And that is not all of course. A tall structure must obey certain laws if it is to stand on its own. Too tall without proper lateral support and it will buckle under its own weight.
The spire didn't merely "fall down". It turned to powder within 3 seconds of its telescoping collapse initiation. That is quickly enough to know that the top of the spire should have still been visible, if it was still a solid body.
Even Gordon can't figure this one out.
x(t) = .5 * g * t^^2
= .5 * 32 * 9 = 144 feet = 12 floors
Since the spire stood "50 - 60" floors in the air, it was at least 600 feet high.
12 / 50 = 24%
So the spire had telescoped by less than 24% of it's height before it was powder.
This one's particularly enjoyable because neither the FEMA Fairy Tale believers nor the CD people can make heads or tails of this.
If it make y'all feel any better about it, neither can I.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
Just the way the other fifteen points in his post slipped by you? Perhaps. Got a link to that Firehouse article? I'm sure it was the WHOLE FDNY. Yeahsureyabetcha.
Of course I do.
Here's the follow up article, which includes the original one, "selling out the investigation". While he may not be "the whole FDNY", Bill Manning is the editor in chief of the 125 years old Fire engineering investigation. Make my day, call him a kook.
FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse
QUOTE
(...)Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall. (...)
$elling Out the Investigation
By Bill Manning
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall. (...)
I just knew there would be a kooky catch in there somewhere. Guess what? None of the material in that article EVER says ANYTHING about demolition- and guess what else? THE INVESTIGATION THEY CALLED FOR WAS DONE- BY NIST!!!
To top it all off, there isn't a HINT in that article that there's any kind of conspiracy to destroy the evidence- the writer obviously believes it's negligence, not a cover-up.
Way to cherry pick. Pull the other one.
To top it all off, there isn't a HINT in that article that there's any kind of conspiracy to destroy the evidence- the writer obviously believes it's negligence, not a cover-up.
Way to cherry pick. Pull the other one.
There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see. I wonder why you choose not to read the article?
Now tell me again about the thorough investigation, and call Bill Manning a kook.
QUOTE
(...)Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.(...)
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.(...)
Now tell me again about the thorough investigation, and call Bill Manning a kook.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 14 2006, 12:01 AM)
There is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see. I wonder why you choose not to read the article?
Now tell me again about the thorough investigation, and call Bill Manning a kook.
Nawww, sport, I'm callin YOU a kook.
Looks to me like you kinda missed the fact that there were TWO investigations- one was quick, by FEMA, the other was recently completed, by NIST. Having a little spelling trouble, there, sport?
FEMA is spelled F-E-M-A.
NIST is spelled N-I-S-T.
But of course, it's all the gummint to you, ain't it?
QUOTE
(...)Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.(...)
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.(...)
Now tell me again about the thorough investigation, and call Bill Manning a kook.
Nawww, sport, I'm callin YOU a kook.
Looks to me like you kinda missed the fact that there were TWO investigations- one was quick, by FEMA, the other was recently completed, by NIST. Having a little spelling trouble, there, sport?
FEMA is spelled F-E-M-A.
NIST is spelled N-I-S-T.
But of course, it's all the gummint to you, ain't it?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 13 2006, 11:35 PM)
metamars , you continue to refer to the dust cloud as a 'pyroclastic flow' but now wish to say that by the time that supposedly 1000 degree cloud had gone a hundred meters (beyond the site of all but a small part of the debris) that it had cooled to the level at which humans would not immediately die from the heat?
How is that possible? It certainly does not happen in true pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.
There is no evidence that the dust cloud was at a temp of 1000 degrees other than Hoffman's calculations that it would be..As was pointed out, buildings that were only a few hundred feet away and which were covered by the dust cloud did not suffer fires except in those cases where larger debris managed to cause heavier damage(ie WTC7) and in those cases the fires were spread out on both lower and higher floors whereas if they were started by a hot flow they should be more severe on lower floors where the mixing with ambient air would be less.
As for the dust cloud expanding to much more than the volume of the building, have you any calculations for this in actual demolitions? In actual demolitions in which the amount of explosives would be much less than the supposed amount used on the towers and where most of the interior walls and furnishings and other dust producing materials have been removed, the dust cloud also runs out a long way and expands to more than the volume of the original building. Yet no one has ever referred to the dust cloud from a demolition as a 'pyroclastic flow' or said it was at a temp of 100's of degrees. In actual demolitions one can readily see that the explosives have not produced much of the dust directly or propelled the dust cloud to any great degree.
Remember the theory is that it was the explosives that caused the heat that caused the expansion and that more than what was simply required to drop the buildings was used in this. Yet at best this dust cloud closely resembles that of demolitions in which only enough explosives are used to ensure that the building drops in both temperature and extent of travel.
So what does the dust cloud prove? That when buildings collapse they create large dust clouds. That the gravity component of the collapse is what drives the cloud and that more dust will result if the building's walls and contents are not removed prior to collapse.
You can call it anything you like, including "anti-pyroclastic flow", but you know what phenomenon I am referring to.
IMO, the fact that so much of the "dust cloud"/"anti-pyroclastic flow"/whatever-you-call-it was created after the collapse finished argues strongly that heat generated during the demolition of each floor is NOT solely to blame, though I must admit I'm basically guessing here. Additionally, the color of the "dust cloud flows" is different than the color of the sideways ejecta, and rather looks darker like the "smoked core columns" that are revealed after the floors blow away. I have previously, in this thread, stated that I agree with our Finnish military expert friend that there were (at least) 2 different demolition modalities. There were certainly 2 distinct demolition geometries. Whatever "smoked" the core columns apparently kept doing it's thing after the collapse of floors.
Regardless of demoliton details,I would still like to see even an idealized calculation/simulation that shows temperature gradients in a "dust cloud flow". Since we seem to agree that the source of the heat must be at ground zero, whether the source came from above and fell down, so to speak, or whether is was both above(before) and below(afterwards), is not terribly relevant far from ground zero.
Near ground zero, yes, this consideration of exact source location would probably make a significant difference. However, I'll take any calculation I can get, at this point.
FEMA Fairy Tale believer should be more than eager to supply these, as it will doubtless support their otherwise merely handwaiving arguments. Right?
In fairness, I note that this may well be non-trivial, since we're not talking about a simple fluid, but rather one that is thoroughly suffused with particulates.
Nevertheless, perhaps somebody out there can talk to their friendly, neighborhood volcanologist.
Non-Hawaiians may still do us a favor by talking to chemical engineers. Aren't a lot of chemical powders blown out of tubes in flows of hot air?
How is that possible? It certainly does not happen in true pyroclastic flows from volcanoes.
There is no evidence that the dust cloud was at a temp of 1000 degrees other than Hoffman's calculations that it would be..As was pointed out, buildings that were only a few hundred feet away and which were covered by the dust cloud did not suffer fires except in those cases where larger debris managed to cause heavier damage(ie WTC7) and in those cases the fires were spread out on both lower and higher floors whereas if they were started by a hot flow they should be more severe on lower floors where the mixing with ambient air would be less.
As for the dust cloud expanding to much more than the volume of the building, have you any calculations for this in actual demolitions? In actual demolitions in which the amount of explosives would be much less than the supposed amount used on the towers and where most of the interior walls and furnishings and other dust producing materials have been removed, the dust cloud also runs out a long way and expands to more than the volume of the original building. Yet no one has ever referred to the dust cloud from a demolition as a 'pyroclastic flow' or said it was at a temp of 100's of degrees. In actual demolitions one can readily see that the explosives have not produced much of the dust directly or propelled the dust cloud to any great degree.
Remember the theory is that it was the explosives that caused the heat that caused the expansion and that more than what was simply required to drop the buildings was used in this. Yet at best this dust cloud closely resembles that of demolitions in which only enough explosives are used to ensure that the building drops in both temperature and extent of travel.
So what does the dust cloud prove? That when buildings collapse they create large dust clouds. That the gravity component of the collapse is what drives the cloud and that more dust will result if the building's walls and contents are not removed prior to collapse.
You can call it anything you like, including "anti-pyroclastic flow", but you know what phenomenon I am referring to.
IMO, the fact that so much of the "dust cloud"/"anti-pyroclastic flow"/whatever-you-call-it was created after the collapse finished argues strongly that heat generated during the demolition of each floor is NOT solely to blame, though I must admit I'm basically guessing here. Additionally, the color of the "dust cloud flows" is different than the color of the sideways ejecta, and rather looks darker like the "smoked core columns" that are revealed after the floors blow away. I have previously, in this thread, stated that I agree with our Finnish military expert friend that there were (at least) 2 different demolition modalities. There were certainly 2 distinct demolition geometries. Whatever "smoked" the core columns apparently kept doing it's thing after the collapse of floors.
Regardless of demoliton details,I would still like to see even an idealized calculation/simulation that shows temperature gradients in a "dust cloud flow". Since we seem to agree that the source of the heat must be at ground zero, whether the source came from above and fell down, so to speak, or whether is was both above(before) and below(afterwards), is not terribly relevant far from ground zero.
Near ground zero, yes, this consideration of exact source location would probably make a significant difference. However, I'll take any calculation I can get, at this point.
FEMA Fairy Tale believer should be more than eager to supply these, as it will doubtless support their otherwise merely handwaiving arguments. Right?
In fairness, I note that this may well be non-trivial, since we're not talking about a simple fluid, but rather one that is thoroughly suffused with particulates.
Nevertheless, perhaps somebody out there can talk to their friendly, neighborhood volcanologist.
Non-Hawaiians may still do us a favor by talking to chemical engineers. Aren't a lot of chemical powders blown out of tubes in flows of hot air?
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 13 2006, 11:42 PM)
QUOTE
have you watched what happened to that spire, and the timing of it?
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
this sixty story steel frame, which has been welded together all the way up, is no longer supporting any load except itself.
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
(in the 911eyewitness video, you can see the second tower to FALL in the foreground. this is the tower which displays the strange behaviour of this still standing core.)
this sixty story steel frame, which has been welded together all the way up, is no longer supporting any load except itself.
This 'spire' was certainly NOT in pristine condition. Any welds were not necessarily in good shape, the columns were not necessarily perfectly straight either. A whole freaking building just fell down around the 'spire' yet you assume it is as if it had been created , pristine, on the spot!
And that is not all of course. A tall structure must obey certain laws if it is to stand on its own. Too tall without proper lateral support and it will buckle under its own weight.
The spire didn't merely "fall down". It turned to powder within 3 seconds of its telescoping collapse initiation. That is quickly enough to know that the top of the spire should have still been visible, if it was still a solid body.
Even Gordon can't figure this one out.
x(t) = .5 * g * t^^2
= .5 * 32 * 9 = 144 feet = 12 floors
Since the spire stood "50 - 60" floors in the air, it was at least 600 feet high.
12 / 50 = 24%
So the spire had telescoped by less than 24% of it's height before it was powder.
This one's particularly enjoyable because neither the FEMA Fairy Tale believers nor the CD people can make heads or tails of this.
If it make y'all feel any better about it, neither can I.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 13 2006, 02:52 PM)
QUOTE (Temp+Jan 13 2006, 02:47 PM)
Hope this helps!
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
So BOTH towers had the core standing a few seconds after gobal collapse. Thanks temp, I didn't know both towers had the core standing that long. There goes the bomb in the core basement theory.
What's more, from this angle you get to see WTC 7 getting pummeled. (the collapse appears to be mostly to the North, which is why the spire that remains is to the South), you can also see it take a good lick on the top.
What is also apparent FROM THIS ANGLE, is the collapsing spire is a fairly slow event and most importantly it is NOT straight down. The whole spire moves to the South as it collapses. You have to realize this shot is from a long way away, and so the relatively small distance it moves south on the screen translates to a pretty good distance at Ground zero.
Arthur
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
So BOTH towers had the core standing a few seconds after gobal collapse. Thanks temp, I didn't know both towers had the core standing that long. There goes the bomb in the core basement theory.
What's more, from this angle you get to see WTC 7 getting pummeled. (the collapse appears to be mostly to the North, which is why the spire that remains is to the South), you can also see it take a good lick on the top.
What is also apparent FROM THIS ANGLE, is the collapsing spire is a fairly slow event and most importantly it is NOT straight down. The whole spire moves to the South as it collapses. You have to realize this shot is from a long way away, and so the relatively small distance it moves south on the screen translates to a pretty good distance at Ground zero.
Arthur
QUOTE (gordon)
RC said “and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock.”
Gordon replied
A steel structure generally has struts and ties. Some parts will be in tension, while others will be in compression. A hammock has no struts. This makes it impossible for a hammock to carry a compressive load. You could heat it up, push it, do whatever you like with it, for the rest of your puff and you would not achieve a compressive load in a hammock. This false analogy is one of the reasons for the continued mistaken belief that the floors would pull inwards on the perimeter columns and outwards on the core columns.
Schneibster replied
Well, the top chord doesn't have any struts any more after they fail in compression. So it looks pretty much like a hammock to me.
---------------Maybe therein lies the root of the problem.
No part of the floors were made of string. Any analogy between a rigid steel structure and a web of string is false.
A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression. A piece of string is unable to do this, so is unable to emulate a beam even on such a basic level as supporting its own weight.
Why do you need this analogy, whether it is good or not? Steel is easy to understand and it is very predictable. It just keeps on doing the same stuff as it has always done.
Now, what happens if the strings holding the hammock up are forced to lengthen (the analogy falls on its face here, because the strings on a hammock don't expand the way that steel does, so we have to fix the analogy by assuming a "magical" lengthening of the strings to give them the same behaviour as the heated steel)?
Clearly, there is no EXTRA force placed on the perimeter or core;
----------------Yes there is. There is the thermally induced expansion of the horizontal steel beams acting outwards on the perimeter columns and inward on the core columns, something that pieces of string will be unable to emulate.
however, the ANGLE of the force has changed, and that force is not DIRECTLY upon the columns but upon the brackets and the bolts and the welds between the brackets and trusses, and between the brackets and columns. These bolts were never meant to withstand shearing forces of this magnitude. They were designed to withstand shear loads induced by wind swaying the building, and those loads were designed to be mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels that connected them, and by the viscous damping of the lower chord. As the angle of the top chord to the brackets moves away from the horizontal due to the sag made possible by the failure of the truss rods, the amount of shear load on those bolts increases to the limit of the weight of the floor. This is simple vector calculation, with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.
----------------OK Let us carry out this “simple vector calculation.” A horizontal beam is made to pull on a wall by way of using a mass m through a frictionless pulley. The pulley’s position can be adjusted so as to allow a varying angle of incidence. The mass remains the same and the pulley remains frictionless thus allowing a constant force mg to be transmitted through the beam. The force can be resolved into its horizontal (Fh) and vertical (Fv) components such that Fh = cos a * mg and Fv = sin a * mg where a is the angle between the beam and the normal to the wall.
With the beam horizontal
Fh = mg and Fv = 0
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 30 degrees then
Fh = 0.866mg and Fv = 0.5mg
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 45 degrees then
Fh = 0.707mg and Fv = 0.707mg
So we can see that the horizontal component of the load Fh is at a maximum when the beams are horizontal and as the angle a, is changed that horizontal component decreases and the vertical component increases. So now examining the connections between the columns and chords we can see that the maximum shear force on the bolts would occur when the beam was horizontal. As the chord moved from the horizontal, other forces would be set up including a longitudinal tension in the bolt..
So your statement “with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.” is demonstrably untrue. In fact, exactly the opposite would be true.
QUOTE (gordon)
Schneibster said “the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. “
Gordon replied
Being attached at only one end would mean that it would be more able to expand and thus relieve its strain.
Schneibster said But the failure does not occur in the lower chord; it occurs in the truss rods. And this does not relieve the stress on THEM,
----------------It was in answer to the postulation that the truss rods failed first that I then went on to detail the effects on those truss rods when I said
“Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain”
And “Being attached at only one end would reduce its (the lower chord) ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
and furthermore the lower chord being more massive than the truss rods would expand more slowly than the truss rods, and this means that although SOME of the heat-created compression stress on the truss rods would be mitigated by expansion of the bottom chord,
------------------Not simply because of expansion but also because of the deflection of the lower chord,
not ALL of it would be; and again, the truss rods would come under greater and greater compression stress added to their existing compression stress holding the top chord straight.
Whether the effect is mitigated merely affects how long they last, not whether or not they fail.
-------------No. Whether or not they would fail would be dependent on the relative strains of the other members since prior failure in the other members would undoubtedly alter the situation. The member with the highest compressive strain would be the upper chord, for reasons of its position relative to the neutral line dictating that it had the highest component of pre-existing compressive load from the floor mass and load, as well as the thermal strain, and because it was also the least able to relieve its strain through sagging because of the additional stiffness of the concrete.
All of which must be obvious from the fact that using the physics of the fire, the amount of insulation, and the heat characteristics of the steel in the truss rods and the top and bottom chords and the brackets and the bolts, the Fire Safety Journal article's authors were able to postdict the length of time the two towers stood.
------------------This does not follow. The fact that these authors got the answer they wanted does not necessarily make the analysis correct. Take the example of the program discussed on this thread which “correctly” predicted a collapse time for a tower, using a model which could not even stand up in the first place, let alone collapse in a predictive manner.
QUOTE (gordon)
Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain
Being attached at only one end would reduce its ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
The point of the lower chord is not to secure the floor against the columns; it is to serve as an anchor point for the truss rods which prevent the upper chord from bending and adding weight to the shearing stress on the bolts and welds and brackets securing the upper chord to the columns.
----------------------------No the point, or function of the lower chord is to carry the tensile load set up by the floor mass. The upper chord carries the compressive load.
The function of the truss rods is to maintain the separation of these members thereby maintaining their distance from the neutral line.
The fact that placing a visco-elastic mounting on the outer ends of the bottom chords could mitigate the perception of movement of the floors by the occupants by affecting the way the floors move when the perimeter moves due to wind is a serendipitous feature of the design, and a very interesting piece of engineering, not the raison d'etre of the bottom chords.
QUOTE (gordon)
Schneibster said “in addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress;” and also “Right- and remember, GLOBAL tension (from attempting to sag under the weight),”
These statements are just so wrong.
The thermal energy causes a compressive strain to be set up in a member, in addition to the tensile and compressive strains in the bottom and top chords respectively, occasioned by the floor load.. The upper chord will attempt to relieve itself from this strain by, among other things, sagging. It will be unable, as I have pointed out, to fully relieve itself of this strain due to its geometry and stiffness introduced by other materials. Therefore some compressive strain will remain. Therefore it would not be in tension.
Oh, really? What kind of stress do you suppose the cords in the hammock are under? Compression? Do you deny they are under stress? What then holds the hammock up? Magic? Better think far more clearly about this.
------------------I hope that the hammock is now suffering the stress of rejection from being unceremoniously thrown out of this debate, because of its lack of relevance.
I was not talking about string. I was talking about steel members Do I deny that they were under stress? No, on the contrary, I have detailed how the strains arose, in what direction they would act and analysed their relative sizes. I have also tried to correct the false assumption and reasoning which attempts to show that thermal expansion would cause a tensile strain due to sagging.
The thermal energy expands the steel, nothing more. It does not IN AND OF ITSELF cause either tension or compression. It merely lengthens the steel. Whether stress results from that lengthening depends upon its effects on the constraints the steel is under, and on the vectors of the forces on the constraints. Obviously, when the top chord lengthens, this either increases the compression stress on the truss rods,
------------------No. If the upper chord sags with an extension to its original length caused by thermal expansion it must be assumed that the lower chord would suffer in the same manner and at least to the same degree since it is more able to sag than the upper chord. They would move from being a pair of parallel horizontal members to being a pair of parallel curved members. The distance between the truss rod connection to the upper chord and the same truss rod connection to the lower chord would increase, thus requiring an extension of the truss rod itself. This in and of itself ignoring other factors would introduce a tensile strain which would serve to relieve the compressive strain in the truss rods.
or, if the truss rods have already failed, increases the shearing stress on the bolts, welds, and brackets at the columns by changing the vector angle at which the weight exerts its force. And if the truss rods are still intact, then the additional stress induced by lengthening the top chord results in compression stress
-------------No. The additional stress would be tensile for the reasons given above.
being added to the truss rods, in addition to the compression stress of their design, and the compression stress of their attempting to lengthen under the influence of the same heat as is lengthening the top chord. So guess what? There are THREE sources of compression on the truss rods, and only ONE movement to relieve it (of the bottom chord).
---------How many doesn’t matter. What matters is their relative size and direction.
Let us examine this situation. The truss rod nearest the unconnected end of the lower chord would have to bend the bottom chord and cause a downwards deflection. The resistance of the bottom chord would be limited since it would have no support at all at one end and the force transmitted through the truss rod would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next truss rod/bottom chord joint. This fulcrum point itself would also be being pushed downwards by the thermal expansion of its truss rod and this would also act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next joint along. This would continue along the beam so the ability of the truss rods to unload their strain would be almost total at the free end and gradually increase along the beam to the connected end. The force through the truss rod at this end would be acting as a moment with its fulcrum at the damper. A damper by its nature has allowable movement within its function and is not a solid connection such as existed with the upper chord.
QUOTE (gordon)
Schneibster said “It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
I replied
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
Schneibster said
You have failed to take my meaning. Your argument was that they were not under the greatest load, and therefore should not have failed first; my point was that the total load is not the issue, it's the load they are under compared to their strength. So what is wrong is not my statement, but your understanding of it.
----------------- No. I did not say that they were not under the greatest load. I purposefully avoided giving any mention to load in this context. I did say that they were experiencing the lesser strain. This is an important distinction and perhaps you could re-read the post with this in mind.
QUOTE (gordon)
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods.
This is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, being that they were the smallest components; what sane engineer would place the greatest strain on the weakest component?
------------------It is not correct to assume that the truss rods would have the least strain because they were smallest. Under other circumstances the smallest section could have the most strain. Two beams of similar material, one a mile long with a cross section of one square metre, the other a yard long with a cross section of one square millimetre, subject to similar end restraint and passing through the same temperature change will have the same longitudinal strain and the same longitudinal stress. Credit ought to be given to the tower designers who no doubt were at least as able to quantify these effects as I am and designed the various members with a cross section which would befit their function.
QUOTE (gordon)
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
And, like every other poster who has ignored the destruction of his assertions, you have conveniently ignored the fact that I responded to your assertions and either rendered them irrelevant or showed that you had misunderstood (or perhaps misrepresented) what was being said. Therefore, it is obvious that you ignore facts that conflict with your arguments, and there is a name for that, and it is not a compliment.
---------------Jimmy thought the earth was vaguely spherical, a bit squished with some sticky up bits and some holes. Jock was convinced that the world was cubic, because he had been to one of the corners. Jimmy eventually convinced Jock that the corner was in fact a mountain and since there were more than eight such mountains or corners on the planet, then that proved that it was not a cube. Jock refined his position to now boldly state that the world was not a cube but was actually a dodecahedron.
Why should Jimmy alter his views?
Neither you nor any other poster has been able to destroy a single one of my assertions nor rendered them irrelevant nor showed that I have misrepresented anything that was said. This may sound arrogant but it does arise from my respect for other posters in that I would not want to assert rubbish to them, but is mostly a result of my attempt to avoid the embarrassment of having any of my posts proven to be rubbish.
I will freely acknowledge that I have found some posts difficult to understand and in those I would include those which assert that heat energy can be transferred against a temperature gradient, those which show forces acting in the opposite direction to which they would act, those which state that thermal expansion would not produce outward pushing forces on the perimeter columns, those which state that thermally induced sagging would result in a tensile force in the beams, those which show buckling as being a possible result of a tensile force, those which show forces without equal and opposite reactions as dictated by Newton’s Third Law those which show forces without the necessary deceleration demanded by Newton‘s Second Law, those which fail to resolve forces correctly. These principles are not subjective judgements. Of course not all posts have incorporated these basic errors but I cannot acknowledge that any post which includes any of these false assertions as a premise should alter my views.
If you refuse to acknowledge that these matters are very complex and require long and careful thought before understanding comes, I do not in turn refuse to acknowledge the value of your role as "devil's advocate" in showing where my understanding of these matters was incorrect, and I thank you for that. Whether you acknowledge it ever or not, the fact remains that as understanding grows, it becomes clearer and clearer what REALLY happened;
--------------I freely acknowledge that they are complex and I thank you for your acknowledgement, and we also agree that clarity comes with study and understanding, (Spem Successus Alit) but perhaps with different ideas of what really happened. Its our differences that make us interesting to each other, and I’m sure that some day we will all learn to enjoy our differences to the fullest extent. We’re all stardust.
and the most interesting part of it all is, the longer we analyze it, the more we realize that the original assertion in the Nova program that the bolts, brackets, and welds holding the ends of the top chords of the trusses to the columns were where the final failure occurred becomes more and more likely.
Consider carefully:
1. The fire heats the trusses; it heats the truss rods more quickly than anything else because they are smaller and thus have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio than any other component of the building.
2. The truss rods fail in compression, due to the original designed compressive forces, added to the compressive forces due to thermal expansion, added to the compressive forces generated by expansion of the top chord, mitigated only by thermal expansion of the bottom chord. Note as well that thermal expansion of the top chord would also act to place further compressive stress on the truss rods. So we see that there are actually FOUR sources of compression, and only one source of relief. Actually, there are two scenarios: the first is their failure in compression, the second is the failure of their welds, most likely the welds to the bottom chord since they were weaker; but in either case:
----------Already pointed out the problems with this idea, and demonstrated the far greater ability of the truss rods to relieve themselves of their strain than other members. The truss rods quite simply are not subject to such a high level of strain as the upper chord. It is therefore the upper chord which is the most likely failure point.
3. The top chords, now unrestrained, whether because the truss rods have failed or because their welds to the bottom chord have failed, now bow due to the weight, as they would always have done had the truss rods not supported them, and this bowing is further increased by the thermal expansion of the top chords.
4. This bowing moves the weight of the floors from a vertical vector on the brackets with no shear force on the bolts
-------------pre-existing the failure, if such a failure had occurred, there would have been a shear force on the bolts arising from the force originating in the thermal expansion of the upper chord. The same force which acts through the bolts to cause the outward deflection of the columns. If these bolts were the source of failure then they would have failed when the high force arising from thermal expansion acted on them, rather than as you postulate from a proportion of the floor and floor load.
or the welds of the brackets to the top chords, to a mixture of vertical and horizontal force vectors that applies part of the weight to shear forces on the bolts and welds, forces these bolts and welds were never designed to handle. Originally, the only shear forces that these bolts and welds would have endured was due to swaying of the building in the wind, mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels. It was the welds of the brackets to the columns that withstood the shear force of the weight of the floors; and unless I miss my guess, in the initial collapse, these brackets did not separate from the columns. It was in later phases that the forces were strong enough to bull their way past these welds; in the initial collapse, it was the bolts and the welds between the brackets and the top chords that failed, and this was because of the bowing and the consequent shear forces.
5. The bolts and welds on one or a few of the top chords fail and shear.
6. This increases the shear forces on nearby top chords, and if this increase is beyond their shear strength, they too fail. Most likely, since the bolts and welds were uniform, and the bowing was likely uniform as well, they were close to their limits already, and the initial failure placed them immediately beyond their strength.
7. Remember also that perimeter column damage due to the plane impact had removed some of the perimeter columns' attachments to the trusses. It is entirely possible that the first bolts and welds to fail were adjacent to the areas where these attachments had been removed.
8. Once this happens, a wave of failures will move outward from the initial failure, probably in fractions of a second, and the trusses "unzip" from the perimeter or the core.
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end;
-------------------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
---------------------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down.
------------With the chords still connected at one end, and it being likely that the unconnected ends would be grouped in the areas of highest temperature, and thus be either on the perimeter columns, or on the core columns, rather than a random mix, the floor would pivot about the remaining connections and only one end would impact the lower floor.
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support,
---------------That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
[i]and if the first one struck cannot support it, how can any floor further down be expected to? And my numerical simulation shows this as well, by showing that if the forces generated by the impulse are in excess of the capacities of the floors, then conservation of momentum is all that slows the collapse,
----------------No. A major factor of the speed of collapse and indeed the question of whether a collapse would continue or be arrested, is the deceleration which the falling upper section would necessarily be required to undergo in order for it to exert sufficient force to overcome the strength in the lower section.
and by showing that if conservation of momentum is obeyed in this manner, the total time required to collapse is consistent with the observed time of collapse on the videotapes.
-----------------That analysis shows the collapse time for a tower which has no strength. In the increment of time immediately before collapse, the towers clearly still possessed the ability to stand upright. This means that they had, as a minimum, a residual strength sufficient to support the weight above them. Your analysis, having no regard even of this minimum value, gives a collapse time which could only be achieved by the sudden removal of that residual strength, in the increment of time immediately prior to collapse, or in the cases of the lower storeys during the earlier stages of collapse. A controlled demolition could do this and I can think of no other mechanism which could do this.
11. With the lateral support of the floors removed, the perimeter columns now have a degree of freedom to bow inward or outward. The Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter constrains the columns ACROSS the face of the building; but the FLOORS constrained it inward and outward, and the floors are gone.
12. Once the perimeter columns bend inward or outward, probably outward because they would be pushed that way by the falling floors, they collapse because they cannot support the vertical forces being no longer vertical themselves.
-------------If this situation arose, it would cause a buckling failure as the length of the beam which was becoming unsupported by floors was increased. The most likely buckling mode would be first phase because it requires least load to achieve this mode of failure. If buckling occurred it would necessarily follow after the initial floor collapse and even as the beam was buckling it would be losing more support as the lower floors continued to become disconnected. The buckling point would continue to lose its ability to resist the upper mass and the failure would continue at that weakest point. The result of this would be that the column would “elbow” with the hinge being the buckling point. There is no reason to suppose that the columns would then suffer fracture into sections but rather they would continue to fall with an angular component with further buckle points appearing as the upper section approached and passed the point where the initial buckling took place. The result of this would be long sections of outer perimeter column with massive bending, falling over while being connected only at the bottom-most points and at the join to the upper section.
13. Once the perimeter columns collapse, the weight of all the perimeter columns and the roof and hat truss is transmitted to the core by the hat truss.
--------------------If the perimeter columns are being compressed by the upper masses including the hat truss, whether that compression leads to failure or not, they cannot then have their weight transferred to the core columns. This would only be possible if the weight of the perimeter columns were being taken by the hat truss. Both of these things, the hat truss pushing down on the perimeter columns, and the hat truss carrying the weight of the perimeter columns, cannot happen at the same time.
14. Since the core columns are no longer constrained by the floors, they also are now free to bend outward or inward; all that constrains them is their connections to one another, and those connections were designed to hold them in concert with the floor diaphragms, not by themselves.
15. Weakened (however much or little) by the fires, the core columns bend outward or inward at the site of the fires.
------------But again there is no mechanism which would then cause fracture, so although they may buckle they would remain largely in one piece, albeit buckled, bent and twisted
16. Once bowed, the core columns collapse because they are no longer vertical and cannot support the vertical force of the "curtain" of perimeter columns and the hat truss, added to their own weight, and also including the weight of all the floors above the perimeter column failure area.
---------Already pointed out that the load arising from the mass of the perimeter columns could not act on the core.
And there you have it. I don't say it's perfect; in fact, I expect I've missed a detail here or there. And I invite criticism of it, in order to either deny it (I don't mind starting over if it's wrong) or deny small portions of it (in order to correct it). But I expect that only small details are wrong. And it is consistent with everything we can find in the videos and in the accounts of the collapses, right down to the fact that "bangs" were heard prior to the visible initiation of the collapse. Those "bangs" were the initially collapsing floors, which must have preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which must in turn have preceded the collapse of the core.
--------------------The scenario which you have detailed would result in a pile of floors one atop the other, and the outer columns bent and twisted but still mainly in one piece and many attached to each other, extending far out into the surrounding areas. This description would not be applicable to the debris site.
There are other unexplained phenomenon such as the elevated temperatures of the steel in the debris pile but that would expand the debate beyond your initial analysis so I will not include these in my reaction to your theory, except to say that a fully detailed analysis should be able to explain these phenomenon..
Note most carefully that objections that the fires were not sufficient to compromise the core or perimeter are proven correct; it was the truss rods (or their welds to the floor truss chords) that failed initially, and the bolts and welds of the top chords of the floor trusses that were the cause of the initial collapse. Being the smallest components, the truss rods failed first; that failure led to the failures of the bolts and welds of the top chords to the column brackets, and those failures to the collapse of the first floor to fall, and that fall to the collapse of the next, and those collapses to the failure of the perimeter, and that failure to the collapse of the perimeter, and that collapse to the failure of the core, and that failure finally to the global collapse of the buildings. It is not a simple matter, and it is not easy to understand, and this is good because it must be obvious that if it were easy to understand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
And finally, note that it was NOT the difference of the site of impact that made the difference in the times the buildings stood; it was the difference of the insulation on the truss rods.
--------------The analysis falls down on several key points and postulations.
Gordon.
RC said “and the floors would sag and pull at the ends like a hammock.”
Gordon replied
A steel structure generally has struts and ties. Some parts will be in tension, while others will be in compression. A hammock has no struts. This makes it impossible for a hammock to carry a compressive load. You could heat it up, push it, do whatever you like with it, for the rest of your puff and you would not achieve a compressive load in a hammock. This false analogy is one of the reasons for the continued mistaken belief that the floors would pull inwards on the perimeter columns and outwards on the core columns.
Schneibster replied
Well, the top chord doesn't have any struts any more after they fail in compression. So it looks pretty much like a hammock to me.
---------------Maybe therein lies the root of the problem.
No part of the floors were made of string. Any analogy between a rigid steel structure and a web of string is false.
A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression. A piece of string is unable to do this, so is unable to emulate a beam even on such a basic level as supporting its own weight.
Why do you need this analogy, whether it is good or not? Steel is easy to understand and it is very predictable. It just keeps on doing the same stuff as it has always done.
Now, what happens if the strings holding the hammock up are forced to lengthen (the analogy falls on its face here, because the strings on a hammock don't expand the way that steel does, so we have to fix the analogy by assuming a "magical" lengthening of the strings to give them the same behaviour as the heated steel)?
Clearly, there is no EXTRA force placed on the perimeter or core;
----------------Yes there is. There is the thermally induced expansion of the horizontal steel beams acting outwards on the perimeter columns and inward on the core columns, something that pieces of string will be unable to emulate.
however, the ANGLE of the force has changed, and that force is not DIRECTLY upon the columns but upon the brackets and the bolts and the welds between the brackets and trusses, and between the brackets and columns. These bolts were never meant to withstand shearing forces of this magnitude. They were designed to withstand shear loads induced by wind swaying the building, and those loads were designed to be mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels that connected them, and by the viscous damping of the lower chord. As the angle of the top chord to the brackets moves away from the horizontal due to the sag made possible by the failure of the truss rods, the amount of shear load on those bolts increases to the limit of the weight of the floor. This is simple vector calculation, with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.
----------------OK Let us carry out this “simple vector calculation.” A horizontal beam is made to pull on a wall by way of using a mass m through a frictionless pulley. The pulley’s position can be adjusted so as to allow a varying angle of incidence. The mass remains the same and the pulley remains frictionless thus allowing a constant force mg to be transmitted through the beam. The force can be resolved into its horizontal (Fh) and vertical (Fv) components such that Fh = cos a * mg and Fv = sin a * mg where a is the angle between the beam and the normal to the wall.
With the beam horizontal
Fh = mg and Fv = 0
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 30 degrees then
Fh = 0.866mg and Fv = 0.5mg
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 45 degrees then
Fh = 0.707mg and Fv = 0.707mg
So we can see that the horizontal component of the load Fh is at a maximum when the beams are horizontal and as the angle a, is changed that horizontal component decreases and the vertical component increases. So now examining the connections between the columns and chords we can see that the maximum shear force on the bolts would occur when the beam was horizontal. As the chord moved from the horizontal, other forces would be set up including a longitudinal tension in the bolt..
So your statement “with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.” is demonstrably untrue. In fact, exactly the opposite would be true.
QUOTE (gordon)
Schneibster said “the ends of the bottom chord are attached via a viscous damped coupling to the perimeter columns, but not attached to the core. “
Gordon replied
Being attached at only one end would mean that it would be more able to expand and thus relieve its strain.
Schneibster said But the failure does not occur in the lower chord; it occurs in the truss rods. And this does not relieve the stress on THEM,
----------------It was in answer to the postulation that the truss rods failed first that I then went on to detail the effects on those truss rods when I said
“Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain”
And “Being attached at only one end would reduce its (the lower chord) ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
and furthermore the lower chord being more massive than the truss rods would expand more slowly than the truss rods, and this means that although SOME of the heat-created compression stress on the truss rods would be mitigated by expansion of the bottom chord,
------------------Not simply because of expansion but also because of the deflection of the lower chord,
not ALL of it would be; and again, the truss rods would come under greater and greater compression stress added to their existing compression stress holding the top chord straight.
Whether the effect is mitigated merely affects how long they last, not whether or not they fail.
-------------No. Whether or not they would fail would be dependent on the relative strains of the other members since prior failure in the other members would undoubtedly alter the situation. The member with the highest compressive strain would be the upper chord, for reasons of its position relative to the neutral line dictating that it had the highest component of pre-existing compressive load from the floor mass and load, as well as the thermal strain, and because it was also the least able to relieve its strain through sagging because of the additional stiffness of the concrete.
All of which must be obvious from the fact that using the physics of the fire, the amount of insulation, and the heat characteristics of the steel in the truss rods and the top and bottom chords and the brackets and the bolts, the Fire Safety Journal article's authors were able to postdict the length of time the two towers stood.
------------------This does not follow. The fact that these authors got the answer they wanted does not necessarily make the analysis correct. Take the example of the program discussed on this thread which “correctly” predicted a collapse time for a tower, using a model which could not even stand up in the first place, let alone collapse in a predictive manner.
QUOTE (gordon)
Being attached at only one end would mean that the truss rods at and close to the free end would find it easier to deflect the lower chord and thus relieve their strain
Being attached at only one end would reduce its ability to act against the perimeter column, either in compression or in tension, since every action requires an equal and opposite reaction.
The point of the lower chord is not to secure the floor against the columns; it is to serve as an anchor point for the truss rods which prevent the upper chord from bending and adding weight to the shearing stress on the bolts and welds and brackets securing the upper chord to the columns.
----------------------------No the point, or function of the lower chord is to carry the tensile load set up by the floor mass. The upper chord carries the compressive load.
The function of the truss rods is to maintain the separation of these members thereby maintaining their distance from the neutral line.
The fact that placing a visco-elastic mounting on the outer ends of the bottom chords could mitigate the perception of movement of the floors by the occupants by affecting the way the floors move when the perimeter moves due to wind is a serendipitous feature of the design, and a very interesting piece of engineering, not the raison d'etre of the bottom chords.
QUOTE (gordon)
Schneibster said “in addition, the top chord by sagging would be under tension stress;” and also “Right- and remember, GLOBAL tension (from attempting to sag under the weight),”
These statements are just so wrong.
The thermal energy causes a compressive strain to be set up in a member, in addition to the tensile and compressive strains in the bottom and top chords respectively, occasioned by the floor load.. The upper chord will attempt to relieve itself from this strain by, among other things, sagging. It will be unable, as I have pointed out, to fully relieve itself of this strain due to its geometry and stiffness introduced by other materials. Therefore some compressive strain will remain. Therefore it would not be in tension.
Oh, really? What kind of stress do you suppose the cords in the hammock are under? Compression? Do you deny they are under stress? What then holds the hammock up? Magic? Better think far more clearly about this.
------------------I hope that the hammock is now suffering the stress of rejection from being unceremoniously thrown out of this debate, because of its lack of relevance.
I was not talking about string. I was talking about steel members Do I deny that they were under stress? No, on the contrary, I have detailed how the strains arose, in what direction they would act and analysed their relative sizes. I have also tried to correct the false assumption and reasoning which attempts to show that thermal expansion would cause a tensile strain due to sagging.
The thermal energy expands the steel, nothing more. It does not IN AND OF ITSELF cause either tension or compression. It merely lengthens the steel. Whether stress results from that lengthening depends upon its effects on the constraints the steel is under, and on the vectors of the forces on the constraints. Obviously, when the top chord lengthens, this either increases the compression stress on the truss rods,
------------------No. If the upper chord sags with an extension to its original length caused by thermal expansion it must be assumed that the lower chord would suffer in the same manner and at least to the same degree since it is more able to sag than the upper chord. They would move from being a pair of parallel horizontal members to being a pair of parallel curved members. The distance between the truss rod connection to the upper chord and the same truss rod connection to the lower chord would increase, thus requiring an extension of the truss rod itself. This in and of itself ignoring other factors would introduce a tensile strain which would serve to relieve the compressive strain in the truss rods.
or, if the truss rods have already failed, increases the shearing stress on the bolts, welds, and brackets at the columns by changing the vector angle at which the weight exerts its force. And if the truss rods are still intact, then the additional stress induced by lengthening the top chord results in compression stress
-------------No. The additional stress would be tensile for the reasons given above.
being added to the truss rods, in addition to the compression stress of their design, and the compression stress of their attempting to lengthen under the influence of the same heat as is lengthening the top chord. So guess what? There are THREE sources of compression on the truss rods, and only ONE movement to relieve it (of the bottom chord).
---------How many doesn’t matter. What matters is their relative size and direction.
Let us examine this situation. The truss rod nearest the unconnected end of the lower chord would have to bend the bottom chord and cause a downwards deflection. The resistance of the bottom chord would be limited since it would have no support at all at one end and the force transmitted through the truss rod would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next truss rod/bottom chord joint. This fulcrum point itself would also be being pushed downwards by the thermal expansion of its truss rod and this would also act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next joint along. This would continue along the beam so the ability of the truss rods to unload their strain would be almost total at the free end and gradually increase along the beam to the connected end. The force through the truss rod at this end would be acting as a moment with its fulcrum at the damper. A damper by its nature has allowable movement within its function and is not a solid connection such as existed with the upper chord.
QUOTE (gordon)
Schneibster said “It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
I replied
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
Schneibster said
You have failed to take my meaning. Your argument was that they were not under the greatest load, and therefore should not have failed first; my point was that the total load is not the issue, it's the load they are under compared to their strength. So what is wrong is not my statement, but your understanding of it.
----------------- No. I did not say that they were not under the greatest load. I purposefully avoided giving any mention to load in this context. I did say that they were experiencing the lesser strain. This is an important distinction and perhaps you could re-read the post with this in mind.
QUOTE (gordon)
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods.
This is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer, being that they were the smallest components; what sane engineer would place the greatest strain on the weakest component?
------------------It is not correct to assume that the truss rods would have the least strain because they were smallest. Under other circumstances the smallest section could have the most strain. Two beams of similar material, one a mile long with a cross section of one square metre, the other a yard long with a cross section of one square millimetre, subject to similar end restraint and passing through the same temperature change will have the same longitudinal strain and the same longitudinal stress. Credit ought to be given to the tower designers who no doubt were at least as able to quantify these effects as I am and designed the various members with a cross section which would befit their function.
QUOTE (gordon)
In recent days I have had to state the zeroth law, state that force is a vector, state that buckling is a compressive failure and not tensile, state the relation between stress and strain, state on several occasions, that sagging induced by a thermal expansion would not result in a tensile force. It has taken weeks for general acceptance to begin to emerge on the very basic statement included in one of my first posts, that thermally induced expansion would cause the floors to act outwards on the walls. I did not expect to have to remind posters of such basic principles in a forum dedicated to science.
And, like every other poster who has ignored the destruction of his assertions, you have conveniently ignored the fact that I responded to your assertions and either rendered them irrelevant or showed that you had misunderstood (or perhaps misrepresented) what was being said. Therefore, it is obvious that you ignore facts that conflict with your arguments, and there is a name for that, and it is not a compliment.
---------------Jimmy thought the earth was vaguely spherical, a bit squished with some sticky up bits and some holes. Jock was convinced that the world was cubic, because he had been to one of the corners. Jimmy eventually convinced Jock that the corner was in fact a mountain and since there were more than eight such mountains or corners on the planet, then that proved that it was not a cube. Jock refined his position to now boldly state that the world was not a cube but was actually a dodecahedron.
Why should Jimmy alter his views?
Neither you nor any other poster has been able to destroy a single one of my assertions nor rendered them irrelevant nor showed that I have misrepresented anything that was said. This may sound arrogant but it does arise from my respect for other posters in that I would not want to assert rubbish to them, but is mostly a result of my attempt to avoid the embarrassment of having any of my posts proven to be rubbish.
I will freely acknowledge that I have found some posts difficult to understand and in those I would include those which assert that heat energy can be transferred against a temperature gradient, those which show forces acting in the opposite direction to which they would act, those which state that thermal expansion would not produce outward pushing forces on the perimeter columns, those which state that thermally induced sagging would result in a tensile force in the beams, those which show buckling as being a possible result of a tensile force, those which show forces without equal and opposite reactions as dictated by Newton’s Third Law those which show forces without the necessary deceleration demanded by Newton‘s Second Law, those which fail to resolve forces correctly. These principles are not subjective judgements. Of course not all posts have incorporated these basic errors but I cannot acknowledge that any post which includes any of these false assertions as a premise should alter my views.
If you refuse to acknowledge that these matters are very complex and require long and careful thought before understanding comes, I do not in turn refuse to acknowledge the value of your role as "devil's advocate" in showing where my understanding of these matters was incorrect, and I thank you for that. Whether you acknowledge it ever or not, the fact remains that as understanding grows, it becomes clearer and clearer what REALLY happened;
--------------I freely acknowledge that they are complex and I thank you for your acknowledgement, and we also agree that clarity comes with study and understanding, (Spem Successus Alit) but perhaps with different ideas of what really happened. Its our differences that make us interesting to each other, and I’m sure that some day we will all learn to enjoy our differences to the fullest extent. We’re all stardust.
and the most interesting part of it all is, the longer we analyze it, the more we realize that the original assertion in the Nova program that the bolts, brackets, and welds holding the ends of the top chords of the trusses to the columns were where the final failure occurred becomes more and more likely.
Consider carefully:
1. The fire heats the trusses; it heats the truss rods more quickly than anything else because they are smaller and thus have a larger surface-area-to-volume ratio than any other component of the building.
2. The truss rods fail in compression, due to the original designed compressive forces, added to the compressive forces due to thermal expansion, added to the compressive forces generated by expansion of the top chord, mitigated only by thermal expansion of the bottom chord. Note as well that thermal expansion of the top chord would also act to place further compressive stress on the truss rods. So we see that there are actually FOUR sources of compression, and only one source of relief. Actually, there are two scenarios: the first is their failure in compression, the second is the failure of their welds, most likely the welds to the bottom chord since they were weaker; but in either case:
----------Already pointed out the problems with this idea, and demonstrated the far greater ability of the truss rods to relieve themselves of their strain than other members. The truss rods quite simply are not subject to such a high level of strain as the upper chord. It is therefore the upper chord which is the most likely failure point.
3. The top chords, now unrestrained, whether because the truss rods have failed or because their welds to the bottom chord have failed, now bow due to the weight, as they would always have done had the truss rods not supported them, and this bowing is further increased by the thermal expansion of the top chords.
4. This bowing moves the weight of the floors from a vertical vector on the brackets with no shear force on the bolts
-------------pre-existing the failure, if such a failure had occurred, there would have been a shear force on the bolts arising from the force originating in the thermal expansion of the upper chord. The same force which acts through the bolts to cause the outward deflection of the columns. If these bolts were the source of failure then they would have failed when the high force arising from thermal expansion acted on them, rather than as you postulate from a proportion of the floor and floor load.
or the welds of the brackets to the top chords, to a mixture of vertical and horizontal force vectors that applies part of the weight to shear forces on the bolts and welds, forces these bolts and welds were never designed to handle. Originally, the only shear forces that these bolts and welds would have endured was due to swaying of the building in the wind, mitigated by the Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter columns and the spandrels. It was the welds of the brackets to the columns that withstood the shear force of the weight of the floors; and unless I miss my guess, in the initial collapse, these brackets did not separate from the columns. It was in later phases that the forces were strong enough to bull their way past these welds; in the initial collapse, it was the bolts and the welds between the brackets and the top chords that failed, and this was because of the bowing and the consequent shear forces.
5. The bolts and welds on one or a few of the top chords fail and shear.
6. This increases the shear forces on nearby top chords, and if this increase is beyond their shear strength, they too fail. Most likely, since the bolts and welds were uniform, and the bowing was likely uniform as well, they were close to their limits already, and the initial failure placed them immediately beyond their strength.
7. Remember also that perimeter column damage due to the plane impact had removed some of the perimeter columns' attachments to the trusses. It is entirely possible that the first bolts and welds to fail were adjacent to the areas where these attachments had been removed.
8. Once this happens, a wave of failures will move outward from the initial failure, probably in fractions of a second, and the trusses "unzip" from the perimeter or the core.
9. This places the stress on the column bracket welds and bolts on the other ends of the trusses, and this stress is clearly twice what it was on the initially failing end;
-------------------------No. If the failure was caused by the chord pulling on the columns then disconnection of one end would remove the ability of that end to transmit a force and since each action requires an equal and opposite reaction that pulling force cannot act on the other end. Once one end fails there can no longer be any strain, compressive or tensile, along the length of the member, Far from it being twice the stress, it would actually be zero.
the weight of the floor, after all, has not changed, and the collapse of the other end will have increased the angle of the top chords to these bolts and welds yet further than the bowing did. Obviously, these connections fail immediately behind their counterparts at the other ends of the trusses.
---------------------------No these connections, would no longer be subject to the mass as a tensile or compressive force transmitted through the chords. Rather the mass would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the end connection.
10. Without support at either end of the trusses, the floor falls under the influence of gravity until it hits the next floor down.
------------With the chords still connected at one end, and it being likely that the unconnected ends would be grouped in the areas of highest temperature, and thus be either on the perimeter columns, or on the core columns, rather than a random mix, the floor would pivot about the remaining connections and only one end would impact the lower floor.
I have already shown that the force involved must be well beyond the ability of that floor to support,
---------------That analysis involved the entire floor impacting the lower floor and not a proportion of it as I have shown is most likely. Furthermore the velocities used in that analysis did not take regard of the angular character of the floors fall.
[i]and if the first one struck cannot support it, how can any floor further down be expected to? And my numerical simulation shows this as well, by showing that if the forces generated by the impulse are in excess of the capacities of the floors, then conservation of momentum is all that slows the collapse,
----------------No. A major factor of the speed of collapse and indeed the question of whether a collapse would continue or be arrested, is the deceleration which the falling upper section would necessarily be required to undergo in order for it to exert sufficient force to overcome the strength in the lower section.
and by showing that if conservation of momentum is obeyed in this manner, the total time required to collapse is consistent with the observed time of collapse on the videotapes.
-----------------That analysis shows the collapse time for a tower which has no strength. In the increment of time immediately before collapse, the towers clearly still possessed the ability to stand upright. This means that they had, as a minimum, a residual strength sufficient to support the weight above them. Your analysis, having no regard even of this minimum value, gives a collapse time which could only be achieved by the sudden removal of that residual strength, in the increment of time immediately prior to collapse, or in the cases of the lower storeys during the earlier stages of collapse. A controlled demolition could do this and I can think of no other mechanism which could do this.
11. With the lateral support of the floors removed, the perimeter columns now have a degree of freedom to bow inward or outward. The Vierendeel truss action of the perimeter constrains the columns ACROSS the face of the building; but the FLOORS constrained it inward and outward, and the floors are gone.
12. Once the perimeter columns bend inward or outward, probably outward because they would be pushed that way by the falling floors, they collapse because they cannot support the vertical forces being no longer vertical themselves.
-------------If this situation arose, it would cause a buckling failure as the length of the beam which was becoming unsupported by floors was increased. The most likely buckling mode would be first phase because it requires least load to achieve this mode of failure. If buckling occurred it would necessarily follow after the initial floor collapse and even as the beam was buckling it would be losing more support as the lower floors continued to become disconnected. The buckling point would continue to lose its ability to resist the upper mass and the failure would continue at that weakest point. The result of this would be that the column would “elbow” with the hinge being the buckling point. There is no reason to suppose that the columns would then suffer fracture into sections but rather they would continue to fall with an angular component with further buckle points appearing as the upper section approached and passed the point where the initial buckling took place. The result of this would be long sections of outer perimeter column with massive bending, falling over while being connected only at the bottom-most points and at the join to the upper section.
13. Once the perimeter columns collapse, the weight of all the perimeter columns and the roof and hat truss is transmitted to the core by the hat truss.
--------------------If the perimeter columns are being compressed by the upper masses including the hat truss, whether that compression leads to failure or not, they cannot then have their weight transferred to the core columns. This would only be possible if the weight of the perimeter columns were being taken by the hat truss. Both of these things, the hat truss pushing down on the perimeter columns, and the hat truss carrying the weight of the perimeter columns, cannot happen at the same time.
14. Since the core columns are no longer constrained by the floors, they also are now free to bend outward or inward; all that constrains them is their connections to one another, and those connections were designed to hold them in concert with the floor diaphragms, not by themselves.
15. Weakened (however much or little) by the fires, the core columns bend outward or inward at the site of the fires.
------------But again there is no mechanism which would then cause fracture, so although they may buckle they would remain largely in one piece, albeit buckled, bent and twisted
16. Once bowed, the core columns collapse because they are no longer vertical and cannot support the vertical force of the "curtain" of perimeter columns and the hat truss, added to their own weight, and also including the weight of all the floors above the perimeter column failure area.
---------Already pointed out that the load arising from the mass of the perimeter columns could not act on the core.
And there you have it. I don't say it's perfect; in fact, I expect I've missed a detail here or there. And I invite criticism of it, in order to either deny it (I don't mind starting over if it's wrong) or deny small portions of it (in order to correct it). But I expect that only small details are wrong. And it is consistent with everything we can find in the videos and in the accounts of the collapses, right down to the fact that "bangs" were heard prior to the visible initiation of the collapse. Those "bangs" were the initially collapsing floors, which must have preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which must in turn have preceded the collapse of the core.
--------------------The scenario which you have detailed would result in a pile of floors one atop the other, and the outer columns bent and twisted but still mainly in one piece and many attached to each other, extending far out into the surrounding areas. This description would not be applicable to the debris site.
There are other unexplained phenomenon such as the elevated temperatures of the steel in the debris pile but that would expand the debate beyond your initial analysis so I will not include these in my reaction to your theory, except to say that a fully detailed analysis should be able to explain these phenomenon..
Note most carefully that objections that the fires were not sufficient to compromise the core or perimeter are proven correct; it was the truss rods (or their welds to the floor truss chords) that failed initially, and the bolts and welds of the top chords of the floor trusses that were the cause of the initial collapse. Being the smallest components, the truss rods failed first; that failure led to the failures of the bolts and welds of the top chords to the column brackets, and those failures to the collapse of the first floor to fall, and that fall to the collapse of the next, and those collapses to the failure of the perimeter, and that failure to the collapse of the perimeter, and that collapse to the failure of the core, and that failure finally to the global collapse of the buildings. It is not a simple matter, and it is not easy to understand, and this is good because it must be obvious that if it were easy to understand we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
And finally, note that it was NOT the difference of the site of impact that made the difference in the times the buildings stood; it was the difference of the insulation on the truss rods.
--------------The analysis falls down on several key points and postulations.
Gordon.
Metamars said,"Even Gordon can't figure this one out. "
You are correct there. I haven't got a clue. I do know that I do not deserve the "even" but thanks anyway,
Gordon
You are correct there. I haven't got a clue. I do know that I do not deserve the "even" but thanks anyway,
Gordon
gordon, it's a relief to see a serious and reasoned post. As you can imagine, it's going to take me some time to respond. I didn't want you to think I wasn't looking at it, or was ignoring it or something. And before I begin, assuming that you have retained the phlegmatic tone you have taken so far, thanks for representing your arguments reasonably and avoiding hyperbole.
Dang it, meta, quit misrepresenting it. It didn't "turn to powder," it fell down and broke apart as it did so, precisely as one would expect it to do when robbed of all its stabilizing surroundings. Look at the video. Note the falling and disintegrating (not to "powder" but to beams) that are right there in front of you.
"Schneibster said,"gordon, it's a relief to see a serious and reasoned post. As you can imagine, it's going to take me some time to respond. I didn't want you to think I wasn't looking at it, or was ignoring it or something. And before I begin, assuming that you have retained the phlegmatic tone you have taken so far, thanks for representing your arguments reasonably and avoiding hyperbole. [/i]
Thanks for the compliment. I understand the time aspect because it took me ages to respond to your post. I try not to insult, although I know that my style and tone are sometimes misunderstood.
Hope you enjoy it. Probably speak to you again over the weekend.
Gordon.
Thanks for the compliment. I understand the time aspect because it took me ages to respond to your post. I try not to insult, although I know that my style and tone are sometimes misunderstood.
Hope you enjoy it. Probably speak to you again over the weekend.
Gordon.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 11:40 PM)
Yep. No bombs in the basement. If this was a demolition, it was done by a means that has never been tested, and never been used by any demolition team before or since.
Stick THAT in your "no building has ever collapsed in a fire" pipe and smoke it.
Both buildings show it, and pictures that prove it have already been published on this thread. Here we go again, more denial.
I see no reason to continue responding to this meaningless drivel. Wise up, newton, it's over. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. When you answer my last response to you, I will consider answering this- but you might want to keep in mind that you might not WANT me to answer it.
i have never stated that no building has collapsed by fire, to begin with. you must be confusing me with someone else.
my problem isn't soley with the remainingg core falling(although, that NEEDS a GOOD explanation), it is also with the way it fell.
we are talking about the thicker, more heavy duty core here, too. it wasn't designed to stand on it's own, your right. it was however, rooted deep into bedrock, and the support was vectored at an angle with reinforcement rods, similiar to a tree, and desigend to hold up the tallest structure in the world(at the time it was built). it was designed to handle it's own mass, plus 40-60% (depending on which factoid is true) of the mass of all the floors above it.
if it was indeed buckling at the bottom, it should have cascaded to the side, domino-style, because of deflection. it would not have fallen straight down.
watch the video. it begins to tip, and then loses that momentum.
there is no mechanism to describe this rather 'new' aspect of the event.
the static pictures do not show what the video does, shniebster. that's why they are called the 'laws of motion'.
Stick THAT in your "no building has ever collapsed in a fire" pipe and smoke it.
Both buildings show it, and pictures that prove it have already been published on this thread. Here we go again, more denial.
I see no reason to continue responding to this meaningless drivel. Wise up, newton, it's over. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide. When you answer my last response to you, I will consider answering this- but you might want to keep in mind that you might not WANT me to answer it.
i have never stated that no building has collapsed by fire, to begin with. you must be confusing me with someone else.
my problem isn't soley with the remainingg core falling(although, that NEEDS a GOOD explanation), it is also with the way it fell.
we are talking about the thicker, more heavy duty core here, too. it wasn't designed to stand on it's own, your right. it was however, rooted deep into bedrock, and the support was vectored at an angle with reinforcement rods, similiar to a tree, and desigend to hold up the tallest structure in the world(at the time it was built). it was designed to handle it's own mass, plus 40-60% (depending on which factoid is true) of the mass of all the floors above it.
if it was indeed buckling at the bottom, it should have cascaded to the side, domino-style, because of deflection. it would not have fallen straight down.
watch the video. it begins to tip, and then loses that momentum.
there is no mechanism to describe this rather 'new' aspect of the event.
the static pictures do not show what the video does, shniebster. that's why they are called the 'laws of motion'.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 14 2006, 12:06 AM)
Nawww, sport, I'm callin YOU a kook.
Looks to me like you kinda missed the fact that there were TWO investigations- one was quick, by FEMA, the other was recently completed, by NIST. Having a little spelling trouble, there, sport?
FEMA is spelled F-E-M-A.
NIST is spelled N-I-S-T.
But of course, it's all the gummint to you, ain't it?
I'm wondering what kind of investigation could NIST conduct once the steel had been recycled in China?
Oh, but wait : the NIST 'investigation' was based on the ASCE collected samples, as stated in their reports.
So your claim is that NIST conducted a serious investigation, based on the ASCE half baked farce.
You're ridiculously pathetic.
Looks to me like you kinda missed the fact that there were TWO investigations- one was quick, by FEMA, the other was recently completed, by NIST. Having a little spelling trouble, there, sport?
FEMA is spelled F-E-M-A.
NIST is spelled N-I-S-T.
But of course, it's all the gummint to you, ain't it?
I'm wondering what kind of investigation could NIST conduct once the steel had been recycled in China?
Oh, but wait : the NIST 'investigation' was based on the ASCE collected samples, as stated in their reports.
So your claim is that NIST conducted a serious investigation, based on the ASCE half baked farce.
You're ridiculously pathetic.
Yeah, the fire department thinks it was a bomb...
WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION
Never again! In the wake of the World Trade Center, we are left with many thoughts-thoughts of friends lost, thoughts of devastated families, thoughts of the tremendous impact on so many lives for so many years to come. Yet, we-America's fire service-are left with one critical thought: How can we prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again?
Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.
There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in no particular order) to think about.
* Given the typical resources of most fire departments, can we be expected to handle every high-rise fire thrown at us? When was the last time your city manager asked you for a complete list of resources that you need to fight a high-rise fire, including personnel? When was the last time a high-rise building owner asked if you would like him to install a special "firefighter elevator" for your exclusive use during a high-rise fire? When was the last time a building code committee called up a "downtown" battalion chief and asked him what he thought of the unlimited area and height provisions found in all of the model building codes-is it OK if we allow a 400-story building in your battalion, Chief? The bottom line is, Can we really handle high-rise fires adequately? Who are we kidding? Isn't this the "big secret" that Chief Vincent Dunn has been talking about for years?
* Beware the truss! Frank Brannigan has been admonishing us for years about this topic. It has been reported that the World Trade Center floors were supported by lightweight steel trusses, some in excess of 50 feet long. Need we say more?
* Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the 1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire resistance do not replicate today's fires.
* The defend-in-place strategy was the wrong strategy at the World Trade Center. Many of those who ignored the directions to "stay where you are" are alive today because they self-evacuated. Do you still use defend-in-place strategies for large high-rise fires? When should you use them, and when should you not?
* We can see live broadcasts from Afghanistan, but we can't communicate via radios in many high-rise buildings. What gives?
There are many more questions, more than we have answers for. What is clear is that things must change. Where do we begin? By putting things in perspective. The World Trade Center disaster was
* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.
Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.
The World Trade Center disaster demands the most comprehensive detailed investigation possible. No event in our entire fire service history has ever come close to the magnitude of this incident.
We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident.
The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes.
Please e-mail this (italicized) call to action to:
President George W. Bush (president@whitehouse.gov)
Senator Charles Schumer (senator@schumer.senate.gov)
Senator Hillary Clinton (senator@clinton.senate.gov)
FEMA Director Joe M. Allbaugh (director@fema.gov)
and to your own congressional representatives. To obtain e-mail addresses for your representatives, go to www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm and www.house.gov/writerep/.
Francis L. Brannigan, SFPE
Glenn P. Corbett, PE
Deputy Chief (Ret.) Vincent Dunn, FDNY
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=130026
Not ONE mrntion of possible murder by the president or anyone other than the terrorist.
WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION
Never again! In the wake of the World Trade Center, we are left with many thoughts-thoughts of friends lost, thoughts of devastated families, thoughts of the tremendous impact on so many lives for so many years to come. Yet, we-America's fire service-are left with one critical thought: How can we prevent a disaster like this from ever happening again?
Yes, it was the terrorist pilots who slammed two jetliners into the Twin Towers. It was the ensuing fire, however, that brought the towers down. Make no mistake about it: This high-rise collapse was no "fluke." The temperatures experienced and heat release rates achieved at the World Trade Center could be seen in future high-rise fires.
There are many, many questions to be asked by us about the World Trade Center collapse and its implications on high-rise firefighting across the nation. Some questions are political, many are technical, others are philosophical. Here are a few (in no particular order) to think about.
* Given the typical resources of most fire departments, can we be expected to handle every high-rise fire thrown at us? When was the last time your city manager asked you for a complete list of resources that you need to fight a high-rise fire, including personnel? When was the last time a high-rise building owner asked if you would like him to install a special "firefighter elevator" for your exclusive use during a high-rise fire? When was the last time a building code committee called up a "downtown" battalion chief and asked him what he thought of the unlimited area and height provisions found in all of the model building codes-is it OK if we allow a 400-story building in your battalion, Chief? The bottom line is, Can we really handle high-rise fires adequately? Who are we kidding? Isn't this the "big secret" that Chief Vincent Dunn has been talking about for years?
* Beware the truss! Frank Brannigan has been admonishing us for years about this topic. It has been reported that the World Trade Center floors were supported by lightweight steel trusses, some in excess of 50 feet long. Need we say more?
* Modern sprayed-on steel "fireproofing" did not perform well at the World Trade Center. Haven't we always been leery about these materials? Why do many firefighters say that they would rather fight a high-rise fire in an old building than in a modern one? Isn't it because of the level of fire resistance provided? How much confidence do we have in the ASTM E-119 fire resistance test, whose test criteria were developed in the 1920s? ASTM E-119 is an antiquated test whose criteria for fire resistance do not replicate today's fires.
* The defend-in-place strategy was the wrong strategy at the World Trade Center. Many of those who ignored the directions to "stay where you are" are alive today because they self-evacuated. Do you still use defend-in-place strategies for large high-rise fires? When should you use them, and when should you not?
* We can see live broadcasts from Afghanistan, but we can't communicate via radios in many high-rise buildings. What gives?
There are many more questions, more than we have answers for. What is clear is that things must change. Where do we begin? By putting things in perspective. The World Trade Center disaster was
* The largest loss of firefighters ever at one incident.
* The second largest loss of life on American soil.
* The first total collapse of a high-rise during a fire in United States history.
* The largest structural collapse in recorded history.
Now, with that understanding, you would think we would have the largest fire investigation in world history. You would be wrong. Instead, we have a series of unconnected and uncoordinated superficial inquiries. No comprehensive "Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission." No top-notch National Transportation Safety Board-like response. Ironically, we will probably gain more detailed information about the destruction of the planes than we will about the destruction of the towers. We are literally treating the steel removed from the site like garbage, not like crucial fire scene evidence.
The World Trade Center disaster demands the most comprehensive detailed investigation possible. No event in our entire fire service history has ever come close to the magnitude of this incident.
We, the undersigned, call on FEMA to immediately impanel a "World Trade Center Disaster Review Panel" to coordinate a complete review of all aspects of the World Trade Center incident.
The panel should be charged with creating a comprehensive report that examines a variety of topics including determining exactly how and why the towers collapsed, critiquing the building evacuation procedures and the means of egress, assessing the buildings' fire protection features (steel "fireproofing," fire protection systems, etc.), and reviewing the valiant firefighting procedures employed. In addition, the Panel should be charged with preparing a detailed set of recommendations, including the critical changes necessary to our building codes.
Please e-mail this (italicized) call to action to:
President George W. Bush (president@whitehouse.gov)
Senator Charles Schumer (senator@schumer.senate.gov)
Senator Hillary Clinton (senator@clinton.senate.gov)
FEMA Director Joe M. Allbaugh (director@fema.gov)
and to your own congressional representatives. To obtain e-mail addresses for your representatives, go to www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm and www.house.gov/writerep/.
Francis L. Brannigan, SFPE
Glenn P. Corbett, PE
Deputy Chief (Ret.) Vincent Dunn, FDNY
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=130026
Not ONE mrntion of possible murder by the president or anyone other than the terrorist.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 13 2006, 11:03 PM)
common sense, you're the one with ridiculous lies.
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
So tell me, how stupid do you feel right about now...
The FDNY cried for an investigation. There was an article in Fire Engineering magazine, that called the 'investigation' a half baked farce, asking for an end to the removal of the evidence from the crime scene. To no effect, of course.
And, of course, it slipped by you.
So tell me, how stupid do you feel right about now...
hey guys!
i've got an idea.
let's get the government to publicise the blueprints and specs!!!
wouldn't that be great!
we could put an end to this 'non-sense conspire-arsey theory'.
i mean, what's the point in hiding them?
are the terrorists gonna rebuild the towers and apologize?
are the laws of physical reality going to terrorise us?
ARE YOUR LOGIC ARE BELONG TO US!
i've got an idea.
let's get the government to publicise the blueprints and specs!!!
wouldn't that be great!
we could put an end to this 'non-sense conspire-arsey theory'.
i mean, what's the point in hiding them?
are the terrorists gonna rebuild the towers and apologize?
are the laws of physical reality going to terrorise us?
ARE YOUR LOGIC ARE BELONG TO US!
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 11:40 PM)
QUOTE (newton+)
that spire no longer has any 'burden' on it. so, why did IT fall down.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54254
Very lame YID... The core did have 'Proper' internal lateral support.
How many times do I have to remind you? The central core was NOT simply a 'suspended-floors' engineering design (like unto the truss-floors between the core and the perimeter columns)... It WAS constructed (Contrary to the NOVA / FEMA / Eagar Fairy Tale), in the same post & lintel constuction method that all previous buildings were based upon...
(from) --- http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
Ehhh?... you don't believe the above graphic representation? How about this page from NIST which confirms the above?
WHY do you keep ignoring this?
The 'lateral support' for the central core columns was derived from the huge interconnecting transverse beams between those columns...NOT from the lightweight truss floors...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Right ! You sure have ME convinced.
Try again.
Gordon is much better with the appropriate words than I, But the above pictures speak a thousand words, and support exactly what he is is trying to communicate in words with the ridiculous 'Hammock Analogy'.
No one (in their right mind) can believe that a couple of 1" bolts can pull such structures out-of-plumb, and cause 'buckling' of those columns.
Good Night... pancakers.
Sweet dreams in the land of Fairy Tales.
Now the tough one: is the bar undergoing tension stress, or compression stress? Tension, obviously.
OK, so how does the hammock fit in? Well, it undergoes tension stress, and at its suspension points, the force vector is diagonally downward and in toward the center of the hammock. Looks like a pretty good analogy to me, long as you don't try to stretch it too far.
And I have to ask you: why do you bother to state, "A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression?" You're talking only about the top half of the beam. Well, gee, I think that you'll find that we're not really very interested in the beam itself. It doesn't look like the top chords of the trusses failed, does it? It looks like what failed is the connections of those trusses to the column brackets. So I guess we're not really very interested in what happened to individual portions of the top chord, we're more interested in what happened to the top chord as a whole.
So basically what this looks like is you're denying the hammock analogy on grounds that it doesn't represent behavior it never was supposed to represent anyway. I might aggressively have concluded that you were obfuscating, but it's clear now that you've taken the time you have that you're just being pedantic. As with any analogy, you have to be careful that everyone agrees to and understands the range of application, since analogies merely represent what seems important to the person making them about the situation being analogized. I think also that the type of analogy chosen can tell quite a lot about the thinking of the one making it as to what is important and what is unimportant, and since it's pretty clear to me that the tension stress on the couplings of the top chords to the brackets is important, and the stress (clearly both tension and compression) on the top chord is not, I'd say you might have done a better job of listening rather than concluding in advance that what was being said was wrong and proceeding to "disprove" it on pedantic grounds that had nothing to do with the important characteristics of the situation at hand. You need to work on that.
Well, gee, I dunno, maybe because it wasn't designed to stand on its own? Because it was unstable because the rest of the building just got done falling down around it?
Maybe it was the reptilians. Or the mini-nukes.
So Sport , now we have the Schneibster Sucking Air Theory . The falling trusses and floors create a vacuum in the central core area. The sucking action removes the concrete and wallboard from the steel lattice. The steel columns and girders then proceed to self-destruct in a downward direction because of insufficient lateral truss supports.
Here are some other ridicules variations of theories Schneibster and friends have put forth :
Collapse Theories
Theories Purport to Explain the Unexplainable
All theories to be taken seriously must explain the collapses of the Twin Towers as the result of some chain of events triggered by the jet collisions. To this end a variety of "theories" have been advanced. They range from vague notions of forces too immense to imagine, to incomplete arguments with abundant hand waving nevertheless dignified by publication.
• Core meltdown is more a notion than a theory. It is invoked through comparing the heat of the building fires to that of nuclear power plants, and supposes that the fires melted the structural steel. This theory can be used in conjunction with a pancake theory, but usually the idea of core meltdown is so compelling by itself that the pancake scenario isn't required. Since the core meltdown theory isn't endorsed by any official government report, it is frequently used in straw-man attacks against challenges to the official story, as in articles in Scientific American and Popular Mechanics .
• The pancake theory is the root of all the official building collapse theories. The mass of the overhanging part of the building simply crushes the part underneath, accelerating as it falls. Pancake theories are sometimes called progressive collapse theories . The two major variants of the pancake theory are the column failure theory, endorsed by FEMA, and the truss failure theory, endorsed by NIST.
• The column failure theory holds that the fires weakened the columns on at least one floor sufficiently to cause the columns to buckle, and the upper section of the building to come falling down. To explain how all the columns on one level could suddenly collapse, column failure theories sometimes feature collapse initiation theories.
• The creep buckling theory explains how the weakening of some columns due to heat could cause them to buckle, starting the spread of a kind of buckle contagion through the remaining columns.
• The progressing column instability theory is apparently very similar to the creep buckling theory, but allows the columns to spread failure contagion without buckling. This theory is a key ingredient in NIST's Global Analysis .
Once the columns fail in unison, it is still necessary to crush the rest of the tower from top to bottom.
• The pile-driver theory supposes that the top of each tower acted like a giant battering ram, crushing the intact portion of the tower from top to bottom.
• The truss failure theory blames trusses under the floors, which are more easily heated than columns, and/or their connections to the columns. The failure of the floor trusses precipitates a chain reaction of floors falling on one another, which in turn leads to total building collapse. To explain how a whole floor could fall, despite uneven fire stress, requires a truss failure contagion theory.
• The zipper theory explains how all of the trusses on a floor could fall in rapid succession because of a domino-effect failure of their column connections. The zipper theory is much easier to understand if one erases the perpendicular cross-trusses and floor pans and imagines the floor as a series of parallel trusses resting on weak angle brackets.
Once the first floor falls on the second, it must somehow exceed the design loads of the one below, which should have been able to easily absorb the weight of the first floor falling about nine feet, especially if it didn't fall all at once. Theories that explain this generally blame some aspect of building design and/or materials.
• The angle bracket theory explains the cascade of floor collapses below the fire zone by suggesting that engineers forgot to apply normal overdesign rules when designing the column connections of the floor trusses. Describing the welded steel shelves that supported the truss ends as angle brackets helps us imagine this.
Once the floor diaphragms have started to pancake down between the core and outer wall, it is still necessary to dispose of the dense steel grid constituting the outer wall, and the steel lattice of the core structure. This requires some form of sudden column failure theory. Such theories are usually only implied in tellings of the truss failure theory. Sections of the outer wall and core structure are supposed to immediately collapse from lack of lateral support once the floor diaphragms fall away. Since the perimeter wall and core structure were easily self-supporting except possibly in high winds, sudden column failure theories usually take some liberties in describing the architecture of the perimeter wall and core structures.
• The column splice failure theory has the outer wall breaking up along column splice connections between the three-story-high by three-column-wide prefabricated sections. This theory is easier to accept if one forgets that every set of three column splice connections was surrounded on both sides by six continuous column spans, bound to the spliced columns above and below by horizontal spandrel plates four feet high.
• The freestanding core column theory has the core columns suddenly buckling catastrophically due to lack of lateral support from the floor diaphragms. This theory depends at least on the core columns being freestanding, in contrast to construction photos that show them to be cross-braced by horizontal beams and diagonal trussing.
• The shockwave theory postulates some unspecified "shockwave" which travels ahead of the crushing mass, breaking up the building. Shockwave theories tend to be found in amateur attempts at accounting for the building collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/index.html
Maybe it was the reptilians. Or the mini-nukes.
So Sport , now we have the Schneibster Sucking Air Theory . The falling trusses and floors create a vacuum in the central core area. The sucking action removes the concrete and wallboard from the steel lattice. The steel columns and girders then proceed to self-destruct in a downward direction because of insufficient lateral truss supports.
Here are some other ridicules variations of theories Schneibster and friends have put forth :
Collapse Theories
Theories Purport to Explain the Unexplainable
All theories to be taken seriously must explain the collapses of the Twin Towers as the result of some chain of events triggered by the jet collisions. To this end a variety of "theories" have been advanced. They range from vague notions of forces too immense to imagine, to incomplete arguments with abundant hand waving nevertheless dignified by publication.
• Core meltdown is more a notion than a theory. It is invoked through comparing the heat of the building fires to that of nuclear power plants, and supposes that the fires melted the structural steel. This theory can be used in conjunction with a pancake theory, but usually the idea of core meltdown is so compelling by itself that the pancake scenario isn't required. Since the core meltdown theory isn't endorsed by any official government report, it is frequently used in straw-man attacks against challenges to the official story, as in articles in Scientific American and Popular Mechanics .
• The pancake theory is the root of all the official building collapse theories. The mass of the overhanging part of the building simply crushes the part underneath, accelerating as it falls. Pancake theories are sometimes called progressive collapse theories . The two major variants of the pancake theory are the column failure theory, endorsed by FEMA, and the truss failure theory, endorsed by NIST.
• The column failure theory holds that the fires weakened the columns on at least one floor sufficiently to cause the columns to buckle, and the upper section of the building to come falling down. To explain how all the columns on one level could suddenly collapse, column failure theories sometimes feature collapse initiation theories.
• The creep buckling theory explains how the weakening of some columns due to heat could cause them to buckle, starting the spread of a kind of buckle contagion through the remaining columns.
• The progressing column instability theory is apparently very similar to the creep buckling theory, but allows the columns to spread failure contagion without buckling. This theory is a key ingredient in NIST's Global Analysis .
Once the columns fail in unison, it is still necessary to crush the rest of the tower from top to bottom.
• The pile-driver theory supposes that the top of each tower acted like a giant battering ram, crushing the intact portion of the tower from top to bottom.
• The truss failure theory blames trusses under the floors, which are more easily heated than columns, and/or their connections to the columns. The failure of the floor trusses precipitates a chain reaction of floors falling on one another, which in turn leads to total building collapse. To explain how a whole floor could fall, despite uneven fire stress, requires a truss failure contagion theory.
• The zipper theory explains how all of the trusses on a floor could fall in rapid succession because of a domino-effect failure of their column connections. The zipper theory is much easier to understand if one erases the perpendicular cross-trusses and floor pans and imagines the floor as a series of parallel trusses resting on weak angle brackets.
Once the first floor falls on the second, it must somehow exceed the design loads of the one below, which should have been able to easily absorb the weight of the first floor falling about nine feet, especially if it didn't fall all at once. Theories that explain this generally blame some aspect of building design and/or materials.
• The angle bracket theory explains the cascade of floor collapses below the fire zone by suggesting that engineers forgot to apply normal overdesign rules when designing the column connections of the floor trusses. Describing the welded steel shelves that supported the truss ends as angle brackets helps us imagine this.
Once the floor diaphragms have started to pancake down between the core and outer wall, it is still necessary to dispose of the dense steel grid constituting the outer wall, and the steel lattice of the core structure. This requires some form of sudden column failure theory. Such theories are usually only implied in tellings of the truss failure theory. Sections of the outer wall and core structure are supposed to immediately collapse from lack of lateral support once the floor diaphragms fall away. Since the perimeter wall and core structure were easily self-supporting except possibly in high winds, sudden column failure theories usually take some liberties in describing the architecture of the perimeter wall and core structures.
• The column splice failure theory has the outer wall breaking up along column splice connections between the three-story-high by three-column-wide prefabricated sections. This theory is easier to accept if one forgets that every set of three column splice connections was surrounded on both sides by six continuous column spans, bound to the spliced columns above and below by horizontal spandrel plates four feet high.
• The freestanding core column theory has the core columns suddenly buckling catastrophically due to lack of lateral support from the floor diaphragms. This theory depends at least on the core columns being freestanding, in contrast to construction photos that show them to be cross-braced by horizontal beams and diagonal trussing.
• The shockwave theory postulates some unspecified "shockwave" which travels ahead of the crushing mass, breaking up the building. Shockwave theories tend to be found in amateur attempts at accounting for the building collapse.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/index.html
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 14 2006, 12:49 AM)
Dang it, meta, quit misrepresenting it. It didn't "turn to powder," it fell down and broke apart as it did so, precisely as one would expect it to do when robbed of all its stabilizing surroundings. Look at the video. Note the falling and disintegrating (not to "powder" but to beams) that are right there in front of you.
It globally* disintegrated, with the end results that nothing but powder was visible. The top could not have disappeared from view so quickly, merely by falling.
Perhaps you are implying that it disintegrated into small pieces (as opposed to powder), and that these pieces were not visible as such.
But even if you claim this, you are still begging the question.
And the answer to that question is certainly not found in any of my textbooks, either. If it is found in yours, do tell.
* What was visible. We can't see what was going on at the very bottom.
It globally* disintegrated, with the end results that nothing but powder was visible. The top could not have disappeared from view so quickly, merely by falling.
Perhaps you are implying that it disintegrated into small pieces (as opposed to powder), and that these pieces were not visible as such.
But even if you claim this, you are still begging the question.
And the answer to that question is certainly not found in any of my textbooks, either. If it is found in yours, do tell.
* What was visible. We can't see what was going on at the very bottom.
QUOTE
Originally posted by The YID
And that is not all of course. A tall structure must obey certain laws if it is to stand on its own. Too tall without proper lateral support and it will buckle under its own weight.
And that is not all of course. A tall structure must obey certain laws if it is to stand on its own. Too tall without proper lateral support and it will buckle under its own weight.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54254
Very lame YID... The core did have 'Proper' internal lateral support.
How many times do I have to remind you? The central core was NOT simply a 'suspended-floors' engineering design (like unto the truss-floors between the core and the perimeter columns)... It WAS constructed (Contrary to the NOVA / FEMA / Eagar Fairy Tale), in the same post & lintel constuction method that all previous buildings were based upon...
(from) --- http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/untitled001.html
Ehhh?... you don't believe the above graphic representation? How about this page from NIST which confirms the above?
WHY do you keep ignoring this?
The 'lateral support' for the central core columns was derived from the huge interconnecting transverse beams between those columns...NOT from the lightweight truss floors...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/core_beams.html
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Right ! You sure have ME convinced.
Try again.Gordon is much better with the appropriate words than I, But the above pictures speak a thousand words, and support exactly what he is is trying to communicate in words with the ridiculous 'Hammock Analogy'.
No one (in their right mind) can believe that a couple of 1" bolts can pull such structures out-of-plumb, and cause 'buckling' of those columns.
Good Night... pancakers.
Sweet dreams in the land of Fairy Tales.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 02:09 AM)
Yeah, the fire department thinks it was a bomb...
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
QUOTE
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy nuts it’s all these people because none want an investigation…
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
QUOTE
Schneibster replied
Well, the top chord doesn't have any struts any more after they fail in compression. So it looks pretty much like a hammock to me.
---------------Maybe therein lies the root of the problem.
No part of the floors were made of string. Any analogy between a rigid steel structure and a web of string is false.
A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression. A piece of string is unable to do this, so is unable to emulate a beam even on such a basic level as supporting its own weight.
Why do you need this analogy, whether it is good or not? Steel is easy to understand and it is very predictable. It just keeps on doing the same stuff as it has always done.
OK, let's get graphic: if you have a bar of steel suspended from its ends, and you load it with a heavy enough weight to bend it (but still within its elastic limit), what happens to the bar? It sags in the middle. OK, now what is the vector of the force at the ends of the bar? Diagonally downward, toward the middle of the bar. Finally, how does that vector force vary from the vector force of the bar alone? The original vector was directly downward, the new vector is diagonally down and toward the center of the bar. Well, the top chord doesn't have any struts any more after they fail in compression. So it looks pretty much like a hammock to me.
---------------Maybe therein lies the root of the problem.
No part of the floors were made of string. Any analogy between a rigid steel structure and a web of string is false.
A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression. A piece of string is unable to do this, so is unable to emulate a beam even on such a basic level as supporting its own weight.
Why do you need this analogy, whether it is good or not? Steel is easy to understand and it is very predictable. It just keeps on doing the same stuff as it has always done.
Now the tough one: is the bar undergoing tension stress, or compression stress? Tension, obviously.
OK, so how does the hammock fit in? Well, it undergoes tension stress, and at its suspension points, the force vector is diagonally downward and in toward the center of the hammock. Looks like a pretty good analogy to me, long as you don't try to stretch it too far.
And I have to ask you: why do you bother to state, "A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression?" You're talking only about the top half of the beam. Well, gee, I think that you'll find that we're not really very interested in the beam itself. It doesn't look like the top chords of the trusses failed, does it? It looks like what failed is the connections of those trusses to the column brackets. So I guess we're not really very interested in what happened to individual portions of the top chord, we're more interested in what happened to the top chord as a whole.
So basically what this looks like is you're denying the hammock analogy on grounds that it doesn't represent behavior it never was supposed to represent anyway. I might aggressively have concluded that you were obfuscating, but it's clear now that you've taken the time you have that you're just being pedantic. As with any analogy, you have to be careful that everyone agrees to and understands the range of application, since analogies merely represent what seems important to the person making them about the situation being analogized. I think also that the type of analogy chosen can tell quite a lot about the thinking of the one making it as to what is important and what is unimportant, and since it's pretty clear to me that the tension stress on the couplings of the top chords to the brackets is important, and the stress (clearly both tension and compression) on the top chord is not, I'd say you might have done a better job of listening rather than concluding in advance that what was being said was wrong and proceeding to "disprove" it on pedantic grounds that had nothing to do with the important characteristics of the situation at hand. You need to work on that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Schneibster replied Well, the top chord doesn't have any struts any more after they fail in compression. So it looks pretty much like a hammock to me. ---------------Maybe therein lies the root of the problem. No part of the floors were made of string. Any analogy between a rigid steel structure and a web of string is false. A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression. A piece of string is unable to do this, so is unable to emulate a beam even on such a basic level as supporting its own weight. Why do you need this analogy, whether it is good or not? Steel is easy to understand and it is very predictable. It just keeps on doing the same stuff as it has always done. |
OK, let's get graphic: if you have a bar of steel suspended from its ends, and you load it with a heavy enough weight to bend it (but still within its elastic limit), what happens to the bar? It sags in the middle. OK, now what is the vector of the force at the ends of the bar? Diagonally downward, toward the middle of the bar. Finally, how does that vector force vary from the vector force of the bar alone? The original vector was directly downward, the new vector is diagonally down and toward the center of the bar.
Now the tough one: is the bar undergoing tension stress, or compression stress? Tension, obviously.
OK, so how does the hammock fit in? Well, it undergoes tension stress, and at its suspension points, the force vector is diagonally downward and in toward the center of the hammock. Looks like a pretty good analogy to me, long as you don't try to stretch it too far.
And I have to ask you: why do you bother to state, "A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression?" You're talking only about the top half of the beam. Well, gee, I think that you'll find that we're not really very interested in the beam itself. It doesn't look like the top chords of the trusses failed, does it? It looks like what failed is the connections of those trusses to the column brackets. So I guess we're not really very interested in what happened to individual portions of the top chord, we're more interested in what happened to the top chord as a whole.
So basically what this looks like is you're denying the hammock analogy on grounds that it doesn't represent behavior it never was supposed to represent anyway. I might aggressively have concluded that you were obfuscating, but it's clear now that you've taken the time you have that you're just being pedantic. As with any analogy, you have to be careful that everyone agrees to and understands the range of application, since analogies merely represent what seems important to the person making them about the situation being analogized. I think also that the type of analogy chosen can tell quite a lot about the thinking of the one making it as to what is important and what is unimportant, and since it's pretty clear to me that the tension stress on the couplings of the top chords to the brackets is important, and the stress (clearly both tension and compression) on the top chord is not, I'd say you might have done a better job of listening rather than concluding in advance that what was being said was wrong and proceeding to "disprove" it on pedantic grounds that had nothing to do with the important characteristics of the situation at hand. You need to work on that.
Clearly, there is no EXTRA force placed on the perimeter or core; Yes there is. There is the thermally induced expansion of the horizontal steel beams acting outwards on the perimeter columns and inward on the core columns, something that pieces of string will be unable to emulate.
Now the tough one: is the bar undergoing tension stress, or compression stress? Tension, obviously.
OK, so how does the hammock fit in? Well, it undergoes tension stress, and at its suspension points, the force vector is diagonally downward and in toward the center of the hammock. Looks like a pretty good analogy to me, long as you don't try to stretch it too far.
And I have to ask you: why do you bother to state, "A gravity load on a beam caused by its mass or a mass placed upon it will cause those sections of the beam which are above the neutral line, to move into compression?" You're talking only about the top half of the beam. Well, gee, I think that you'll find that we're not really very interested in the beam itself. It doesn't look like the top chords of the trusses failed, does it? It looks like what failed is the connections of those trusses to the column brackets. So I guess we're not really very interested in what happened to individual portions of the top chord, we're more interested in what happened to the top chord as a whole.
So basically what this looks like is you're denying the hammock analogy on grounds that it doesn't represent behavior it never was supposed to represent anyway. I might aggressively have concluded that you were obfuscating, but it's clear now that you've taken the time you have that you're just being pedantic. As with any analogy, you have to be careful that everyone agrees to and understands the range of application, since analogies merely represent what seems important to the person making them about the situation being analogized. I think also that the type of analogy chosen can tell quite a lot about the thinking of the one making it as to what is important and what is unimportant, and since it's pretty clear to me that the tension stress on the couplings of the top chords to the brackets is important, and the stress (clearly both tension and compression) on the top chord is not, I'd say you might have done a better job of listening rather than concluding in advance that what was being said was wrong and proceeding to "disprove" it on pedantic grounds that had nothing to do with the important characteristics of the situation at hand. You need to work on that.
Clearly, there is no EXTRA force placed on the perimeter or core; Yes there is. There is the thermally induced expansion of the horizontal steel beams acting outwards on the perimeter columns and inward on the core columns, something that pieces of string will be unable to emulate.
No, that only happens if the beam isn't loaded, or if the loading is compensated by the existence of the truss rods. But this beam IS loaded, and the truss rods are GONE. So that means that the beam is bowing downward.
My bad; I should have stated that there was no extra force on the brackets, not the columns.
The top chords RESTED ON TOP of the brackets; the bolt went down through the top chord and bracket and was fastened underneath; and the top chord was then welded to the top of the bracket around its perimeter. As long as the truss rods maintained it, the top chord would remain straight; the purpose of the truss rods is to maintain this situation despite the static loading of the deck and any dynamic load. One could use a thicker top chord, but the truss rod system is lighter and very nearly as strong, and the visco-elastic damping would not then be possible without compromising the truss-to-column attachments.
Here is the problem with your pulley: you have attempted to model the brackets, the bracket-to-column connections, and the bracket-to-top-chord connections as if they were one piece, but they are not. We will see the consequences of this in a moment.
So in the system's ideal state, there is NO shear force on the bolts (and in its normal state, in the absence of wind, there is none or very little- the deck would have sagged very slightly, but the allowed tolerance for this was no more than a millimeter or two; I remember remarking on the very close tolerances and the ingenious design that permitted them with a minimum of weight). The shear force is on the brackets' attachments to the columns, and is vertically directed. The bolts are there ONLY to make sure that the top chord stays on top of the bracket. They in fact take NO FORCE AT ALL except when the building sways. When the building sways, shear forces are placed on the bolts and welds. But these shear forces are mitigated by the visco-elastic damping.
Note that the pulley has NO equivalent to these connections.
When the truss rods are no longer stabilizing the top chord, it sags in the middle. When it sags in the middle, it is no longer straight, and therefore cannot reach as far. This places the top chord in tension, specifically it places the attachments of the top chord to the brackets, that is, the bolts and welds, in tension. This tension has a horizontal component, and a vertical component. The sum of these vectors is equal to the weight of the floor, including trusses, decking, and any dynamic load; this is the same shear load that was formerly placed on the brackets and directed vertically, due to the fact that the top chord was prevented from sagging. However, now, by your cosine formula, some of this force is horizontal, placing shear stress on the bolts and the welds of the top chords to the brackets. Note however that the stress upon the bracket-to-column connections is identical in magnitude to its original value, only its direction has changed.
Note that the pulley correctly models ONLY the bracket-to-column connection.
Most likely, then, the bracket-to-column connections will not fail under this load; it probably doesn't matter what angle the force is at, since the shear force will be the most likely one to cause failure, and being built to withstand that, they can surely withstand the lesser forces. This is the point you made above about the strength-to-stress ratio actually being GREATER when the vector of the force changes. The problem is, it's true for the bracket-to-column connections, but not for the bracket-to-top-chord connections.
Now, the bracket-to-top-chord connections are in peril, because they are experiencing shear forces they were never designed to withstand. Swaying they can withstand; but as the sag increases (as the top chord heats, both due to expansion and weakening), the sine/cosine formula places a greater and greater fraction of the force, which is the gravity load of the floor, in shear on them. Furthermore, these bolts and welds are also heating up, reducing their strength. At some point, the weakened bolts and welds succumb to the forces they were never designed to withstand, and the top chord disconnects from the bracket.
It is possible that my sources are wrong, and the top chords were only secured with welds, but my experience is that this would not be permitted in the design; and in any case, this would be far more likely to rupture than the bolt-and-weld combination. It is also possible that the brackets were secured to the columns by both a bolt and a weld; this is immaterial in this scenario, since I do not postulate the failure of these connections.
My bad; I should have stated that there was no extra force on the brackets, not the columns.
QUOTE
OK Let us carry out this “simple vector calculation.” A horizontal beam is made to pull on a wall by way of using a mass m through a frictionless pulley. The pulley’s position can be adjusted so as to allow a varying angle of incidence. The mass remains the same and the pulley remains frictionless thus allowing a constant force mg to be transmitted through the beam. The force can be resolved into its horizontal (Fh) and vertical (Fv) components such that Fh = cos a * mg and Fv = sin a * mg where a is the angle between the beam and the normal to the wall.
With the beam horizontal
Fh = mg and Fv = 0
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 30 degrees then
Fh = 0.866mg and Fv = 0.5mg
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 45 degrees then
Fh = 0.707mg and Fv = 0.707mg
So we can see that the horizontal component of the load Fh is at a maximum when the beams are horizontal and as the angle a, is changed that horizontal component decreases and the vertical component increases. So now examining the connections between the columns and chords we can see that the maximum shear force on the bolts would occur when the beam was horizontal. As the chord moved from the horizontal, other forces would be set up including a longitudinal tension in the bolt..
So your statement “with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.” is demonstrably untrue. In fact, exactly the opposite would be true.
I don't like your pulley, not to mention it's not precisely clear to me how this is meant to model the brackets/bolts/welds. Your cosine and sine formulae are correct. Let's see why I don't like the pulley. With the beam horizontal
Fh = mg and Fv = 0
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 30 degrees then
Fh = 0.866mg and Fv = 0.5mg
With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 45 degrees then
Fh = 0.707mg and Fv = 0.707mg
So we can see that the horizontal component of the load Fh is at a maximum when the beams are horizontal and as the angle a, is changed that horizontal component decreases and the vertical component increases. So now examining the connections between the columns and chords we can see that the maximum shear force on the bolts would occur when the beam was horizontal. As the chord moved from the horizontal, other forces would be set up including a longitudinal tension in the bolt..
So your statement “with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.” is demonstrably untrue. In fact, exactly the opposite would be true.
The top chords RESTED ON TOP of the brackets; the bolt went down through the top chord and bracket and was fastened underneath; and the top chord was then welded to the top of the bracket around its perimeter. As long as the truss rods maintained it, the top chord would remain straight; the purpose of the truss rods is to maintain this situation despite the static loading of the deck and any dynamic load. One could use a thicker top chord, but the truss rod system is lighter and very nearly as strong, and the visco-elastic damping would not then be possible without compromising the truss-to-column attachments.
Here is the problem with your pulley: you have attempted to model the brackets, the bracket-to-column connections, and the bracket-to-top-chord connections as if they were one piece, but they are not. We will see the consequences of this in a moment.
So in the system's ideal state, there is NO shear force on the bolts (and in its normal state, in the absence of wind, there is none or very little- the deck would have sagged very slightly, but the allowed tolerance for this was no more than a millimeter or two; I remember remarking on the very close tolerances and the ingenious design that permitted them with a minimum of weight). The shear force is on the brackets' attachments to the columns, and is vertically directed. The bolts are there ONLY to make sure that the top chord stays on top of the bracket. They in fact take NO FORCE AT ALL except when the building sways. When the building sways, shear forces are placed on the bolts and welds. But these shear forces are mitigated by the visco-elastic damping.
Note that the pulley has NO equivalent to these connections.
When the truss rods are no longer stabilizing the top chord, it sags in the middle. When it sags in the middle, it is no longer straight, and therefore cannot reach as far. This places the top chord in tension, specifically it places the attachments of the top chord to the brackets, that is, the bolts and welds, in tension. This tension has a horizontal component, and a vertical component. The sum of these vectors is equal to the weight of the floor, including trusses, decking, and any dynamic load; this is the same shear load that was formerly placed on the brackets and directed vertically, due to the fact that the top chord was prevented from sagging. However, now, by your cosine formula, some of this force is horizontal, placing shear stress on the bolts and the welds of the top chords to the brackets. Note however that the stress upon the bracket-to-column connections is identical in magnitude to its original value, only its direction has changed.
Note that the pulley correctly models ONLY the bracket-to-column connection.
Most likely, then, the bracket-to-column connections will not fail under this load; it probably doesn't matter what angle the force is at, since the shear force will be the most likely one to cause failure, and being built to withstand that, they can surely withstand the lesser forces. This is the point you made above about the strength-to-stress ratio actually being GREATER when the vector of the force changes. The problem is, it's true for the bracket-to-column connections, but not for the bracket-to-top-chord connections.
Now, the bracket-to-top-chord connections are in peril, because they are experiencing shear forces they were never designed to withstand. Swaying they can withstand; but as the sag increases (as the top chord heats, both due to expansion and weakening), the sine/cosine formula places a greater and greater fraction of the force, which is the gravity load of the floor, in shear on them. Furthermore, these bolts and welds are also heating up, reducing their strength. At some point, the weakened bolts and welds succumb to the forces they were never designed to withstand, and the top chord disconnects from the bracket.
It is possible that my sources are wrong, and the top chords were only secured with welds, but my experience is that this would not be permitted in the design; and in any case, this would be far more likely to rupture than the bolt-and-weld combination. It is also possible that the brackets were secured to the columns by both a bolt and a weld; this is immaterial in this scenario, since I do not postulate the failure of these connections.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| OK Let us carry out this “simple vector calculation.” A horizontal beam is made to pull on a wall by way of using a mass m through a frictionless pulley. The pulley’s position can be adjusted so as to allow a varying angle of incidence. The mass remains the same and the pulley remains frictionless thus allowing a constant force mg to be transmitted through the beam. The force can be resolved into its horizontal (Fh) and vertical (Fv) components such that Fh = cos a * mg and Fv = sin a * mg where a is the angle between the beam and the normal to the wall. With the beam horizontal Fh = mg and Fv = 0 With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 30 degrees then Fh = 0.866mg and Fv = 0.5mg With the beam sagging so as to give an angle a of 45 degrees then Fh = 0.707mg and Fv = 0.707mg So we can see that the horizontal component of the load Fh is at a maximum when the beams are horizontal and as the angle a, is changed that horizontal component decreases and the vertical component increases. So now examining the connections between the columns and chords we can see that the maximum shear force on the bolts would occur when the beam was horizontal. As the chord moved from the horizontal, other forces would be set up including a longitudinal tension in the bolt.. So your statement “with the shearing stress directed along the axes of the top chords increasing to the limit of the weight as the angle approaches the limit of the vertical.” is demonstrably untrue. In fact, exactly the opposite would be true. |
I don't like your pulley, not to mention it's not precisely clear to me how this is meant to model the brackets/bolts/welds. Your cosine and sine formulae are correct. Let's see why I don't like the pulley.
The top chords RESTED ON TOP of the brackets; the bolt went down through the top chord and bracket and was fastened underneath; and the top chord was then welded to the top of the bracket around its perimeter. As long as the truss rods maintained it, the top chord would remain straight; the purpose of the truss rods is to maintain this situation despite the static loading of the deck and any dynamic load. One could use a thicker top chord, but the truss rod system is lighter and very nearly as strong, and the visco-elastic damping would not then be possible without compromising the truss-to-column attachments.
Here is the problem with your pulley: you have attempted to model the brackets, the bracket-to-column connections, and the bracket-to-top-chord connections as if they were one piece, but they are not. We will see the consequences of this in a moment.
So in the system's ideal state, there is NO shear force on the bolts (and in its normal state, in the absence of wind, there is none or very little- the deck would have sagged very slightly, but the allowed tolerance for this was no more than a millimeter or two; I remember remarking on the very close tolerances and the ingenious design that permitted them with a minimum of weight). The shear force is on the brackets' attachments to the columns, and is vertically directed. The bolts are there ONLY to make sure that the top chord stays on top of the bracket. They in fact take NO FORCE AT ALL except when the building sways. When the building sways, shear forces are placed on the bolts and welds. But these shear forces are mitigated by the visco-elastic damping.
Note that the pulley has NO equivalent to these connections.
When the truss rods are no longer stabilizing the top chord, it sags in the middle. When it sags in the middle, it is no longer straight, and therefore cannot reach as far. This places the top chord in tension, specifically it places the attachments of the top chord to the brackets, that is, the bolts and welds, in tension. This tension has a horizontal component, and a vertical component. The sum of these vectors is equal to the weight of the floor, including trusses, decking, and any dynamic load; this is the same shear load that was formerly placed on the brackets and directed vertically, due to the fact that the top chord was prevented from sagging. However, now, by your cosine formula, some of this force is horizontal, placing shear stress on the bolts and the welds of the top chords to the brackets. Note however that the stress upon the bracket-to-column connections is identical in magnitude to its original value, only its direction has changed.
Note that the pulley correctly models ONLY the bracket-to-column connection.
Most likely, then, the bracket-to-column connections will not fail under this load; it probably doesn't matter what angle the force is at, since the shear force will be the most likely one to cause failure, and being built to withstand that, they can surely withstand the lesser forces. This is the point you made above about the strength-to-stress ratio actually being GREATER when the vector of the force changes. The problem is, it's true for the bracket-to-column connections, but not for the bracket-to-top-chord connections.
Now, the bracket-to-top-chord connections are in peril, because they are experiencing shear forces they were never designed to withstand. Swaying they can withstand; but as the sag increases (as the top chord heats, both due to expansion and weakening), the sine/cosine formula places a greater and greater fraction of the force, which is the gravity load of the floor, in shear on them. Furthermore, these bolts and welds are also heating up, reducing their strength. At some point, the weakened bolts and welds succumb to the forces they were never designed to withstand, and the top chord disconnects from the bracket.
It is possible that my sources are wrong, and the top chords were only secured with welds, but my experience is that this would not be permitted in the design; and in any case, this would be far more likely to rupture than the bolt-and-weld combination. It is also possible that the brackets were secured to the columns by both a bolt and a weld; this is immaterial in this scenario, since I do not postulate the failure of these connections.
the truss rods would come under greater and greater compression stress added to their existing compression stress holding the top chord straight.
Whether the effect is mitigated merely affects how long they last, not whether or not they fail.
-------------No. Whether or not they would fail would be dependent on the relative strains of the other members since prior failure in the other members would undoubtedly alter the situation. The member with the highest compressive strain would be the upper chord, for reasons of its position relative to the neutral line dictating that it had the highest component of pre-existing compressive load from the floor mass and load, as well as the thermal strain, and because it was also the least able to relieve its strain through sagging because of the additional stiffness of the concrete.
The top chords RESTED ON TOP of the brackets; the bolt went down through the top chord and bracket and was fastened underneath; and the top chord was then welded to the top of the bracket around its perimeter. As long as the truss rods maintained it, the top chord would remain straight; the purpose of the truss rods is to maintain this situation despite the static loading of the deck and any dynamic load. One could use a thicker top chord, but the truss rod system is lighter and very nearly as strong, and the visco-elastic damping would not then be possible without compromising the truss-to-column attachments.
Here is the problem with your pulley: you have attempted to model the brackets, the bracket-to-column connections, and the bracket-to-top-chord connections as if they were one piece, but they are not. We will see the consequences of this in a moment.
So in the system's ideal state, there is NO shear force on the bolts (and in its normal state, in the absence of wind, there is none or very little- the deck would have sagged very slightly, but the allowed tolerance for this was no more than a millimeter or two; I remember remarking on the very close tolerances and the ingenious design that permitted them with a minimum of weight). The shear force is on the brackets' attachments to the columns, and is vertically directed. The bolts are there ONLY to make sure that the top chord stays on top of the bracket. They in fact take NO FORCE AT ALL except when the building sways. When the building sways, shear forces are placed on the bolts and welds. But these shear forces are mitigated by the visco-elastic damping.
Note that the pulley has NO equivalent to these connections.
When the truss rods are no longer stabilizing the top chord, it sags in the middle. When it sags in the middle, it is no longer straight, and therefore cannot reach as far. This places the top chord in tension, specifically it places the attachments of the top chord to the brackets, that is, the bolts and welds, in tension. This tension has a horizontal component, and a vertical component. The sum of these vectors is equal to the weight of the floor, including trusses, decking, and any dynamic load; this is the same shear load that was formerly placed on the brackets and directed vertically, due to the fact that the top chord was prevented from sagging. However, now, by your cosine formula, some of this force is horizontal, placing shear stress on the bolts and the welds of the top chords to the brackets. Note however that the stress upon the bracket-to-column connections is identical in magnitude to its original value, only its direction has changed.
Note that the pulley correctly models ONLY the bracket-to-column connection.
Most likely, then, the bracket-to-column connections will not fail under this load; it probably doesn't matter what angle the force is at, since the shear force will be the most likely one to cause failure, and being built to withstand that, they can surely withstand the lesser forces. This is the point you made above about the strength-to-stress ratio actually being GREATER when the vector of the force changes. The problem is, it's true for the bracket-to-column connections, but not for the bracket-to-top-chord connections.
Now, the bracket-to-top-chord connections are in peril, because they are experiencing shear forces they were never designed to withstand. Swaying they can withstand; but as the sag increases (as the top chord heats, both due to expansion and weakening), the sine/cosine formula places a greater and greater fraction of the force, which is the gravity load of the floor, in shear on them. Furthermore, these bolts and welds are also heating up, reducing their strength. At some point, the weakened bolts and welds succumb to the forces they were never designed to withstand, and the top chord disconnects from the bracket.
It is possible that my sources are wrong, and the top chords were only secured with welds, but my experience is that this would not be permitted in the design; and in any case, this would be far more likely to rupture than the bolt-and-weld combination. It is also possible that the brackets were secured to the columns by both a bolt and a weld; this is immaterial in this scenario, since I do not postulate the failure of these connections.
the truss rods would come under greater and greater compression stress added to their existing compression stress holding the top chord straight.
Whether the effect is mitigated merely affects how long they last, not whether or not they fail.
-------------No. Whether or not they would fail would be dependent on the relative strains of the other members since prior failure in the other members would undoubtedly alter the situation. The member with the highest compressive strain would be the upper chord, for reasons of its position relative to the neutral line dictating that it had the highest component of pre-existing compressive load from the floor mass and load, as well as the thermal strain, and because it was also the least able to relieve its strain through sagging because of the additional stiffness of the concrete.
But now you've lost sight of the fact that the truss rods are thinner than either the top or bottom chords, and therefore would be subject to more heating. This means not only that the stress on them would increase faster, but that their strength would drop faster. It is not merely their strength-to-stress ratio, but their mass that is in question here. The contention of the authors of the Fire Safety Journal article is that it is this factor that causes the truss rods to fail first.
You are approaching these points as if they are unrelated to one another, but the obvious fact is that they must be related since all of this was going on not merely in the same building, but on the same floor, and not merely on that floor but on a single section of that floor.
QUOTE
All of which must be obvious from the fact that using the physics of the fire, the amount of insulation, and the heat characteristics of the steel in the truss rods and the top and bottom chords and the brackets and the bolts, the Fire Safety Journal article's authors were able to postdict the length of time the two towers stood.
------------------This does not follow. The fact that these authors got the answer they wanted does not necessarily make the analysis correct. Take the example of the program discussed on this thread which “correctly” predicted a collapse time for a tower, using a model which could not even stand up in the first place, let alone collapse in a predictive manner.
Ahh, but they DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARAMETERS TO TWEAK, gordon. The steel is as thick as it is; they used the fire parameters that the NIST folks had already obtained; and it was the insulation thickness that accounted for the difference in collapse times rather than the loading (due to the South Tower strike being lower down than the North). This makes sense, if they are correct and the truss rods were the first components to fail, and THAT makes sense because the truss rods are the least massive and would heat the fastest. ------------------This does not follow. The fact that these authors got the answer they wanted does not necessarily make the analysis correct. Take the example of the program discussed on this thread which “correctly” predicted a collapse time for a tower, using a model which could not even stand up in the first place, let alone collapse in a predictive manner.
You are approaching these points as if they are unrelated to one another, but the obvious fact is that they must be related since all of this was going on not merely in the same building, but on the same floor, and not merely on that floor but on a single section of that floor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All of which must be obvious from the fact that using the physics of the fire, the amount of insulation, and the heat characteristics of the steel in the truss rods and the top and bottom chords and the brackets and the bolts, the Fire Safety Journal article's authors were able to postdict the length of time the two towers stood. ------------------This does not follow. The fact that these authors got the answer they wanted does not necessarily make the analysis correct. Take the example of the program discussed on this thread which “correctly” predicted a collapse time for a tower, using a model which could not even stand up in the first place, let alone collapse in a predictive manner. |
Ahh, but they DIDN'T HAVE ANY PARAMETERS TO TWEAK, gordon. The steel is as thick as it is; they used the fire parameters that the NIST folks had already obtained; and it was the insulation thickness that accounted for the difference in collapse times rather than the loading (due to the South Tower strike being lower down than the North). This makes sense, if they are correct and the truss rods were the first components to fail, and THAT makes sense because the truss rods are the least massive and would heat the fastest.
You are approaching these points as if they are unrelated to one another, but the obvious fact is that they must be related since all of this was going on not merely in the same building, but on the same floor, and not merely on that floor but on a single section of that floor.
The point of the lower chord is not to secure the floor against the columns; it is to serve as an anchor point for the truss rods which prevent the upper chord from bending and adding weight to the shearing stress on the bolts and welds and brackets securing the upper chord to the columns. [/i]
----------------------------No the point, or function of the lower chord is to carry the tensile load set up by the floor mass. The upper chord carries the compressive load.
The function of the truss rods is to maintain the separation of these members thereby maintaining their distance from the neutral line.
You are approaching these points as if they are unrelated to one another, but the obvious fact is that they must be related since all of this was going on not merely in the same building, but on the same floor, and not merely on that floor but on a single section of that floor.
The point of the lower chord is not to secure the floor against the columns; it is to serve as an anchor point for the truss rods which prevent the upper chord from bending and adding weight to the shearing stress on the bolts and welds and brackets securing the upper chord to the columns. [/i]
----------------------------No the point, or function of the lower chord is to carry the tensile load set up by the floor mass. The upper chord carries the compressive load.
The function of the truss rods is to maintain the separation of these members thereby maintaining their distance from the neutral line.
And this changes what happens to the upper chord when the truss rods fail because...?
From one point of view, you are partly correct. This is the traditional engineering point of view, in which the forces are handled entirely by the top and bottom chords, and the truss rods serve merely to, as you say, maintain their separation.
However, there is another point of view, in which the function of the truss rods is not merely to maintain the separation, but to transmit the force that the bottom chord is to handle. And in this situation, because the truss rods are being affected, this force cannot be considered as in the ideal traditional engineering point of view to be non-existent within the truss rods. In this situation, the stress on the truss rods must be accounted for, because they are heating faster than any other component.
It is very likely in my view that you have made the same mistake that the NIST folks did, and it is also extremely likely in my view that this precise mistake is the one that the authors of the Fire Safety Journal article were pointing out.
From one point of view, you are partly correct. This is the traditional engineering point of view, in which the forces are handled entirely by the top and bottom chords, and the truss rods serve merely to, as you say, maintain their separation.
However, there is another point of view, in which the function of the truss rods is not merely to maintain the separation, but to transmit the force that the bottom chord is to handle. And in this situation, because the truss rods are being affected, this force cannot be considered as in the ideal traditional engineering point of view to be non-existent within the truss rods. In this situation, the stress on the truss rods must be accounted for, because they are heating faster than any other component.
It is very likely in my view that you have made the same mistake that the NIST folks did, and it is also extremely likely in my view that this precise mistake is the one that the authors of the Fire Safety Journal article were pointing out.
QUOTE
Oh, really? What kind of stress do you suppose the cords in the hammock are under? Compression? Do you deny they are under stress? What then holds the hammock up? Magic? Better think far more clearly about this. [/i]
------------------I hope that the hammock is now suffering the stress of rejection from being unceremoniously thrown out of this debate, because of its lack of relevance.
Unfortunately it is not, and that is because WITHIN ITS COMPETENT AREA it is a valid analogy that allows one to understand the way that removing the truss rods would affect the top chord. As I said, you need to think carefully about this. ------------------I hope that the hammock is now suffering the stress of rejection from being unceremoniously thrown out of this debate, because of its lack of relevance.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, really? What kind of stress do you suppose the cords in the hammock are under? Compression? Do you deny they are under stress? What then holds the hammock up? Magic? Better think far more clearly about this. [/i] ------------------I hope that the hammock is now suffering the stress of rejection from being unceremoniously thrown out of this debate, because of its lack of relevance. |
Unfortunately it is not, and that is because WITHIN ITS COMPETENT AREA it is a valid analogy that allows one to understand the way that removing the truss rods would affect the top chord. As I said, you need to think carefully about this.
Obviously, when the top chord lengthens, this either increases the compression stress on the truss rods,
------------------No. If the upper chord sags with an extension to its original length caused by thermal expansion it must be assumed that the lower chord would suffer in the same manner and at least to the same degree since it is more able to sag than the upper chord.
Obviously, when the top chord lengthens, this either increases the compression stress on the truss rods,
------------------No. If the upper chord sags with an extension to its original length caused by thermal expansion it must be assumed that the lower chord would suffer in the same manner and at least to the same degree since it is more able to sag than the upper chord.
Why? What stress is it under that would cause it to do this? Remember, ONE END IS NOT CONNECTED TO ANYTHING. It can expand all it wants without having to sag.
QUOTE
They would move from being a pair of parallel horizontal members to being a pair of parallel curved members.
No, they wouldn't. The bottom chord is free to expand. I'll eliminate the rest of that paragraph because it is based on this incorrect assumption. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They would move from being a pair of parallel horizontal members to being a pair of parallel curved members. |
No, they wouldn't. The bottom chord is free to expand. I'll eliminate the rest of that paragraph because it is based on this incorrect assumption.
or, if the truss rods have already failed, increases the shearing stress on the bolts, welds, and brackets at the columns by changing the vector angle at which the weight exerts its force. And if the truss rods are still intact, then the additional stress induced by lengthening the top chord results in compression stress
-------------No. The additional stress would be tensile for the reasons given above.
or, if the truss rods have already failed, increases the shearing stress on the bolts, welds, and brackets at the columns by changing the vector angle at which the weight exerts its force. And if the truss rods are still intact, then the additional stress induced by lengthening the top chord results in compression stress
-------------No. The additional stress would be tensile for the reasons given above.
Which were shown to have been based on a false assumption. Try again, gordon.
QUOTE
being added to the truss rods, in addition to the compression stress of their design, and the compression stress of their attempting to lengthen under the influence of the same heat as is lengthening the top chord. So guess what? There are THREE sources of compression on the truss rods, and only ONE movement to relieve it (of the bottom chord).
---------How many doesn’t matter. What matters is their relative size and direction.
Let us examine this situation. The truss rod nearest the unconnected end of the lower chord would have to bend the bottom chord and cause a downwards deflection. The resistance of the bottom chord would be limited since it would have no support at all at one end and the force transmitted through the truss rod would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next truss rod/bottom chord joint. This fulcrum point itself would also be being pushed downwards by the thermal expansion of its truss rod and this would also act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next joint along. This would continue along the beam so the ability of the truss rods to unload their strain would be almost total at the free end and gradually increase along the beam to the connected end. The force through the truss rod at this end would be acting as a moment with its fulcrum at the damper. A damper by its nature has allowable movement within its function and is not a solid connection such as existed with the upper chord.
So what we conclude here is that the truss rods with the least degree of freedom and therefore under the most stress were the ones in the CENTER, not at either end. But those are the very ones that, if they fail, will permit greater sag of the top chord. This greater sag will increase the stress on the remaining truss rods, which will also fail. This will in turn increase the stress on the next rods, which will fail again- thus we see that the failure will begin near the center of the truss, and spread out toward its ends. Depending on the ability of the bracket-to-top-chord connections to handle shear forces, the failure may or may not reach the ends; but in any case, the failure leads to sag, and the sag to more failure. ---------How many doesn’t matter. What matters is their relative size and direction.
Let us examine this situation. The truss rod nearest the unconnected end of the lower chord would have to bend the bottom chord and cause a downwards deflection. The resistance of the bottom chord would be limited since it would have no support at all at one end and the force transmitted through the truss rod would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next truss rod/bottom chord joint. This fulcrum point itself would also be being pushed downwards by the thermal expansion of its truss rod and this would also act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next joint along. This would continue along the beam so the ability of the truss rods to unload their strain would be almost total at the free end and gradually increase along the beam to the connected end. The force through the truss rod at this end would be acting as a moment with its fulcrum at the damper. A damper by its nature has allowable movement within its function and is not a solid connection such as existed with the upper chord.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| being added to the truss rods, in addition to the compression stress of their design, and the compression stress of their attempting to lengthen under the influence of the same heat as is lengthening the top chord. So guess what? There are THREE sources of compression on the truss rods, and only ONE movement to relieve it (of the bottom chord). ---------How many doesn’t matter. What matters is their relative size and direction. Let us examine this situation. The truss rod nearest the unconnected end of the lower chord would have to bend the bottom chord and cause a downwards deflection. The resistance of the bottom chord would be limited since it would have no support at all at one end and the force transmitted through the truss rod would act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next truss rod/bottom chord joint. This fulcrum point itself would also be being pushed downwards by the thermal expansion of its truss rod and this would also act as a moment with the fulcrum being the next joint along. This would continue along the beam so the ability of the truss rods to unload their strain would be almost total at the free end and gradually increase along the beam to the connected end. The force through the truss rod at this end would be acting as a moment with its fulcrum at the damper. A damper by its nature has allowable movement within its function and is not a solid connection such as existed with the upper chord. |
So what we conclude here is that the truss rods with the least degree of freedom and therefore under the most stress were the ones in the CENTER, not at either end. But those are the very ones that, if they fail, will permit greater sag of the top chord. This greater sag will increase the stress on the remaining truss rods, which will also fail. This will in turn increase the stress on the next rods, which will fail again- thus we see that the failure will begin near the center of the truss, and spread out toward its ends. Depending on the ability of the bracket-to-top-chord connections to handle shear forces, the failure may or may not reach the ends; but in any case, the failure leads to sag, and the sag to more failure.
“It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
I replied
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
You have failed to take my meaning. Your argument was that they were not under the greatest load, and therefore should not have failed first; my point was that the total load is not the issue, it's the load they are under compared to their strength. So what is wrong is not my statement, but your understanding of it.
----------------- No. I did not say that they were not under the greatest load. I purposefully avoided giving any mention to load in this context. I did say that they were experiencing the lesser strain. This is an important distinction and perhaps you could re-read the post with this in mind.
“It doesn't matter how much strain they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much strain they were under compared to their strength. “
I replied
This is also very wrong. If they have the same strain and are made of similar material, then they will have the same stress, from E (Youngs modulus) = stress / strain.
You have failed to take my meaning. Your argument was that they were not under the greatest load, and therefore should not have failed first; my point was that the total load is not the issue, it's the load they are under compared to their strength. So what is wrong is not my statement, but your understanding of it.
----------------- No. I did not say that they were not under the greatest load. I purposefully avoided giving any mention to load in this context. I did say that they were experiencing the lesser strain. This is an important distinction and perhaps you could re-read the post with this in mind.
This was my fault, I used "strain" when I meant "stress." Considered in that light, my statement was, "It doesn't matter how much stress they were under compared to the other members; what matters is how much stress they were under compared to their strength."
Again, your ORIGINAL argument (which you have not reproduced) was:
Let's not waste any more time on this one.
Again, your ORIGINAL argument (which you have not reproduced) was:
QUOTE
So the member suffering from the greatest strain would not be the truss rods, or the lower chord, but in fact would be the upper chord. And yet we are to believe that the truss rods failed first, followed by the lower chord, followed by the upper chord in exactly the opposite sequence as would be expected because of the relative strains.
Basically, you were the one who made the original mistake of using "strain" in this context. In fact, it doesn't matter what the strain is; nor does it matter what the stress is. And it doesn't matter what the load is, either. What matters is the ratio of the load to the strength. Now, my understanding is that design is an attempt to ensure that this ratio is the same for all components; thus, the truss rod would be chosen such that the expected load would have the same ratio to its strength as the ratio for the upper and lower chords. In this case, the dominant factor would be heat, and the fact that the truss rods were the smallest component made them the most vulnerable to its effects. That was my original point, and I interpreted the above statement as an attempted refutation of that point. Let's not waste any more time on this one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So the member suffering from the greatest strain would not be the truss rods, or the lower chord, but in fact would be the upper chord. And yet we are to believe that the truss rods failed first, followed by the lower chord, followed by the upper chord in exactly the opposite sequence as would be expected because of the relative strains. |
Basically, you were the one who made the original mistake of using "strain" in this context. In fact, it doesn't matter what the strain is; nor does it matter what the stress is. And it doesn't matter what the load is, either. What matters is the ratio of the load to the strength. Now, my understanding is that design is an attempt to ensure that this ratio is the same for all components; thus, the truss rod would be chosen such that the expected load would have the same ratio to its strength as the ratio for the upper and lower chords. In this case, the dominant factor would be heat, and the fact that the truss rods were the smallest component made them the most vulnerable to its effects. That was my original point, and I interpreted the above statement as an attempted refutation of that point.
Let's not waste any more time on this one.
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods.
Let's not waste any more time on this one.
I have pointed out several factors which dictate that the members with the least strain would be the truss rods.
And in the process failed completely to notice they were also the thinnest components and thus the most affected by heat.
I wonder if the "pancakers" waffle in their dreams? Certainly not on physorg.com.
QUOTE
I will freely acknowledge that I have found some posts difficult to understand
Then the correct response was not to contradict them but to ask questions to determine whether you had understood not merely correctly but fully, and only upon being certain of that to make a contradicting assertion. The fact remains that you have not responded to my assertion that you didn't understand the nature of radiative heating, and that is one among many such assertions that you did not respond to. To fail to respond and then maintain that you were nevertheless right is precisely what I said it is: ignoring contrary evidence. And as I said, the name for that type of behavior is not a compliment. I was careful not to use that name, because you don't seem the type to engage willfully in such behavior, and it is my judgement that you are not insane (which is an alternative to the non-compliment, though not the only one...); I therefore sought to increase my understanding by observing this rather than accusing. And I also turned you a compliment, to ease the sting:QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I will freely acknowledge that I have found some posts difficult to understand |
Then the correct response was not to contradict them but to ask questions to determine whether you had understood not merely correctly but fully, and only upon being certain of that to make a contradicting assertion. The fact remains that you have not responded to my assertion that you didn't understand the nature of radiative heating, and that is one among many such assertions that you did not respond to. To fail to respond and then maintain that you were nevertheless right is precisely what I said it is: ignoring contrary evidence. And as I said, the name for that type of behavior is not a compliment. I was careful not to use that name, because you don't seem the type to engage willfully in such behavior, and it is my judgement that you are not insane (which is an alternative to the non-compliment, though not the only one...); I therefore sought to increase my understanding by observing this rather than accusing. And I also turned you a compliment, to ease the sting:
If you refuse to acknowledge that these matters are very complex and require long and careful thought before understanding comes, I do not in turn refuse to acknowledge the value of your role as "devil's advocate" in showing where my understanding of these matters was incorrect, and I thank you for that. Whether you acknowledge it ever or not, the fact remains that as understanding grows, it becomes clearer and clearer what REALLY happened;
--------------I freely acknowledge that they are complex and I thank you for your acknowledgement, and we also agree that clarity comes with study and understanding, (Spem Successus Alit) but perhaps with different ideas of what really happened. Its our differences that make us interesting to each other, and I’m sure that some day we will all learn to enjoy our differences to the fullest extent. We’re all stardust.
If you refuse to acknowledge that these matters are very complex and require long and careful thought before understanding comes, I do not in turn refuse to acknowledge the value of your role as "devil's advocate" in showing where my understanding of these matters was incorrect, and I thank you for that. Whether you acknowledge it ever or not, the fact remains that as understanding grows, it becomes clearer and clearer what REALLY happened;
--------------I freely acknowledge that they are complex and I thank you for your acknowledgement, and we also agree that clarity comes with study and understanding, (Spem Successus Alit) but perhaps with different ideas of what really happened. Its our differences that make us interesting to each other, and I’m sure that some day we will all learn to enjoy our differences to the fullest extent. We’re all stardust.
...and this was the response I hoped for.
We may agree to disagree, or we may find conclusions to be drawn from the data. In any case, let us do these things harmoniously, rather than otherwise. I will apologize for any remaining prior harsh words at this time, and attempt to avoid them in the future. My realization that your style was not obfuscation but pedantry has eased this greatly.
I believe I'll end this post on that note. Another will be forthcoming shortly.
We may agree to disagree, or we may find conclusions to be drawn from the data. In any case, let us do these things harmoniously, rather than otherwise. I will apologize for any remaining prior harsh words at this time, and attempt to avoid them in the future. My realization that your style was not obfuscation but pedantry has eased this greatly.
I believe I'll end this post on that note. Another will be forthcoming shortly.
QUOTE
Good Night... pancakers. Sweet dreams in the land of Fairy Tales.
I wonder if the "pancakers" waffle in their dreams? Certainly not on physorg.com.
You know what? Now there's someone who ACTUALLY HAS A CLUE to argue with, it's going to be a lot easier to ignore the lightweights.
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 14 2006, 03:57 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 02:09 AM)
Yeah, the fire department thinks it was a bomb...
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
Perhaps you'd like to quote the passage in Fire Engineering that states that they are calling for an investigation into the possibility of bombs planted in the towers.
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
QUOTE
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy nuts it’s all these people because none want an investigation…
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
Perhaps you'd like to quote the passage in Fire Engineering that states that they are calling for an investigation into the possibility of bombs planted in the towers.
QUOTE (gordon+Jan 14 2006, 12:46 AM)
Metamars said,"Even Gordon can't figure this one out. "
You are correct there. I haven't got a clue. I do know that I do not deserve the "even" but thanks anyway,
Gordon
You're welcome, but why so much modesty?
I hearby nominate you for King of this Thread, if Andrew Johnson is President, and President if Andrew Johnson is King!
Your contributions may help save lives - lots of them - and I thank you for it.
You are correct there. I haven't got a clue. I do know that I do not deserve the "even" but thanks anyway,
Gordon
You're welcome, but why so much modesty?
I hearby nominate you for King of this Thread, if Andrew Johnson is President, and President if Andrew Johnson is King!
Your contributions may help save lives - lots of them - and I thank you for it.
Well... just trying to catch up after the massive spamming of this thread by The Schniebster (in concert with his multiple personalities) tactics.
Sorry to all..., I didn't REALLY mean to encourage him with his dual / triple / quadruple personalities postings.
My apologies to all.
Here's my version.
I'll call my sock puppet... uhhhh?...
'Truth Prophet'
Schneibster, (and his 'alter-egos' have been attempting to delude the 'masses' in this thread). His 'alter-ego' sock-puppet exercises, (I am sure) will work well on those who believe the Amazing Underground Bellows is a valid theory.
Unfortunately for Schneibster (and his ilk), there are not THAT MANY fools in the world... (even though 'one' is born every minute)...And it seems a few 'gravity-driven collapse supporters have 'gravitated' to this thread.
Given the number of posts 'The Schneibster' (and his band of Imaginary Merry Men) have posted in the last 24 hours... let's just say this guy has WAAAAYYYY too much time on his hands !
What 'profession' allows someone to spend countless hours on (what he himself has claimed over & over... is ) a total waste of time?
Now, back to 'catching-up' ...(this is probably numerous pages back by now)...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54252
Schneibster, (and his 'alter-egos' have been attempting to delude the 'masses' in this thread). His 'alter-ego' sock-puppet exercises, (I am sure) will work well on those who believe the Amazing Underground Bellows is a valid theory.
Unfortunately for Schneibster (and his ilk), there are not THAT MANY fools in the world... (even though 'one' is born every minute)...And it seems a few 'gravity-driven collapse supporters have 'gravitated' to this thread.
Given the number of posts 'The Schneibster' (and his band of Imaginary Merry Men) have posted in the last 24 hours... let's just say this guy has WAAAAYYYY too much time on his hands !
What 'profession' allows someone to spend countless hours on (what he himself has claimed over & over... is ) a total waste of time?
Now, back to 'catching-up' ...(this is probably numerous pages back by now)...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54252
Originally posted by Schneibster
I see no reason to continue responding to this meaningless drivel. Wise up, newton, it's over. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
It seems the 'popes' have Proven their case (after patting-themselves-on-the-back for their illogical conclusions)... and as Schneibster claims "it's a waste of time" to discuss this 'drivel' any further.
So ask yourself... why does he continue? What is the purpose? What does he hope to achieve through this 'multiple-posting' exercise?
IF Schneibster truly believes he has refuted 'the nonsense', then why does he continue to post here?
Unless... he has some 'attraction' to discussing things with 'idiots' for some bizarre psychological reason...
OR... If it is simply a part of the parameters of a job he is paid to do (no matter how 'boring' that may be for him)?
Anyone have a third 'alternative'?
Sorry to all..., I didn't REALLY mean to encourage him with his dual / triple / quadruple personalities postings.
My apologies to all.
Here's my version.
I'll call my sock puppet... uhhhh?...
'Truth Prophet'
QUOTE
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "I am not 'Faux' so believe me"
...
Quote by 'Guest - Divine Provinence'... "Of course you are not Faux. Please don't let anyone be confused... Sure there are schills on this site, but I can assure you that 'Truth Prophet' is NOT 'Faux'... actually 'Faux' is working for Halliburton and lives in the Pacific northwest, whereas 'Truth Prophet' is 'Joey Blowme' and lives in Little Rock, Arkansas".
...
Quote by 'Faux'... Well, now that THAT is settled, let's move on. What do you think about pancaking floors, 'Truth Prophet'?
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet' ... "Well, I think tada... tada"
...
Quote by 'Faux' ... "I disagree because... tada...tada"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "Well, now that you mention it, YEAH!... tada...tada"
...
Quote by 'Guest - Divine Provinence'... "See, I told you 'Faux' and 'Truth Prophet' weren't the same persons... (bowing out for now)"
...
Quote by 'Rational Observer'..."Faux & Truth Prophet... your 'tada-tada', makes no sense whatsoever"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "Oh, Fuuuck You, you B'tard"
...
Quote by 'Faux'... Thanks for your input 'Rational Observer', but you are an Obvious Idiot, and I have many friends here who will back-me-up with logical analysis that you are an idiot"
....
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "I have to agree with 'Faux'...'Rational Observer' is an idiot."
....
Quote by 'Guest- Divine Provinence'..."Truth Prophet (who is actually 'Joey Blowme' from Little Rock, Arkansas)... God will smite you"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "You are deluded by Rove... and the motive of making money from your website"
...
Quote by 'Faux'... " 'Divine Providence', you are a pawn of Rove"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... Yeah, I agree with 'Faux' that 'Divine Povidence is a '(insert your own word here)'... working for the gummit. 'Faux' you are a genius"
...
Quote by 'Faux'... Yes, thank you 'Truth Prophet' for recognizing that I AM a genius"
...
Quote by 'Guest - Divine Provinence'... "Of course you are not Faux. Please don't let anyone be confused... Sure there are schills on this site, but I can assure you that 'Truth Prophet' is NOT 'Faux'... actually 'Faux' is working for Halliburton and lives in the Pacific northwest, whereas 'Truth Prophet' is 'Joey Blowme' and lives in Little Rock, Arkansas".
...
Quote by 'Faux'... Well, now that THAT is settled, let's move on. What do you think about pancaking floors, 'Truth Prophet'?
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet' ... "Well, I think tada... tada"
...
Quote by 'Faux' ... "I disagree because... tada...tada"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "Well, now that you mention it, YEAH!... tada...tada"
...
Quote by 'Guest - Divine Provinence'... "See, I told you 'Faux' and 'Truth Prophet' weren't the same persons... (bowing out for now)"
...
Quote by 'Rational Observer'..."Faux & Truth Prophet... your 'tada-tada', makes no sense whatsoever"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "Oh, Fuuuck You, you B'tard"
...
Quote by 'Faux'... Thanks for your input 'Rational Observer', but you are an Obvious Idiot, and I have many friends here who will back-me-up with logical analysis that you are an idiot"
....
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "I have to agree with 'Faux'...'Rational Observer' is an idiot."
....
Quote by 'Guest- Divine Provinence'..."Truth Prophet (who is actually 'Joey Blowme' from Little Rock, Arkansas)... God will smite you"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "You are deluded by Rove... and the motive of making money from your website"
...
Quote by 'Faux'... " 'Divine Providence', you are a pawn of Rove"
...
Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... Yeah, I agree with 'Faux' that 'Divine Povidence is a '(insert your own word here)'... working for the gummit. 'Faux' you are a genius"
...
Quote by 'Faux'... Yes, thank you 'Truth Prophet' for recognizing that I AM a genius"
Schneibster, (and his 'alter-egos' have been attempting to delude the 'masses' in this thread). His 'alter-ego' sock-puppet exercises, (I am sure) will work well on those who believe the Amazing Underground Bellows is a valid theory.
Unfortunately for Schneibster (and his ilk), there are not THAT MANY fools in the world... (even though 'one' is born every minute)...And it seems a few 'gravity-driven collapse supporters have 'gravitated' to this thread.
Given the number of posts 'The Schneibster' (and his band of Imaginary Merry Men) have posted in the last 24 hours... let's just say this guy has WAAAAYYYY too much time on his hands !
What 'profession' allows someone to spend countless hours on (what he himself has claimed over & over... is ) a total waste of time?
Now, back to 'catching-up' ...(this is probably numerous pages back by now)...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54252
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "I am not 'Faux' so believe me" ... Quote by 'Guest - Divine Provinence'... "Of course you are not Faux. Please don't let anyone be confused... Sure there are schills on this site, but I can assure you that 'Truth Prophet' is NOT 'Faux'... actually 'Faux' is working for Halliburton and lives in the Pacific northwest, whereas 'Truth Prophet' is 'Joey Blowme' and lives in Little Rock, Arkansas". ... Quote by 'Faux'... Well, now that THAT is settled, let's move on. What do you think about pancaking floors, 'Truth Prophet'? ... Quote by 'Truth Prophet' ... "Well, I think tada... tada" ... Quote by 'Faux' ... "I disagree because... tada...tada" ... Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "Well, now that you mention it, YEAH!... tada...tada" ... Quote by 'Guest - Divine Provinence'... "See, I told you 'Faux' and 'Truth Prophet' weren't the same persons... (bowing out for now)" ... Quote by 'Rational Observer'..."Faux & Truth Prophet... your 'tada-tada', makes no sense whatsoever" ... Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "Oh, Fuuuck You, you B'tard" ... Quote by 'Faux'... Thanks for your input 'Rational Observer', but you are an Obvious Idiot, and I have many friends here who will back-me-up with logical analysis that you are an idiot" .... Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "I have to agree with 'Faux'...'Rational Observer' is an idiot." .... Quote by 'Guest- Divine Provinence'..."Truth Prophet (who is actually 'Joey Blowme' from Little Rock, Arkansas)... God will smite you" ... Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... "You are deluded by Rove... and the motive of making money from your website" ... Quote by 'Faux'... " 'Divine Providence', you are a pawn of Rove" ... Quote by 'Truth Prophet'... Yeah, I agree with 'Faux' that 'Divine Povidence is a '(insert your own word here)'... working for the gummit. 'Faux' you are a genius" ... Quote by 'Faux'... Yes, thank you 'Truth Prophet' for recognizing that I AM a genius" |
Schneibster, (and his 'alter-egos' have been attempting to delude the 'masses' in this thread). His 'alter-ego' sock-puppet exercises, (I am sure) will work well on those who believe the Amazing Underground Bellows is a valid theory.
Unfortunately for Schneibster (and his ilk), there are not THAT MANY fools in the world... (even though 'one' is born every minute)...And it seems a few 'gravity-driven collapse supporters have 'gravitated' to this thread.
Given the number of posts 'The Schneibster' (and his band of Imaginary Merry Men) have posted in the last 24 hours... let's just say this guy has WAAAAYYYY too much time on his hands !
What 'profession' allows someone to spend countless hours on (what he himself has claimed over & over... is ) a total waste of time?
Now, back to 'catching-up' ...(this is probably numerous pages back by now)...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=54252
Originally posted by Schneibster
I see no reason to continue responding to this meaningless drivel. Wise up, newton, it's over. There's nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.
It seems the 'popes' have Proven their case (after patting-themselves-on-the-back for their illogical conclusions)... and as Schneibster claims "it's a waste of time" to discuss this 'drivel' any further.
So ask yourself... why does he continue? What is the purpose? What does he hope to achieve through this 'multiple-posting' exercise?
IF Schneibster truly believes he has refuted 'the nonsense', then why does he continue to post here?
Unless... he has some 'attraction' to discussing things with 'idiots' for some bizarre psychological reason...
OR... If it is simply a part of the parameters of a job he is paid to do (no matter how 'boring' that may be for him)?
Anyone have a third 'alternative'?
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 14 2006, 03:57 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 02:09 AM)
Yeah, the fire department thinks it was a bomb...
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
You dumb fucck, I posted the fuccking article which YOUR article linked to. It says NOTHING about bombs you moron. The SAME FIRE ENGINEERING which said THEY KNEW THE FIRE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. They were worried about normal shiit like fire proofing.. They wanted an investigation WHICH THEY GOT.
The 'feerdral gubbamnt' wasn't even the ones who sold the steel you moron. It was NY.
Steel mountain
Steel from the site has already been sold around the world.
The steel of the Twin Towers was of high quality
Almost immediately after 11 September, New York authorities started looking for ways to deal with the 1.6 million tons of wreckage.
After investigators combed through it, extracting human remains and personal effects, more than 350,000 tons was sold for recycling in China, Malaysia, Korea and India.
The World Trade Center steel was thought to be some of the heaviest, thickest steel ever used in construction. Its outer skeleton comprised of steel beams up to two feet thick.
Industry experts estimate that the steel has been sold to recyclers for between $75 to $100 a ton, but it is unclear whether the Navy will pay for the scrap it is using to construct the warship.
The USS New York should be ready for active service by 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2611059.stm
I say again, how stupid do you feel. Because you sure look it.. Heh!
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
QUOTE
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy nuts it’s all these people because none want an investigation…
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
You dumb fucck, I posted the fuccking article which YOUR article linked to. It says NOTHING about bombs you moron. The SAME FIRE ENGINEERING which said THEY KNEW THE FIRE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. They were worried about normal shiit like fire proofing.. They wanted an investigation WHICH THEY GOT.
The 'feerdral gubbamnt' wasn't even the ones who sold the steel you moron. It was NY.
Steel mountain
Steel from the site has already been sold around the world.
The steel of the Twin Towers was of high quality
Almost immediately after 11 September, New York authorities started looking for ways to deal with the 1.6 million tons of wreckage.
After investigators combed through it, extracting human remains and personal effects, more than 350,000 tons was sold for recycling in China, Malaysia, Korea and India.
The World Trade Center steel was thought to be some of the heaviest, thickest steel ever used in construction. Its outer skeleton comprised of steel beams up to two feet thick.
Industry experts estimate that the steel has been sold to recyclers for between $75 to $100 a ton, but it is unclear whether the Navy will pay for the scrap it is using to construct the warship.
The USS New York should be ready for active service by 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2611059.stm
I say again, how stupid do you feel. Because you sure look it.. Heh!
QUOTE (yesitdid+Jan 14 2006, 04:22 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 14 2006, 03:57 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 02:09 AM)
Yeah, the fire department thinks it was a bomb...
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
Perhaps you'd like to quote the passage in Fire Engineering that states that they are calling for an investigation into the possibility of bombs planted in the towers.
There is none, this is the article which these morons take out of context...
"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse
Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."
In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.
Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.
As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.
To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.
The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.
Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=131225
THey're lying sacks of shiit.
I know that. Sorry C.S., I was directing my question to guest_Jeff and quoting his post in which he quoted you(thus the 'originally posted by Common Sense' line that I overlooked)
The non-believers in the official record of the events of 9/11 do this a lot, take any questioning of the gov't response to 9/11 and claim that it bolsters their contentions and by extension, the contentions that bombs brought down the towers.
Many groups have decried that NIST has failed to recommend much in the way of better fire codes regarding fire stairways or insulation. This does not mean they are arguing that explosives brought the towers down.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
common sense, you're destorting the reality. Why is that?
here's your claim on page 239 :
QUOTE
Who is involved in the largest mass murder and cover-up conspiracy in the world? If you ask these conspiracy nuts it’s all these people because none want an investigation…
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
Lets see...
-The NYC Fire fighters(...)
I proved that claim ridiculous by posting articles from the 125 years old Fire Engineering magazine, in which the editor in chief is crying for a decent investigation.
...Then you come back with another stance, "Yeah but they don't say anything about bombs"?
let me put that simple : what everybody asks is for the (strong) possibility of demolition devices to be thoroughly investigated.
Why don't you want that investigation to happen, to the point that you'll spend hours posting on the Internet to advocate the NO INVESTIGATION position?
Why do you lie/evade so much, if you're not a shill?
Other possibility is you're psychologically challenged.
Or both. Might be both, because only psychos can defend the perps of 9/11 and the rest. Shame on you.
Perhaps you'd like to quote the passage in Fire Engineering that states that they are calling for an investigation into the possibility of bombs planted in the towers.
There is none, this is the article which these morons take out of context...
"Burning Questions...Need Answers": FE's Bill Manning Calls for Comprehensive Investigation of WTC Collapse
Fair Lawn, NJ, January 4, 2002-Bill Manning, Fire Engineering's editor in chief, is summoning members of the fire service to "A Call to Action." In his January 2002 Editor's Opinion, "$elling Out the Investigation" (below), he warns that unless there is a full-blown investigation by an independent panel established solely for that purpose, "the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals." Manning explained: "Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers .... The lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world."
In an interview with the New York Daily News today, Manning reiterated his call for a "full-throttle, fully resourced" investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center. He is asking members of the fire service to read "WTC 'Investigation'? A Call to Action" in the January 2002 issue of Fire Engineering and at fireengineering.com and to contact their representatives in Congress and officials in Washington to ask that a blue ribbon panel be convened to thoroughly investigate the WTC collapse.
Among those also calling for the investigation are Sally Regenhard, the mother of Christian Regenhard, the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) probationary firefighter killed in the World Trade Center (WTC) attack, and founder of the Campaign for Skyscraper Safety; Give Your Voice, a civilian relatives' group headed by Michael Cartier, who lost his brother in the collapse; prominent structural engineers and fire-safety experts, and New York State Senators Charles Schumer and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center.
For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.
Hoping beyond hope, I have called experts to ask if the towers were the only high-rise buildings in America of lightweight, center-core construction. No such luck. I made other calls asking if these were the only buildings in America with light-density, sprayed-on fireproofing. Again, no luck-they were two of thousands that fit the description.
Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?
No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.
Maybe we should live and work in planes. That way, if disaster strikes, we will at least be sure that a thorough investigation will help find ways to increase safety for our survivors.
As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings' fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.
Some citizens are taking to the streets to protest the investigation sellout. Sally Regenhard, for one, wants to know why and how the building fell as it did upon her unfortunate son Christian, an FDNY probationary firefighter. And so do we.
Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident's magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings' design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.
To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.
The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.
The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.
Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC "Investigation"?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Dis...TICLE_ID=131225
THey're lying sacks of shiit.
And your right. I don't want an investigation into this dumb shiit. I don't want to be like the dumb a$$ republicans who spent 70 million dollars investigating a cum stain. I don't want to spend a thin dime on your fantasies while this president spy's on people and nothings done. While we go to war on a lie and nothings done. While people die in Iraq and nothings done... And I sure as hell don't want to make the same mistake Bush and co did lying about a crime he didn't commit. Because just like the Iraq lies are biting Bush in the a$$, this conspiracy BS will bit liberals in the a$$. It's all poisoning the well. You're working for Rove whether you know it or not...
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 04:33 AM)
You dumb fucck, I posted the fuccking article which YOUR article linked to. It says NOTHING about bombs you moron. The SAME FIRE ENGINEERING which said THEY KNEW THE FIRE CAUSED THE COLLAPSE. They were worried about normal shiit like fire proofing.. They wanted an investigation WHICH THEY GOT.
Oh yeah, you mean THAT investigation?
You're pathetic. There was no decent investigation and you know it well. This alone is a strong suspicion of complicity in front of any court.
Oh yeah, you mean THAT investigation?
QUOTE
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
(section E.3.6 in the Exec Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf)
(section E.3.6 in the Exec Summary
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf)
You're pathetic. There was no decent investigation and you know it well. This alone is a strong suspicion of complicity in front of any court.
QUOTE
There is none, this is the article which these morons take out of context...
I know that. Sorry C.S., I was directing my question to guest_Jeff and quoting his post in which he quoted you(thus the 'originally posted by Common Sense' line that I overlooked)
The non-believers in the official record of the events of 9/11 do this a lot, take any questioning of the gov't response to 9/11 and claim that it bolsters their contentions and by extension, the contentions that bombs brought down the towers.
Many groups have decried that NIST has failed to recommend much in the way of better fire codes regarding fire stairways or insulation. This does not mean they are arguing that explosives brought the towers down.
QUOTE
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 04:56 AM)
And your right. I don't want an investigation into this dumb shiit. I don't want to be like the dumb a$$ republicans who spent 70 million dollars investigating a cum stain. I don't want to spend a thin dime on your fantasies while this president spy's on people and nothings done. While we go to war on a lie and nothings done. While people die in Iraq and nothings done... And I sure as hell don't want to make the same mistake Bush and co did lying about a crime he didn't commit. Because just like the Iraq lies are biting Bush in the a$$, this conspiracy BS will bit liberals in the a$$. It's all poisoning the well. You're working for Rove whether you know it or not...
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
Oh yeah I forgot you're posing as a democrat.
I'm glad you came forth straight with this one. No investigation because it's going to cost money. Suuuuuuuuuure.
Only problem is, the investigation already was paid for. With our tax dollars.
And let me tell you that a lot of people want the little money needed for a decent investigation into 9/11 to be used that way.
Actually we're willing to pay for that one, before the 2,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS the Iraq war is going to cost. 2 million million dollars.
The war in Iraq was made possible "thanks" to 9/11.
So, we want 9/11 properly investigated. For a start.
Nothing can ever justify that such an event goes uninvestigated, but try to justify it if you like. I'm curious.
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
Oh yeah I forgot you're posing as a democrat.
I'm glad you came forth straight with this one. No investigation because it's going to cost money. Suuuuuuuuuure.
Only problem is, the investigation already was paid for. With our tax dollars.
And let me tell you that a lot of people want the little money needed for a decent investigation into 9/11 to be used that way.
Actually we're willing to pay for that one, before the 2,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS the Iraq war is going to cost. 2 million million dollars.
The war in Iraq was made possible "thanks" to 9/11.
So, we want 9/11 properly investigated. For a start.
Nothing can ever justify that such an event goes uninvestigated, but try to justify it if you like. I'm curious.
Still waiting for some shill to address the rivers of molten metal below GZ, and how these could plausibly be explained by gravity-driven collapse...
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
The underlined links can be found at...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51910
Any [b]'SURPRISE' that NO gravity-driven collapse supporter wants to try to fit this in with their 'theory'???
In order to FIT this theory with ALL observed and recorded parameters you will need to make your 'theory' address ALL of the following parameters and explain HOW your 'theory' can plausibly explain ALL factors...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51844
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
QUOTE
Originally posted by Arthurian Legends
Now they haul all this off and there is NOT ONE picture of a MOLTEN (meaning MELTED) pool of Iron, nor one picture of a SOLIDIFIED hunk of SLAG.
Now they haul all this off and there is NOT ONE picture of a MOLTEN (meaning MELTED) pool of Iron, nor one picture of a SOLIDIFIED hunk of SLAG.
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Arthurian Legends Now they haul all this off and there is NOT ONE picture of a MOLTEN (meaning MELTED) pool of Iron, nor one picture of a SOLIDIFIED hunk of SLAG. |
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
The underlined links can be found at...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51910
Any [b]'SURPRISE' that NO gravity-driven collapse supporter wants to try to fit this in with their 'theory'???
In order to FIT this theory with ALL observed and recorded parameters you will need to make your 'theory' address ALL of the following parameters and explain HOW your 'theory' can plausibly explain ALL factors...
QUOTE
List of Factors, Again
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the [/b]white smoke[/b] referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the [/b]white smoke[/b] referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51844
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
QUOTE (Guest_Jeff+Jan 14 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 04:56 AM)
And your right. I don't want an investigation into this dumb shiit. I don't want to be like the dumb a$$ republicans who spent 70 million dollars investigating a cum stain. I don't want to spend a thin dime on your fantasies while this president spy's on people and nothings done. While we go to war on a lie and nothings done. While people die in Iraq and nothings done... And I sure as hell don't want to make the same mistake Bush and co did lying about a crime he didn't commit. Because just like the Iraq lies are biting Bush in the a$$, this conspiracy BS will bit liberals in the a$$. It's all poisoning the well. You're working for Rove whether you know it or not...
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
Oh yeah I forgot you're posing as a democrat.
I'm glad you came forth straight with this one. No investigation because it's going to cost money. Suuuuuuuuuure.
Only problem is, the investigation already was paid for. With our tax dollars.
And let me tell you that a lot of people want the little money needed for a decent investigation into 9/11 to be used that way.
Actually we're willing to pay for that one, before the 2,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS the Iraq war is going to cost. 2 million million dollars.
The war in Iraq was made possible "thanks" to 9/11.
So, we want 9/11 properly investigated. For a start.
Nothing can ever justify that such an event goes uninvestigated, but try to justify it if you like. I'm curious.
Make up your mind, was their an investigation or not galdur? Heh!
Nobody but hillbilly goobers like you held up in compounds want to spend a dime on something which is so obviously retarded on it's face. You'll only find the most whacked out wackjobs asking for this non-sense. Now if you told me "I'd like to see an investigation of the effects the transformers had on the collapse" I might agree with you. But then we both know you wouldn't be here for that.
And instead of asking for an investigation into Halliburton's missing 2 billion you decide to help Rove in poisoning the well... A pure dumb a$$...
I know the motivation which drives you. It's no freakin different than Bush saying "If I can only lie about weapons of mass destruction and link Saddam to 9/11 I can invade Iraq." If you take away the thing Bush hangs his Iraq policy on you stop the war. It doesn't matter a bit if it's true or not to you. The ends justify the means. But it doesn't, not for Bush and not for you.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
So you agree with your eyes on this issue...
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
Oh yeah I forgot you're posing as a democrat.
I'm glad you came forth straight with this one. No investigation because it's going to cost money. Suuuuuuuuuure.
Only problem is, the investigation already was paid for. With our tax dollars.
And let me tell you that a lot of people want the little money needed for a decent investigation into 9/11 to be used that way.
Actually we're willing to pay for that one, before the 2,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS the Iraq war is going to cost. 2 million million dollars.
The war in Iraq was made possible "thanks" to 9/11.
So, we want 9/11 properly investigated. For a start.
Nothing can ever justify that such an event goes uninvestigated, but try to justify it if you like. I'm curious.
Make up your mind, was their an investigation or not galdur? Heh!
Nobody but hillbilly goobers like you held up in compounds want to spend a dime on something which is so obviously retarded on it's face. You'll only find the most whacked out wackjobs asking for this non-sense. Now if you told me "I'd like to see an investigation of the effects the transformers had on the collapse" I might agree with you. But then we both know you wouldn't be here for that.
And instead of asking for an investigation into Halliburton's missing 2 billion you decide to help Rove in poisoning the well... A pure dumb a$$...
I know the motivation which drives you. It's no freakin different than Bush saying "If I can only lie about weapons of mass destruction and link Saddam to 9/11 I can invade Iraq." If you take away the thing Bush hangs his Iraq policy on you stop the war. It doesn't matter a bit if it's true or not to you. The ends justify the means. But it doesn't, not for Bush and not for you.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
So you agree with your eyes on this issue...
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 05:37 AM)
Still waiting for some shill to address the rivers of molten metal below GZ, and how these could plausibly be explained by gravity-driven collapse...
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
The underlined links can be found at...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51910
Any [b]'SURPRISE' that NO gravity-driven collapse supporter wants to try to fit this in with their 'theory'???
In order to FIT this theory with ALL observed and recorded parameters you will need to make your 'theory' address ALL of the following parameters and explain HOW your 'theory' can plausibly explain ALL factors...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51844
NIST has said it will provide you all their pictures and videos for a measly $13,000.
You know you just can't trust Co-Conspirators, they will always sell you out for a few bucks.
The NDA's were the ones NIST signed, not the other way around. NIST has NO POWER to force ANYONE to sign an NDA for their own property. You can repeat this lie all you want, but it is patently not true.
Getting a "pre-publication" injunction in the US is nigh impossible.
With the internet its become pretty much a moot point.
Funny, not ONE picture of a stream of molten metal has made it to the internet.
Wonder why?
Funny, not ONE picture of a solidified hunk of molten metal has made it to the internet.
Wonder why?
You know what they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.
You know what else is interesting. Not ONE of those comments about rivers, lakes or streams of melted metal was SPECIFIC as to Who EXACTLY said it, When they said it and in what context it was said.
A reporter ...
A fireman ...
A spokesman ...
A Village Idiot ...
Typical of urban legends actually.
Arthur
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
Well. let's see, 'pope'. ...
This thread began some 3 or 4 months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a statement within that period, to the effect that you had NO IDEA that there existed a theory that 'The WTC Towers were purposely demolished' (outside of aircraft impact & imaginary infernos)?
I find it truly Amazing that you have become such an 'expert' on the NIST / FEMA documents in such short order. So you have intensely studied ALL these documents, and are familiar with them enough to determine that they represent a 'logical' theory... (or are you just dependant upon bias and the proclamations of authority figures to determine 'truth'?)
Fool.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
I thank you for your time, but you waste mine with your lack of true understanding regarding the issues at hand.
Perhaps you would like to convince us further of your expertise and understanding of engineering principles (which you have proven to me through your posts that you are sadly lacking in with regard to ANY any empirical OR technical knowledge of in this area).
You post pictures of Home-Depot 50-ton presses, and think that we who utilize REAL 50 ton presses in our professions should be impressed?
You present 'Amazing Underground Bellows' theories to impress us?
Like FEMA - You are a joke... go back to the 'pilots club' discussions.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
Well. let's see, 'pope'. ...
This thread began some 3 or 4 months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a statement within that period, to the effect that you had NO IDEA that there existed a theory that 'The WTC Towers were purposely demolished' (outside of aircraft impact & imaginary infernos)?
I find it truly Amazing that you have become such an 'expert' on the NIST / FEMA documents in such short order. So you have intensely studied ALL these documents, and are familiar with them enough to determine that they represent a 'logical' theory... (or are you just dependant upon bias and the proclamations of authority figures to determine 'truth'?)
Fool.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
I thank you for your time, but you waste mine with your lack of true understanding regarding the issues at hand.
Perhaps you would like to convince us further of your expertise and understanding of engineering principles (which you have proven to me through your posts that you are sadly lacking in with regard to ANY any empirical OR technical knowledge of in this area).
You post pictures of Home-Depot 50-ton presses, and think that we who utilize REAL 50 ton presses in our professions should be impressed?
You present 'Amazing Underground Bellows' theories to impress us?
Like FEMA - You are a joke... go back to the 'pilots club' discussions.
I'm sure you would like me to go away.
Tough Shiite.
I see you are STILL stuck on the FEMA report.
A clear indication of the level of "Study" you've been doing.
I refer you back to this post:
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
Well. let's see, 'pope'. ...
This thread began some 3 or 4 months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a statement within that period, to the effect that you had NO IDEA that there existed a theory that 'The WTC Towers were purposely demolished' (outside of aircraft impact & imaginary infernos)?
I find it truly Amazing that you have become such an 'expert' on the NIST / FEMA documents in such short order. So you have intensely studied ALL these documents, and are familiar with them enough to determine that they represent a 'logical' theory... (or are you just dependant upon bias and the proclamations of authority figures to determine 'truth'?)
Fool.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
I thank you for your time, but you waste mine with your lack of true understanding regarding the issues at hand.
Perhaps you would like to convince us further of your expertise and understanding of engineering principles (which you have proven to me through your posts that you are sadly lacking in with regard to ANY any empirical OR technical knowledge of in this area).
You post pictures of Home-Depot 50-ton presses, and think that we who utilize REAL 50 ton presses in our professions should be impressed?
You present 'Amazing Underground Bellows' theories to impress us?
Like FEMA - You are a joke... go back to the 'pilots club' discussions.
I'm sure you would like me to go away.
Tough Shiite.
I see you are STILL stuck on the FEMA report.
A clear indication of the level of "Study" you've been doing.
I refer you back to this post:
QUOTE
Originally posted by Arthurian Legends
Now they haul all this off and there is NOT ONE picture of a MOLTEN (meaning MELTED) pool of Iron, nor one picture of a SOLIDIFIED hunk of SLAG.
Now they haul all this off and there is NOT ONE picture of a MOLTEN (meaning MELTED) pool of Iron, nor one picture of a SOLIDIFIED hunk of SLAG.
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Arthurian Legends Now they haul all this off and there is NOT ONE picture of a MOLTEN (meaning MELTED) pool of Iron, nor one picture of a SOLIDIFIED hunk of SLAG. |
Really? How would you know? NIST has THOUSANDS of photos related to 9/11 that they are NOT releasing for public consumption (after requiring the original owners of such photos to sign non-disclosure agreements). WHY should this information be with-held... "National Secrecy" perhaps.
For the last couple of years that I know of 'reports' have been circulated that there were pools of 'previously molten' metal found at the lowest levels of the 'dig'.
Official Gravity-Driven Collapse Supporters have consistently tried to rebut this FACT with the old J.Edgar Hoover tactic of 'Attack the Messenger' , claiming that the only reports of this anomaly depend upon a questional report by Bollyn {sp}.
Other researchers have attempted to follow up on this information which (for some reason officialdom has been attempting to suppress or ignore). Bollyn may have been the first to bring this anomaly to light publicy on the internet... but here are some more examples (From non-conspiracy sites), who have reported... 'rivers' and/or 'pools' of 'molten metal' at ground zero...
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Why was there Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for Months after 9/11?
Molten metal flowed underneath ground zero for months after the Twin Towers collapsed:
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burn[ing and molten steel flow[ing] in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires." (pay-per-view)
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",[/u] even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
For one explanation of why there was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11, see this paper.
The underlined links can be found at...
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51910
Any [b]'SURPRISE' that NO gravity-driven collapse supporter wants to try to fit this in with their 'theory'???
In order to FIT this theory with ALL observed and recorded parameters you will need to make your 'theory' address ALL of the following parameters and explain HOW your 'theory' can plausibly explain ALL factors...
QUOTE
List of Factors, Again
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the [/b]white smoke[/b] referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
Again, I contend that thermite fires account for ALL the following facts & parameters, (which no one from the gravity-driven collapse supporters has yet to account for in their nonsensical postulations)...
a - a compressed mass of rubble continued to burn for weeks after the 'attack / collapse'
b - a 'lake' of water was applied to douse this persistant fire
c - water had NO EFFECT to douse or suppress the fires
d - water will 'FEED' a thermite / diasite reaction
e - a thermite / diasite reaction gives off ultraviolet radiation (and this ultraviolet radiation could possibly account for the anomalous lightening of videos and photographs at the end of the collapses, which many writers have commented on)
f - Pyrocool absorbs ultraviolet radiation whilst dousing the oxygen-absorbing ability of a thermite / diasite based incendiary
g - Pyrocool reached the areas of the 'underground fires' and put them out, whereas ALL other fire-fighting efforts failed.
h - Pyrocool was specifically developed to fight 'incendiary' fires (primarily for use in military theaters).
AND Additionally...
i - Thermite melts steel
j - the smoke coming from the fires was white (just like the [/b]white smoke[/b] referred to by Pecararo in the basement explosions).... thermite produces white smoke.
Until someone comes up with a better theory for the underground fires THAT ACCOUNTS FOR ALL the above factors, I'll have to stick with the Most Plausible One (as presented above - thermite... OR something else which has the same properties and fulfills All the above parameters.)
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=51844
NIST has said it will provide you all their pictures and videos for a measly $13,000.
You know you just can't trust Co-Conspirators, they will always sell you out for a few bucks.
The NDA's were the ones NIST signed, not the other way around. NIST has NO POWER to force ANYONE to sign an NDA for their own property. You can repeat this lie all you want, but it is patently not true.
Getting a "pre-publication" injunction in the US is nigh impossible.
With the internet its become pretty much a moot point.
Funny, not ONE picture of a stream of molten metal has made it to the internet.
Wonder why?
Funny, not ONE picture of a solidified hunk of molten metal has made it to the internet.
Wonder why?
You know what they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.
You know what else is interesting. Not ONE of those comments about rivers, lakes or streams of melted metal was SPECIFIC as to Who EXACTLY said it, When they said it and in what context it was said.
A reporter ...
A fireman ...
A spokesman ...
A Village Idiot ...
Typical of urban legends actually.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
Well. let's see, 'pope'. ...
This thread began some 3 or 4 months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a statement within that period, to the effect that you had NO IDEA that there existed a theory that 'The WTC Towers were purposely demolished' (outside of aircraft impact & imaginary infernos)?
I find it truly Amazing that you have become such an 'expert' on the NIST / FEMA documents in such short order. So you have intensely studied ALL these documents, and are familiar with them enough to determine that they represent a 'logical' theory... (or are you just dependant upon bias and the proclamations of authority figures to determine 'truth'?)
Fool.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
I thank you for your time, but you waste mine with your lack of true understanding regarding the issues at hand.
Perhaps you would like to convince us further of your expertise and understanding of engineering principles (which you have proven to me through your posts that you are sadly lacking in with regard to ANY any empirical OR technical knowledge of in this area).
You post pictures of Home-Depot 50-ton presses, and think that we who utilize REAL 50 ton presses in our professions should be impressed?
You present 'Amazing Underground Bellows' theories to impress us?
Like FEMA - You are a joke... go back to the 'pilots club' discussions.
It never had anything to do with Faux forgetting anything or not being able to keep anything straight. Faux lies. And that's how it is.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:27 AM)
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
By the way.
This is a GREAT thread!
(emphasis mine)
This is a GREAT thread!
(emphasis mine)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:47 PM)
Hey temp, the spirefinish video won't download.
Uhm, works fine here.
Uhm, works fine here.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 04:56 AM)
And your right. I don't want an investigation into this dumb shiit. I don't want to be like the dumb a$$ republicans who spent 70 million dollars investigating a cum stain. I don't want to spend a thin dime on your fantasies while this president spy's on people and nothings done. While we go to war on a lie and nothings done. While people die in Iraq and nothings done... And I sure as hell don't want to make the same mistake Bush and co did lying about a crime he didn't commit. Because just like the Iraq lies are biting Bush in the a$$, this conspiracy BS will bit liberals in the a$$. It's all poisoning the well. You're working for Rove whether you know it or not...
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
This is so lame. I note the following:
1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)
2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents
3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over
So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?
Either a very unintelligent cheapness, or a hidden agenda behind your attitude or ....
you don't want liberals spending any of their time on it, and are being disingenuous in giving a reason why.
No, I'm going to fight your a$$ just like the republicans with any brains at all should have fought against the Clinton lynching.
This is so lame. I note the following:
1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)
2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents
3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over
So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?
Either a very unintelligent cheapness, or a hidden agenda behind your attitude or ....
you don't want liberals spending any of their time on it, and are being disingenuous in giving a reason why.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:27 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:54 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 05:49 AM)
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:32 AM)
QUOTE
Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'.
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
Well. let's see, 'pope'. ...
This thread began some 3 or 4 months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a statement within that period, to the effect that you had NO IDEA that there existed a theory that 'The WTC Towers were purposely demolished' (outside of aircraft impact & imaginary infernos)?
I find it truly Amazing that you have become such an 'expert' on the NIST / FEMA documents in such short order. So you have intensely studied ALL these documents, and are familiar with them enough to determine that they represent a 'logical' theory... (or are you just dependant upon bias and the proclamations of authority figures to determine 'truth'?)
Fool.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
I thank you for your time, but you waste mine with your lack of true understanding regarding the issues at hand.
Perhaps you would like to convince us further of your expertise and understanding of engineering principles (which you have proven to me through your posts that you are sadly lacking in with regard to ANY any empirical OR technical knowledge of in this area).
You post pictures of Home-Depot 50-ton presses, and think that we who utilize REAL 50 ton presses in our professions should be impressed?
You present 'Amazing Underground Bellows' theories to impress us?
Like FEMA - You are a joke... go back to the 'pilots club' discussions.
I'm sure you would like me to go away.
Tough Shiite.
I see you are STILL stuck on the FEMA report.
A clear indication of the level of "Study" you've been doing.
I refer you back to this post:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yep. I'm 'sure' those insignificant transverse beams would fail before a couple of 1" bolts... Those were magical bolts which had enough strength to 'pull' the central core columns 'out of plumb'. |
Foxx can't keep ANYTHING straight.
We have covered this and NIST covered this.
The CORE COLUMNS weren't pulled out of plum.
The PERIMETER COLUMNS were.
There IS photographic evidence of this you know.
By the way, the bolts were high tensile strength, and according to the NIST report, much stronger than they were supposed to be.
Arthur
Oh, so you disagree with YID and Schneibster on this issue?
I agree with NIST on this issue.
Arthur
Well. let's see, 'pope'. ...
This thread began some 3 or 4 months ago. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a statement within that period, to the effect that you had NO IDEA that there existed a theory that 'The WTC Towers were purposely demolished' (outside of aircraft impact & imaginary infernos)?
I find it truly Amazing that you have become such an 'expert' on the NIST / FEMA documents in such short order. So you have intensely studied ALL these documents, and are familiar with them enough to determine that they represent a 'logical' theory... (or are you just dependant upon bias and the proclamations of authority figures to determine 'truth'?)
Fool.
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
I thank you for your time, but you waste mine with your lack of true understanding regarding the issues at hand.
Perhaps you would like to convince us further of your expertise and understanding of engineering principles (which you have proven to me through your posts that you are sadly lacking in with regard to ANY any empirical OR technical knowledge of in this area).
You post pictures of Home-Depot 50-ton presses, and think that we who utilize REAL 50 ton presses in our professions should be impressed?
You present 'Amazing Underground Bellows' theories to impress us?
Like FEMA - You are a joke... go back to the 'pilots club' discussions.
I'm sure you would like me to go away.
Tough Shiite.
I see you are STILL stuck on the FEMA report.
A clear indication of the level of "Study" you've been doing.
I refer you back to this post:
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Oct 28 2005, 08:35 AM)
Quote Arthur
Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
Hey, you know Arthur, I do ask myself (after reading the previous 21 pages of posts again), why would anyone continue defending the Official Version of events surrounding 9-11, when all the "official" information in the public domain "flows" in another direction? The posture of Bin Laden as culprit is untenable.
These people can be divided into two groups.
1)People incapable of believing that their certain factions within their own government would be involved in such a heinous plan.
2)People directly (or indirectly) involved in the pre-production, production and execution of 9-11.
QUOTE
Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Implying I am complicit in the murder of 3000 people is nothing less than SLANDER. |
Uhhhh... no Arthur. I think the majority of people recognize that there is 'something' seriously wrong with the official version of events. The 'Official Version' does not stand up even to a cursory examination of facts.
Hey, you know Arthur, I do ask myself (after reading the previous 21 pages of posts again), why would anyone continue defending the Official Version of events surrounding 9-11, when all the "official" information in the public domain "flows" in another direction? The posture of Bin Laden as culprit is untenable.
These people can be divided into two groups.
1)People incapable of believing that their certain factions within their own government would be involved in such a heinous plan.
2)People directly (or indirectly) involved in the pre-production, production and execution of 9-11.
QUOTE (Adoucette+)
Now, from what I can tell, if you Don't accept the Govt version, it is because (in most cases I presume) you have an ALTERNATE view of what happened, gleaned from sources like the many links that have been posted.
We have proved that it wasn´t Bin Laden. Who did you vote for?, Arthur, I am curious.
Well actually, I don't think there has been much if any discussion as to WHO was responsible.
I must have missed the presentation of the "proof" that it wasn't Bin Laden via Al Queda cells. Got a link (on this board) ?
I posted several times asking WHO was presumably responsible.
To which I received basically nothing, hence the poll.
I don't think I've been defending the "official version", I have been debating the PHYSICS of the collapse. The actual analysis of the buildings fall seems to have petered out, witness my last post where I found that the Sq footage was 40,000 not 28,000 sq ft on the upper floors.
Totally ignored even though it changes the estimates of burnable material significantly.
Why?
Since I deal with logic for my livelihood, I approached much of this simply by applying logic.
I asked a series of questions to see if my logic about what the physical attributes to a secretly planted and executed demolition would be valid.
The only answers were to the the very broadest of the assumptions like: "the govt knew". The assumptions about how a controlled demolition could be done in secrecy were not touched at all. Why?
What I have argued about is that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, I have NOT argued about who or why that happened. So this is not the same as defending the "official position" since the question as to what hit the Pentagon is a totally separate issue.
Even if it is presumed that it was a 757, that doesn't negate the broader question of "Was someone other than Al Queda" complicit in the attack?"
I did argue that the story on Barbara Olson was a fabrication, based on the contents of the story. Its been a month now and there has been apparently no follow up on the story, so yes it does appear that the story has no legs.
That doesn't negate the broader question either. The fact that someone publishes a "story" that supports the broader allegations turns out to be false simply diminishes the credibility of the publisher, but does not, of itself, bolster the official position.
As to your groups, can not one believe that factions could be involved but still not be convinced by the sum of the "evidence" they have seen, that govt factions were involved?
Again, I resort to logic.
If you presume that a person who can believe such an action by our govt is not impossible, and who watches/reads the typical papers/news shows, would have little reason to not initially accept the "official version", then you have to presume that as the person learns of "alternate" explanations and/or inconsistencies in the official explanation, then one would not necessarily immediately JUMP to the alternate conclusion that the govt did it, but would in fact, want to rigorously TEST and VERIFY these alternate explanations.
Further, as can be seen by some of these posts, there ARE potentially logical counter arguments to some of these "alternate" explanations, and as the posts on the failure of the WTC indicates, it is a hugely complex issue, for which much of the data available to base conclusions on has to be approximated and also involves levels of knowledge (of structures, failure modes, materials, construction details, engineering etc) that very few are well versed in.
This presents a serious problem to someone, who even with an open mind, does not have sufficient back ground to ascertain if a well presented explanation of an alternate failure mode is accurate, accounts for all the critical variables, applies the relevant formulas correctly and uses reasonable estimates for those facts which are not precisely quantifiable. Thus though one may see a "proof", it takes much more mental effort to review the proof to see if there are in flaws in it. Because, cognitive dissonance, pretty much requires this level of proof, before discarding a previously held belief for a new paradigm.
While you may have been researching this for some time and have satisfied yourself of the veracity of these claims, I have not, and I suspect this is true for the majority of adults in the US. I have not had time to track down all the various links posted and review their material, so again, you may be basing your conclusions on information I have not yet seen.
Surely YOU KNOW this is a hugely complex and challenging problem, so why is it that you seem to want to smear anyone who is simply posting what they see as problems with your explanation. Challenges to your explanation of "what happened and why it happened" do not amount to "supporting the official position", they are just what they are, attempts to understand if there is veracity to your position.
I would presume that if you have concluded that some alternate explanation is in fact valid, then that would imply that you have already dealt with many if not most of the questions that I pose.
The problem that I am having is most of my questions have gone unanswered.
I find that strange, and further it forces me to find the answers myself, which of course takes much more time. If you say the answers to my questions are in the links provided, that helps, but again, since you (and others) are MUCH more familiar with this, one would expect that you could provide a little more direct help than just posting a URL.
Arthur
And so, yes I've been reading the NIST FINAL Report. I find it very well done. What I also find is amazingly a number of the detractors and people calling for a new investigation, apparently haven't bothered to read it.
What I also find is people like you, essentially lying by taking snippets out of context, or who CLAIM to have studied the FINAL NIST report and can't even keep the relatively SIMPLE explanation of how the collapse progressed STRAIGHT.
So you are either a LIAR or STUPID or BOTH.
Your pick.
Arthur
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Please do. I've got a cold and could use a good laugh.
Arthur
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Faux spent years on the final document which only came out in April 2005... Time machine maybe?
We have proved that it wasn´t Bin Laden. Who did you vote for?, Arthur, I am curious.
Well actually, I don't think there has been much if any discussion as to WHO was responsible.
I must have missed the presentation of the "proof" that it wasn't Bin Laden via Al Queda cells. Got a link (on this board) ?
I posted several times asking WHO was presumably responsible.
To which I received basically nothing, hence the poll.
I don't think I've been defending the "official version", I have been debating the PHYSICS of the collapse. The actual analysis of the buildings fall seems to have petered out, witness my last post where I found that the Sq footage was 40,000 not 28,000 sq ft on the upper floors.
Totally ignored even though it changes the estimates of burnable material significantly.
Why?
Since I deal with logic for my livelihood, I approached much of this simply by applying logic.
I asked a series of questions to see if my logic about what the physical attributes to a secretly planted and executed demolition would be valid.
QUOTE
I'm new to this conspiracy idea that we blew the WTC.
Is there a reasonably consistent theory as to WHY we would do so?
If one makes the assumption that we did then I take it the following are logical assumptions:
The Govt either knew of or was behind the hijackings.
The Govt either knew when or approx when the hijackings would take place.
The Govt installed significant numbers of explosives and associated wiring into the WTC1, 2 and 7 prior to 9/11
The Govt installed these under some ruse so as to not draw suspicion to the nature of all the boxes it was installing on the supporting structure of the WTC, nor the wiring.
The Govt installed these such that after installation their actual purpose could not be ascertained.
The Govt came up with some "alternate" explanation to satisfy building management of the purpose of all of these boxes and wiring.
The wiring and control system was structured such that it would still work after the WTC was hit anywhere by a 757 and after the structure had burned uncontrollably for a decent period of time.
The black boxes would have to be self powered in that a central source of power could not be assumed.
The black boxes would have to be "On" from the time they were set up, which would necessitate a reasonable size power supply.
The black boxes would have to be set off via radio transmission as no physical wiring would be possible.
The transmission would need to be "highly secure" such that accidental tripping would not be a concern, yet they would have to still work in an environment with potentially a lot of other transmissions and other RFI noise.
The person setting off the black boxes would have to be in a safe location that had good visual position to see both towers.
The person setting off the black boxes would need an independent power supply as local power could not be assured.
The transmitter would have to be strong enough to send a good signal to all receivers with little chance of missed signal.
The black boxes (thousands of them I presume) were of a nature that if their parts were discovered in the wreckage that their purpose would not raise suspicion.
The blasts were further "directed" so that few if any visible clues would be generated even though hundreds if not thousands of these explosives were going off in a very set pattern.
Though the WTC were clearly demolished by the jets and ensuing fires, and the people above the impact zones were doomed, there was some additional reason for them to collapse the towers.
Since Jets WERE used against the WTC, the conspiracy of not using a Jet for the Pentagon seems mutually exclusive. If the US was behind the Jets into the WTC it makes no sense to use a cruise missile against the Pentagon.
Just checking to see if these are logical assumptions
Is there a reasonably consistent theory as to WHY we would do so?
If one makes the assumption that we did then I take it the following are logical assumptions:
The Govt either knew of or was behind the hijackings.
The Govt either knew when or approx when the hijackings would take place.
The Govt installed significant numbers of explosives and associated wiring into the WTC1, 2 and 7 prior to 9/11
The Govt installed these under some ruse so as to not draw suspicion to the nature of all the boxes it was installing on the supporting structure of the WTC, nor the wiring.
The Govt installed these such that after installation their actual purpose could not be ascertained.
The Govt came up with some "alternate" explanation to satisfy building management of the purpose of all of these boxes and wiring.
The wiring and control system was structured such that it would still work after the WTC was hit anywhere by a 757 and after the structure had burned uncontrollably for a decent period of time.
The black boxes would have to be self powered in that a central source of power could not be assumed.
The black boxes would have to be "On" from the time they were set up, which would necessitate a reasonable size power supply.
The black boxes would have to be set off via radio transmission as no physical wiring would be possible.
The transmission would need to be "highly secure" such that accidental tripping would not be a concern, yet they would have to still work in an environment with potentially a lot of other transmissions and other RFI noise.
The person setting off the black boxes would have to be in a safe location that had good visual position to see both towers.
The person setting off the black boxes would need an independent power supply as local power could not be assured.
The transmitter would have to be strong enough to send a good signal to all receivers with little chance of missed signal.
The black boxes (thousands of them I presume) were of a nature that if their parts were discovered in the wreckage that their purpose would not raise suspicion.
The blasts were further "directed" so that few if any visible clues would be generated even though hundreds if not thousands of these explosives were going off in a very set pattern.
Though the WTC were clearly demolished by the jets and ensuing fires, and the people above the impact zones were doomed, there was some additional reason for them to collapse the towers.
Since Jets WERE used against the WTC, the conspiracy of not using a Jet for the Pentagon seems mutually exclusive. If the US was behind the Jets into the WTC it makes no sense to use a cruise missile against the Pentagon.
Just checking to see if these are logical assumptions
The only answers were to the the very broadest of the assumptions like: "the govt knew". The assumptions about how a controlled demolition could be done in secrecy were not touched at all. Why?
What I have argued about is that a 757 did hit the Pentagon, I have NOT argued about who or why that happened. So this is not the same as defending the "official position" since the question as to what hit the Pentagon is a totally separate issue.
Even if it is presumed that it was a 757, that doesn't negate the broader question of "Was someone other than Al Queda" complicit in the attack?"
I did argue that the story on Barbara Olson was a fabrication, based on the contents of the story. Its been a month now and there has been apparently no follow up on the story, so yes it does appear that the story has no legs.
That doesn't negate the broader question either. The fact that someone publishes a "story" that supports the broader allegations turns out to be false simply diminishes the credibility of the publisher, but does not, of itself, bolster the official position.
As to your groups, can not one believe that factions could be involved but still not be convinced by the sum of the "evidence" they have seen, that govt factions were involved?
Again, I resort to logic.
If you presume that a person who can believe such an action by our govt is not impossible, and who watches/reads the typical papers/news shows, would have little reason to not initially accept the "official version", then you have to presume that as the person learns of "alternate" explanations and/or inconsistencies in the official explanation, then one would not necessarily immediately JUMP to the alternate conclusion that the govt did it, but would in fact, want to rigorously TEST and VERIFY these alternate explanations.
Further, as can be seen by some of these posts, there ARE potentially logical counter arguments to some of these "alternate" explanations, and as the posts on the failure of the WTC indicates, it is a hugely complex issue, for which much of the data available to base conclusions on has to be approximated and also involves levels of knowledge (of structures, failure modes, materials, construction details, engineering etc) that very few are well versed in.
This presents a serious problem to someone, who even with an open mind, does not have sufficient back ground to ascertain if a well presented explanation of an alternate failure mode is accurate, accounts for all the critical variables, applies the relevant formulas correctly and uses reasonable estimates for those facts which are not precisely quantifiable. Thus though one may see a "proof", it takes much more mental effort to review the proof to see if there are in flaws in it. Because, cognitive dissonance, pretty much requires this level of proof, before discarding a previously held belief for a new paradigm.
While you may have been researching this for some time and have satisfied yourself of the veracity of these claims, I have not, and I suspect this is true for the majority of adults in the US. I have not had time to track down all the various links posted and review their material, so again, you may be basing your conclusions on information I have not yet seen.
Surely YOU KNOW this is a hugely complex and challenging problem, so why is it that you seem to want to smear anyone who is simply posting what they see as problems with your explanation. Challenges to your explanation of "what happened and why it happened" do not amount to "supporting the official position", they are just what they are, attempts to understand if there is veracity to your position.
I would presume that if you have concluded that some alternate explanation is in fact valid, then that would imply that you have already dealt with many if not most of the questions that I pose.
The problem that I am having is most of my questions have gone unanswered.
I find that strange, and further it forces me to find the answers myself, which of course takes much more time. If you say the answers to my questions are in the links provided, that helps, but again, since you (and others) are MUCH more familiar with this, one would expect that you could provide a little more direct help than just posting a URL.
Arthur
And so, yes I've been reading the NIST FINAL Report. I find it very well done. What I also find is amazingly a number of the detractors and people calling for a new investigation, apparently haven't bothered to read it.
What I also find is people like you, essentially lying by taking snippets out of context, or who CLAIM to have studied the FINAL NIST report and can't even keep the relatively SIMPLE explanation of how the collapse progressed STRAIGHT.
So you are either a LIAR or STUPID or BOTH.
Your pick.
Arthur
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 14 2006, 09:32 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:27 AM)
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Please do. I've got a cold and could use a good laugh.
Arthur
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 14 2006, 09:32 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:27 AM)
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Faux spent years on the final document which only came out in April 2005... Time machine maybe?
metamars, You act as though just because you pointed out your stupidity I have to buy into it. Who the fucck do you think you are?
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
"2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents"
And as it's already pointed out to you I don't want to spend a thin dime of money that isn't even mine! That's right, because thanks to Bush we now have an 8.1 trillion dollar national debt. So by the time our grand children pay that 20,000,000 dollars it will look more like 200,000,0000. It's moronic to spend 70 million on a cum stained dress and it's moronic to spend one dollar every time you CTers see a flying saucer land in Area 51.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN BS TO WARNED THIS? Out of the thousands of people who must have been involved in this cover-up, do you have ONE whistle blower?... A wife of an accomplice? Anyone? NO Do you have a memo? A chip from a timing device? A piece of steel with a round laser hole? You have shiit. You just keep pulling shiit out of your A$$ and saying it's gold. Min-nukes with no evidence one even exist that can take a building down from the top if placed in the basement.. Space lasers which defy physics... A conspiracy which involves everyone and their mother yet nothing... nada, zip, zero... The SECOND you get some real evidence I, and I'm sure everyone else who concludes the NIST evidence is good will fall behind you. Until then you're just in the way of REAL conspiracies involving the decision to invade Iraq and spying on Americans. These involve only a hand full of people and have ALREADY been exposed! What are you waiting for! Create a hundred web sites for that! Oh, I forgot, you work for Rove. It would be defeating your reason for living...
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
"So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?"
Here's the lie, because I don't want to waste a good nickle on something so vacuous as a conspiracy without evidence I'm cheap.. No I have common sense. Something lacking in Cters like you. It's a moronic cheap trick everyone here sees through. It's something Rove would do. Talk about not having self respect... No irony here...
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Please do. I've got a cold and could use a good laugh.
Arthur
I find their twisting and turning without direction hysterical. HAHAHAHA!
QUOTE
"1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)"
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)" |
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
"2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents"
And as it's already pointed out to you I don't want to spend a thin dime of money that isn't even mine! That's right, because thanks to Bush we now have an 8.1 trillion dollar national debt. So by the time our grand children pay that 20,000,000 dollars it will look more like 200,000,0000. It's moronic to spend 70 million on a cum stained dress and it's moronic to spend one dollar every time you CTers see a flying saucer land in Area 51.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN BS TO WARNED THIS? Out of the thousands of people who must have been involved in this cover-up, do you have ONE whistle blower?... A wife of an accomplice? Anyone? NO Do you have a memo? A chip from a timing device? A piece of steel with a round laser hole? You have shiit. You just keep pulling shiit out of your A$$ and saying it's gold. Min-nukes with no evidence one even exist that can take a building down from the top if placed in the basement.. Space lasers which defy physics... A conspiracy which involves everyone and their mother yet nothing... nada, zip, zero... The SECOND you get some real evidence I, and I'm sure everyone else who concludes the NIST evidence is good will fall behind you. Until then you're just in the way of REAL conspiracies involving the decision to invade Iraq and spying on Americans. These involve only a hand full of people and have ALREADY been exposed! What are you waiting for! Create a hundred web sites for that! Oh, I forgot, you work for Rove. It would be defeating your reason for living...
QUOTE
"3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over"
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over" |
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
"So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?"
Here's the lie, because I don't want to waste a good nickle on something so vacuous as a conspiracy without evidence I'm cheap.. No I have common sense. Something lacking in Cters like you. It's a moronic cheap trick everyone here sees through. It's something Rove would do. Talk about not having self respect... No irony here...
QUOTE
"Either a very unintelligent cheapness, or a hidden agenda behind your attitude or ...."
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 02:28 PM)
QUOTE (Coastal+Jan 14 2006, 09:32 AM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:27 AM)
Many of us here have spent countless hours over years in an attempt to decipher these documents and determine what 'truths' they may hold... yet you, upon your cursory examination have decided to come here and instruct us?
ARGHH!!!
Don't make me show these guys exactly when I finally forced you to download a NIST pdf.
Heh..
You're completely shameless.
Please do. I've got a cold and could use a good laugh.
Arthur
I find their twisting and turning without direction hysterical. HAHAHAHA!
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 15 2005, 02:54 PM)
My mistake of adding the 'A'.
It is the report preceeding that one...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Adobe page - 46
Which is REALLY FUNNY, because one of Foxx's favorite pastimes is to quote obsolete reports.
While the FINAL (not Draft) form of the NIST document on WTC 1 & 2 came out months earlier and there is no date yet for a WTC 7 report, Foxx is still referring us to an old draft report, and then just for kicks, takes it out of context or twists the meaning.
Want to verify this for yourself, do a search on FOXX and NIST and you will see all his references to obsolete material.
Arthur
It is the report preceeding that one...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Adobe page - 46
Which is REALLY FUNNY, because one of Foxx's favorite pastimes is to quote obsolete reports.
While the FINAL (not Draft) form of the NIST document on WTC 1 & 2 came out months earlier and there is no date yet for a WTC 7 report, Foxx is still referring us to an old draft report, and then just for kicks, takes it out of context or twists the meaning.
Want to verify this for yourself, do a search on FOXX and NIST and you will see all his references to obsolete material.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 14 2006, 05:37 PM)
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 15 2005, 02:54 PM)
My mistake of adding the 'A'.
It is the report preceeding that one...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Adobe page - 46
Which is REALLY FUNNY, because one of Foxx's favorite pastimes is to quote obsolete reports.
While the FINAL (not Draft) form of the NIST document on WTC 1 & 2 came out months earlier and there is no date yet for a WTC 7 report, Foxx is still referring us to an old draft report, and then just for kicks, takes it out of context or twists the meaning.
Want to verify this for yourself, do a search on FOXX and NIST and you will see all his references to obsolete material.
Arthur
That's because they only get their information from CT web sites which only give half the story. Misdirection is a staple of the Rove machine. Look at what one hands doing while the other picks your pocket.
It is the report preceeding that one...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3Draft.pdf
Adobe page - 46
Which is REALLY FUNNY, because one of Foxx's favorite pastimes is to quote obsolete reports.
While the FINAL (not Draft) form of the NIST document on WTC 1 & 2 came out months earlier and there is no date yet for a WTC 7 report, Foxx is still referring us to an old draft report, and then just for kicks, takes it out of context or twists the meaning.
Want to verify this for yourself, do a search on FOXX and NIST and you will see all his references to obsolete material.
Arthur
That's because they only get their information from CT web sites which only give half the story. Misdirection is a staple of the Rove machine. Look at what one hands doing while the other picks your pocket.
The trusses were welded to the collumns at the gusset plate:
Figure B-8 shows the end of the top chords that were connected to every other exterior column/spandrel beam and the core support channel beams. The top chords were supported on bearing seats at each end of the two trusses.At the exterior column/spandrel beam, a gusset plate was groove-welded to the spandrel face and fillet-welded to the top chord angles. At the bearing seat, two 5/8-inch A325 bolts in 3/4 inch x 1-1/4 inch slotted holes connected the trusses' top chords to the bearing seat with a single bolt in the exterior angle of each truss. The lower chord was attached to the exterior column/spandrel beam with a viscoelastic damping unit connected to a small seat with two 1 inch A490 bolts that provided a slip-resistant connection. The damping unit had a capacity of about 5 kips.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-demolition.htm
Figure B-8 shows the end of the top chords that were connected to every other exterior column/spandrel beam and the core support channel beams. The top chords were supported on bearing seats at each end of the two trusses.At the exterior column/spandrel beam, a gusset plate was groove-welded to the spandrel face and fillet-welded to the top chord angles. At the bearing seat, two 5/8-inch A325 bolts in 3/4 inch x 1-1/4 inch slotted holes connected the trusses' top chords to the bearing seat with a single bolt in the exterior angle of each truss. The lower chord was attached to the exterior column/spandrel beam with a viscoelastic damping unit connected to a small seat with two 1 inch A490 bolts that provided a slip-resistant connection. The damping unit had a capacity of about 5 kips.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardi...-demolition.htm
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 06:00 PM)
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
But if you put the whole article in context you come away with an HONEST post..
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.
While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."
Why the fucck did you leave that out? Why did you leave the part about them being concerned about "communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers". It says NOTHING about them wanting to talk about the explosions they heard. It says NOTHING about bombs or anything else you CTers claim they want to talk about. This is just another proof positive that you CTers are a lying sack of shiit.
Keep taking your little snipits out of context and I'll keep putting back in context.
These people risk their lives for these morons and this is how they repay them. So fuccking sick...
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
But if you put the whole article in context you come away with an HONEST post..
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.
While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."
Why the fucck did you leave that out? Why did you leave the part about them being concerned about "communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers". It says NOTHING about them wanting to talk about the explosions they heard. It says NOTHING about bombs or anything else you CTers claim they want to talk about. This is just another proof positive that you CTers are a lying sack of shiit.
Keep taking your little snipits out of context and I'll keep putting back in context.
These people risk their lives for these morons and this is how they repay them. So fuccking sick...
The NIST Reports contain thousands of pages of irrelevant materials.
The "Draft report on Mechanical & Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel" (NISTNCSTAR 1-3) is comprised of 5 sections :
* (1-3A)Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
* (1-3B)Steel Inventory and Identification
* (1-3C)Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
* (1-3D)Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
* (1-3E) Physical Properties of Structural Steels
with an Executive Summary of the findings covered in these sections.
This mechanical & metallurgical report goes into great detail to tell us about the properties (physical & mechanical) related to steels in general, and the specific grades of steel within the towers. It is a great resource for learning about steel in general, and gives us some insight into steel used in the towers. However, it (like all of the NIST report gives us precious little factual information about the mechanics of HOW this alleged "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" occured
In order to take a critical look at the collapses themselves, it is helpful to analyse the information in this report, but NOT absolutely essential to coming to an understanding of the alleged fires and HOW they affected the steel in the towers.
The gravity-driven collapse supporters are quick to state that opponents 'cherry pick' statements from ALL NIST reports. This, as far as I am concerned, is mere obfuscation and an attempt to muddy the waters. Of course certain statements are gleaned from the reports which bolster ones position. What does anyone expect a poster to do - copy/paste the entire document into a post, and then turn around and say... "See... It's right there... I prove my case" ?
There is an Invalid use of 'cherry-picking' points from the NIST reports. This is often done by gravity-driven collapse supporters. That is - 'taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT with an entire report', and twisting that 'out-of-context' quote to support a position (or to counter a statement made by others).
This is the 'rebuttal method' used by pope adoucette in an attempt to counter the quote used by myself (taken from the NISTNCSTAR 1-3 Executive Summary report)...
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C.
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Certainly, NIST DOES make this statement, however it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, as I have previously shown here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
NIST avoids in the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary relevant facts which I have pointed out in the above post, regarding the selection process utilized by The SEAoNY (Structural Engineers Association of New York, FEMA, and the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).
Further, then 'pope' adoucette goes off into 'cherry-picked' quotes from the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary which seems to support his position that the Mechanical & Mettalurgical report has essentially NOTHING to do with how wtc steel was affected by fires, but ONLY with the mechanical properties of the various grades of steel within the towers.
This is so WRONG, and out of context with the IMPORTANT findings in that report.
By purposely selecting quotes out of context with the entire report, he has done a fine job of obfuscating the actual IMPORTANT parts of the mechanical & metallurgical report which relate DIRECTLY to the 'initiation' of the 'collapse'.
As far as the mechanical & metallurgical report relates to the quality and specifics of steel used in the towers, the entire summary of 'evidence' can be boiled down to...
no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Yeah..."Other forensic analysis" ... such as examination for heat absorption and fire effects
from Section E-3
Extensive failure analysis of the recovered steel was conducted to determine damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Post collapse analysis concentrated on the damage characteristics of the recovered structural steel elements... Of particular importance were the samples located near the airplane impact regions and those where the fire was known to exist before the collapse of the buildings.
In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independant study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Now WHO was this 'other contractor' who did an 'independant study'. Well that would be Underwriters (UL) as reported in other NIST documents.
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services. UL has been in operation since 1894 and today is a worldwide company with approximately 6000 employees. UL provides conformity assessment services for a wide range of products, equipment and construction materials, including determination of fire resistance ratings. Fire ratings are based upon the test method and acceptance criteria in ANSI/UL 263 (ASTM E119 and NFPA 251), “Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Regardless of all the attacks and obfuscations the gravity-driven collapse supporters levy against the Ryan letter and consequences.... The FACT remains that the steel WAS tested by an independant laboratory and found to be 'certified' and NOT subject to failure under comparable fire conditions as were supposed to be existent within the towers.
In addition to all of the above, adoucette (and other 'popes') refuse to accept that the steel collected from the fire & impact zones WAS sufficient for the required testing and analysis (often quoting NISTs apologies that the samples collected are NOT representative of all other columns in the zone).
I have no disagreement with the statement that they do not give an accurate picture of all other columns in the areas under question.
The 'disagreement' I have is when NIST or other gravity-driven collapse supporters extrapolate from that fact and CONCLUDE with absolutely NO forensic or empirical evidence whatsoever that (by extension) this means THAT OTHER columns suffered GREATER heat effects.
There is absolutely No evidence to support such a contention. On the contrary, it is more LIKELY and reasonable that the collectors of steel evidence SPECIFICALLY looked for the MOST REPRESENTATIVE (worst damaged) steel evidence they could find. They DID, and came up with ZIP, Zero, Nada, Ziltch (as was revealed through proper scientific testing)... yet STILL the gravity-driven collapse supporters try to fit square evidence into a round hole to support their unsupportable Fairy Tales.
Speculation & Theories are NOT Scientific or Forensic Evidence, yet when the actual scientific & forensic evidence collected does NOT Fit the Fairy Tale, they 'throw away' that evidence & make up further speculative fairy tales to support their position.
Furthermore, with regard to the NCSTAR 1-3 mechanical & metallurgical report, one of the most important pieces of evidence stated in that report is the fallacious DENIAL by NIST that steel WAS IN FACT collected from WTC7.
There is NO Question that NIST is OUTRIGHT LYING with regard to this when they state...
from section E.6
"NO steel WAS recovered from WTC7"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
The reasons & motives for such LIES can only be speculated on, nevertheless...
NIST (and those gravity-driven collapse 'believers' who support them with statements such as...
"I found the NIST reports very 'professional' and convincing"...
are OUTRIGHT LIARS --- (or 'fools', 'obfuscators', 'idiots', 'unintelligently biased', or 'have not actually studied the documents with a critical eye'... choose your own word).
In answer to the YIDs attempts to rebute the evidence...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
The reasons & motives for such LIES can only be speculated on, nevertheless...
NIST (and those gravity-driven collapse 'believers' who support them with statements such as...
"I found the NIST reports very 'professional' and convincing"...
are OUTRIGHT LIARS --- (or 'fools', 'obfuscators', 'idiots', 'unintelligently biased', or 'have not actually studied the documents with a critical eye'... choose your own word).
In answer to the YIDs attempts to rebute the evidence...
Originally posted by YID
In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires.
WRONG - why would any investigator discard any steel "that had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact / pre-collapse fires" simply (in the unlikely event) that they could NOT be identified as to exact location within that zone? IF any steel columns from those areas had shown greater effect of fires than the Most Representative pieces the collectors could find from those areas, they would have been saved simply to determine the maximum temperature that the fire reached 'in the area'
Steel that was exposed to heat but not identifiable as having come from the fire floors would not be useful in proving any modelling of the fires and also with no proof they came from any floor with fires would call into question where they were heat damaged, pre or post collapse.. Any steel found underground and identified as having come from the fire floors would not be useful either since its heat damage could have occured post-collapse.
Amazingly, the YID and I agree on this. The ONLY thing he seems to be missing is HOW the underground fires could possibly burn hotter than his imaginary raging inferno that was burning on the fire floors, fueled by jet-fuel and office contents in a much more fire-friendly environment (having obviously much more oxygen than post-collapse rubble compacted under tons of debris and dust).
All engineers, have now agreed that the conditions on the fire floors were impossible to melt steel, so how could underground fires have much less oxygen accessibilty to cause 'rivers of molten metal' to be created post-collapse.
Of course, we are STILL awaiting some kind of plausible answer for THIS from any of the gravity-driven collapse supporters, which attempts to address the list of related anomalous factors which both adoucette and YID have now refused to provide, after having been directly asked for such.
Much easier to just ignore that and hope it gets forgotten amongst change of topics... insults... character assaults... and other obfuscations.
The "Draft report on Mechanical & Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel" (NISTNCSTAR 1-3) is comprised of 5 sections :
* (1-3A)Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
* (1-3B)Steel Inventory and Identification
* (1-3C)Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
* (1-3D)Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
* (1-3E) Physical Properties of Structural Steels
with an Executive Summary of the findings covered in these sections.
This mechanical & metallurgical report goes into great detail to tell us about the properties (physical & mechanical) related to steels in general, and the specific grades of steel within the towers. It is a great resource for learning about steel in general, and gives us some insight into steel used in the towers. However, it (like all of the NIST report gives us precious little factual information about the mechanics of HOW this alleged "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" occured
In order to take a critical look at the collapses themselves, it is helpful to analyse the information in this report, but NOT absolutely essential to coming to an understanding of the alleged fires and HOW they affected the steel in the towers.
The gravity-driven collapse supporters are quick to state that opponents 'cherry pick' statements from ALL NIST reports. This, as far as I am concerned, is mere obfuscation and an attempt to muddy the waters. Of course certain statements are gleaned from the reports which bolster ones position. What does anyone expect a poster to do - copy/paste the entire document into a post, and then turn around and say... "See... It's right there... I prove my case" ?
There is an Invalid use of 'cherry-picking' points from the NIST reports. This is often done by gravity-driven collapse supporters. That is - 'taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT with an entire report', and twisting that 'out-of-context' quote to support a position (or to counter a statement made by others).
This is the 'rebuttal method' used by pope adoucette in an attempt to counter the quote used by myself (taken from the NISTNCSTAR 1-3 Executive Summary report)...
QUOTE
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C.
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C. |
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Certainly, NIST DOES make this statement, however it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, as I have previously shown here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
NIST avoids in the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary relevant facts which I have pointed out in the above post, regarding the selection process utilized by The SEAoNY (Structural Engineers Association of New York, FEMA, and the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).
Further, then 'pope' adoucette goes off into 'cherry-picked' quotes from the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary which seems to support his position that the Mechanical & Mettalurgical report has essentially NOTHING to do with how wtc steel was affected by fires, but ONLY with the mechanical properties of the various grades of steel within the towers.
This is so WRONG, and out of context with the IMPORTANT findings in that report.
By purposely selecting quotes out of context with the entire report, he has done a fine job of obfuscating the actual IMPORTANT parts of the mechanical & metallurgical report which relate DIRECTLY to the 'initiation' of the 'collapse'.
As far as the mechanical & metallurgical report relates to the quality and specifics of steel used in the towers, the entire summary of 'evidence' can be boiled down to...
QUOTE
no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure" |
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Yeah..."Other forensic analysis" ... such as examination for heat absorption and fire effects
QUOTE
from Section E-3
Extensive failure analysis of the recovered steel was conducted to determine damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
from Section E-3 Extensive failure analysis of the recovered steel was conducted to determine damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components. |
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Post collapse analysis concentrated on the damage characteristics of the recovered structural steel elements... Of particular importance were the samples located near the airplane impact regions and those where the fire was known to exist before the collapse of the buildings.
In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independant study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Now WHO was this 'other contractor' who did an 'independant study'. Well that would be Underwriters (UL) as reported in other NIST documents.
QUOTE
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services. UL has been in operation since 1894 and today is a worldwide company with approximately 6000 employees. UL provides conformity assessment services for a wide range of products, equipment and construction materials, including determination of fire resistance ratings. Fire ratings are based upon the test method and acceptance criteria in ANSI/UL 263 (ASTM E119 and NFPA 251), “Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services. UL has been in operation since 1894 and today is a worldwide company with approximately 6000 employees. UL provides conformity assessment services for a wide range of products, equipment and construction materials, including determination of fire resistance ratings. Fire ratings are based upon the test method and acceptance criteria in ANSI/UL 263 (ASTM E119 and NFPA 251), “Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.” |
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Regardless of all the attacks and obfuscations the gravity-driven collapse supporters levy against the Ryan letter and consequences.... The FACT remains that the steel WAS tested by an independant laboratory and found to be 'certified' and NOT subject to failure under comparable fire conditions as were supposed to be existent within the towers.
In addition to all of the above, adoucette (and other 'popes') refuse to accept that the steel collected from the fire & impact zones WAS sufficient for the required testing and analysis (often quoting NISTs apologies that the samples collected are NOT representative of all other columns in the zone).
I have no disagreement with the statement that they do not give an accurate picture of all other columns in the areas under question.
The 'disagreement' I have is when NIST or other gravity-driven collapse supporters extrapolate from that fact and CONCLUDE with absolutely NO forensic or empirical evidence whatsoever that (by extension) this means THAT OTHER columns suffered GREATER heat effects.
There is absolutely No evidence to support such a contention. On the contrary, it is more LIKELY and reasonable that the collectors of steel evidence SPECIFICALLY looked for the MOST REPRESENTATIVE (worst damaged) steel evidence they could find. They DID, and came up with ZIP, Zero, Nada, Ziltch (as was revealed through proper scientific testing)... yet STILL the gravity-driven collapse supporters try to fit square evidence into a round hole to support their unsupportable Fairy Tales.
Speculation & Theories are NOT Scientific or Forensic Evidence, yet when the actual scientific & forensic evidence collected does NOT Fit the Fairy Tale, they 'throw away' that evidence & make up further speculative fairy tales to support their position.
Furthermore, with regard to the NCSTAR 1-3 mechanical & metallurgical report, one of the most important pieces of evidence stated in that report is the fallacious DENIAL by NIST that steel WAS IN FACT collected from WTC7.
There is NO Question that NIST is OUTRIGHT LYING with regard to this when they state...
QUOTE
from section E.6
"NO steel WAS recovered from WTC7"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
The reasons & motives for such LIES can only be speculated on, nevertheless...
NIST (and those gravity-driven collapse 'believers' who support them with statements such as...
"I found the NIST reports very 'professional' and convincing"...
are OUTRIGHT LIARS --- (or 'fools', 'obfuscators', 'idiots', 'unintelligently biased', or 'have not actually studied the documents with a critical eye'... choose your own word).
In answer to the YIDs attempts to rebute the evidence...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
from section E.6 "NO steel WAS recovered from WTC7" |
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
The reasons & motives for such LIES can only be speculated on, nevertheless...
NIST (and those gravity-driven collapse 'believers' who support them with statements such as...
"I found the NIST reports very 'professional' and convincing"...
are OUTRIGHT LIARS --- (or 'fools', 'obfuscators', 'idiots', 'unintelligently biased', or 'have not actually studied the documents with a critical eye'... choose your own word).
In answer to the YIDs attempts to rebute the evidence...
Originally posted by YID
In examining steel that had been exposed to heat and had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact/pre-collapse fires only those that could be identified would be of any use to investigators concerned with those fires.
WRONG - why would any investigator discard any steel "that had come from the areas of the impact and the post-impact / pre-collapse fires" simply (in the unlikely event) that they could NOT be identified as to exact location within that zone? IF any steel columns from those areas had shown greater effect of fires than the Most Representative pieces the collectors could find from those areas, they would have been saved simply to determine the maximum temperature that the fire reached 'in the area'
QUOTE
Steel that was exposed to heat but not identifiable as having come from the fire floors would not be useful in proving any modelling of the fires and also with no proof they came from any floor with fires would call into question where they were heat damaged, pre or post collapse.. Any steel found underground and identified as having come from the fire floors would not be useful either since its heat damage could have occured post-collapse.
Amazingly, the YID and I agree on this. The ONLY thing he seems to be missing is HOW the underground fires could possibly burn hotter than his imaginary raging inferno that was burning on the fire floors, fueled by jet-fuel and office contents in a much more fire-friendly environment (having obviously much more oxygen than post-collapse rubble compacted under tons of debris and dust).
All engineers, have now agreed that the conditions on the fire floors were impossible to melt steel, so how could underground fires have much less oxygen accessibilty to cause 'rivers of molten metal' to be created post-collapse.
Of course, we are STILL awaiting some kind of plausible answer for THIS from any of the gravity-driven collapse supporters, which attempts to address the list of related anomalous factors which both adoucette and YID have now refused to provide, after having been directly asked for such.
Much easier to just ignore that and hope it gets forgotten amongst change of topics... insults... character assaults... and other obfuscations.
A forum is needed were the sock puppets and useless Shill information can be filtered out.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 06:24 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 06:00 PM)
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
But if you put the whole article in context you come away with an HONEST post..
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.
While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."
Why the fucck did you leave that out? Why did you leave the part about them being concerned about "communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers". It says NOTHING about them wanting to talk about the explosions they heard. It says NOTHING about bombs or anything else you CTers claim they want to talk about. This is just another proof positive that you CTers are a lying sack of shiit.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
No need for those who KNOW the above statement is one of fact to lie, that is you and your ilks domain. The editing of the article was simply to post the relevant detail - ie that the inquiry did not want to hear from those that were present when AS WE ALL KNOW many present reported explosions.
Just as the inquiry never asked Mayor Giuliani, or those that informed him that the buildings were going to collapse, how they could have possibly have known that when NEVER IN HISTORY have such buildings ever collapsed and the firemen in the buildings were saying a couple of hoses were enough to bring the fire under control.
Why not ask what led them to believe collapse was about to happen?
Giuliani -
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
ABC News - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....was.warned.wmv
EDIT - the link was provided so anyone could look at the article in full which alters not one jot of my point.
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
But if you put the whole article in context you come away with an HONEST post..
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.
While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."
Why the fucck did you leave that out? Why did you leave the part about them being concerned about "communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers". It says NOTHING about them wanting to talk about the explosions they heard. It says NOTHING about bombs or anything else you CTers claim they want to talk about. This is just another proof positive that you CTers are a lying sack of shiit.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
No need for those who KNOW the above statement is one of fact to lie, that is you and your ilks domain. The editing of the article was simply to post the relevant detail - ie that the inquiry did not want to hear from those that were present when AS WE ALL KNOW many present reported explosions.
Just as the inquiry never asked Mayor Giuliani, or those that informed him that the buildings were going to collapse, how they could have possibly have known that when NEVER IN HISTORY have such buildings ever collapsed and the firemen in the buildings were saying a couple of hoses were enough to bring the fire under control.
Why not ask what led them to believe collapse was about to happen?
Giuliani -
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.”
ABC News - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9....was.warned.wmv
EDIT - the link was provided so anyone could look at the article in full which alters not one jot of my point.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 05:16 PM)
metamars, You act as though just because you pointed out your stupidity I have to buy into it. Who the fucck do you think you are?
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
"2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents"
And as it's already pointed out to you I don't want to spend a thin dime of money that isn't even mine! That's right, because thanks to Bush we now have an 8.1 trillion dollar national debt. So by the time our grand children pay that 20,000,000 dollars it will look more like 200,000,0000. It's moronic to spend 70 million on a cum stained dress and it's moronic to spend one dollar every time you CTers see a flying saucer land in Area 51.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN BS TO WARNED THIS? Out of the thousands of people who must have been involved in this cover-up, do you have ONE whistle blower?... A wife of an accomplice? Anyone? NO Do you have a memo? A chip from a timing device? A piece of steel with a round laser hole? You have shiit. You just keep pulling shiit out of your A$$ and saying it's gold. Min-nukes with no evidence one even exist that can take a building down from the top if placed in the basement.. Space lasers which defy physics... A conspiracy which involves everyone and their mother yet nothing... nada, zip, zero... The SECOND you get some real evidence I, and I'm sure everyone else who concludes the NIST evidence is good will fall behind you. Until then you're just in the way of REAL conspiracies involving the decision to invade Iraq and spying on Americans. These involve only a hand full of people and have ALREADY been exposed! What are you waiting for! Create a hundred web sites for that! Oh, I forgot, you work for Rove. It would be defeating your reason for living...
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
"So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?"
Here's the lie, because I don't want to waste a good nickle on something so vacuous as a conspiracy without evidence I'm cheap.. No I have common sense. Something lacking in Cters like you. It's a moronic cheap trick everyone here sees through. It's something Rove would do. Talk about not having self respect... No irony here...
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Laying it on kind of thick, aren't you? Looks like I hit a nerve or two.
I invite readers to review "Common Sense's" writing, and to decide for themselves whether he/she exhibits common sense or is a propagandist, and not a very clever one at that.
Warning: The level of cool headed logic will be quite similar to what you see in the quoted post.
Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories.
Hence, your wack-a-doodle argument that deflects from the issue, and that pre-supposes the correctness of your wack-a-doodle notion that getting Bush out of office should be the only concern of any serious citizen, is shown to have no merit. (Or, if not the only concern, then such an overriding concern that a real 911 investigation should not even be contemplated.)
I have previously posted a link to my proposal, to which I note I have since added some comments in the Randi Rhodes forum. Apparently you missed it......
This link, once again, is:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Summary:
"A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis."
I ASK THAT ANY CITIZEN WHO IS DISGUSTED WITH OUR PRESENT CORRUPT MEDIA PROPAGATE MY PROPOSAL TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Then why did you feel the need edit the reply and take shiit out of context? People don't need to lie if they have a strong case. It's only the lairs who have no case which need to lie.
QUOTE
"1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)"
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)" |
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
"2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents"
And as it's already pointed out to you I don't want to spend a thin dime of money that isn't even mine! That's right, because thanks to Bush we now have an 8.1 trillion dollar national debt. So by the time our grand children pay that 20,000,000 dollars it will look more like 200,000,0000. It's moronic to spend 70 million on a cum stained dress and it's moronic to spend one dollar every time you CTers see a flying saucer land in Area 51.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN BS TO WARNED THIS? Out of the thousands of people who must have been involved in this cover-up, do you have ONE whistle blower?... A wife of an accomplice? Anyone? NO Do you have a memo? A chip from a timing device? A piece of steel with a round laser hole? You have shiit. You just keep pulling shiit out of your A$$ and saying it's gold. Min-nukes with no evidence one even exist that can take a building down from the top if placed in the basement.. Space lasers which defy physics... A conspiracy which involves everyone and their mother yet nothing... nada, zip, zero... The SECOND you get some real evidence I, and I'm sure everyone else who concludes the NIST evidence is good will fall behind you. Until then you're just in the way of REAL conspiracies involving the decision to invade Iraq and spying on Americans. These involve only a hand full of people and have ALREADY been exposed! What are you waiting for! Create a hundred web sites for that! Oh, I forgot, you work for Rove. It would be defeating your reason for living...
QUOTE
"3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over"
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over" |
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
"So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?"
Here's the lie, because I don't want to waste a good nickle on something so vacuous as a conspiracy without evidence I'm cheap.. No I have common sense. Something lacking in Cters like you. It's a moronic cheap trick everyone here sees through. It's something Rove would do. Talk about not having self respect... No irony here...
QUOTE
"Either a very unintelligent cheapness, or a hidden agenda behind your attitude or ...."
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Laying it on kind of thick, aren't you? Looks like I hit a nerve or two.
I invite readers to review "Common Sense's" writing, and to decide for themselves whether he/she exhibits common sense or is a propagandist, and not a very clever one at that.
Warning: The level of cool headed logic will be quite similar to what you see in the quoted post.
Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories.
Hence, your wack-a-doodle argument that deflects from the issue, and that pre-supposes the correctness of your wack-a-doodle notion that getting Bush out of office should be the only concern of any serious citizen, is shown to have no merit. (Or, if not the only concern, then such an overriding concern that a real 911 investigation should not even be contemplated.)
I have previously posted a link to my proposal, to which I note I have since added some comments in the Randi Rhodes forum. Apparently you missed it......
This link, once again, is:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Summary:
"A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis."
I ASK THAT ANY CITIZEN WHO IS DISGUSTED WITH OUR PRESENT CORRUPT MEDIA PROPAGATE MY PROPOSAL TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Jan 14 2006, 06:35 PM)
A forum is needed were the sock puppets and useless Shill information can be filtered out.
Then there'd be no place for you...
Then there'd be no place for you...
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 06:36 PM)
QUOTE
But if you put the whole article in context you come away with an HONEST post..
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.
While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."
Why the fucck did you leave that out? Why did you leave the part about them being concerned about "communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers". It says NOTHING about them wanting to talk about the explosions they heard. It says NOTHING about bombs or anything else you CTers claim they want to talk about. This is just another proof positive that you CTers are a lying sack of shiit.
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters.
Speaking as the 9/11 panel heard New York officials discuss communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers that fatal day, IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse.
Of the 3,000 people killed by the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, 343 were New York Fire Fighters, all members of Schaitberger's union.
"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" and who are offering an inadequate, at best, future communications system, he added.
While Fire Fighters "will show up and fight" the next attack, they'll be ill-equipped to do so--due to Bush budget cuts--and unable to effectively communicate, costing lives, he added. Schaitberger called that "a formula for disaster."
Why the fucck did you leave that out? Why did you leave the part about them being concerned about "communications, wrong instructions and other problems that beset rescue workers". It says NOTHING about them wanting to talk about the explosions they heard. It says NOTHING about bombs or anything else you CTers claim they want to talk about. This is just another proof positive that you CTers are a lying sack of shiit.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Then why did you feel the need edit the reply and take shiit out of context? People don't need to lie if they have a strong case. It's only the lairs who have no case which need to lie.
Common Sense Jan 14 2006, 07:02 PM
Are you talking about NIST or FEMA ?
QUOTE
Then why did you feel the need edit the reply and take shiit out of context? People don't need to lie if they have a strong case. It's only the lairs who have no case which need to lie.
Are you talking about NIST or FEMA ?
Common - most definitely Sense - definitely lacking.
Where was the lie? Point it out. Not possible - then apologise.
Where was the lie? Point it out. Not possible - then apologise.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 14 2006, 06:52 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 05:16 PM)
metamars, You act as though just because you pointed out your stupidity I have to buy into it. Who the fucck do you think you are?
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
"2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents"
And as it's already pointed out to you I don't want to spend a thin dime of money that isn't even mine! That's right, because thanks to Bush we now have an 8.1 trillion dollar national debt. So by the time our grand children pay that 20,000,000 dollars it will look more like 200,000,0000. It's moronic to spend 70 million on a cum stained dress and it's moronic to spend one dollar every time you CTers see a flying saucer land in Area 51.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN BS TO WARNED THIS? Out of the thousands of people who must have been involved in this cover-up, do you have ONE whistle blower?... A wife of an accomplice? Anyone? NO Do you have a memo? A chip from a timing device? A piece of steel with a round laser hole? You have shiit. You just keep pulling shiit out of your A$$ and saying it's gold. Min-nukes with no evidence one even exist that can take a building down from the top if placed in the basement.. Space lasers which defy physics... A conspiracy which involves everyone and their mother yet nothing... nada, zip, zero... The SECOND you get some real evidence I, and I'm sure everyone else who concludes the NIST evidence is good will fall behind you. Until then you're just in the way of REAL conspiracies involving the decision to invade Iraq and spying on Americans. These involve only a hand full of people and have ALREADY been exposed! What are you waiting for! Create a hundred web sites for that! Oh, I forgot, you work for Rove. It would be defeating your reason for living...
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
"So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?"
Here's the lie, because I don't want to waste a good nickle on something so vacuous as a conspiracy without evidence I'm cheap.. No I have common sense. Something lacking in Cters like you. It's a moronic cheap trick everyone here sees through. It's something Rove would do. Talk about not having self respect... No irony here...
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Laying it on kind of thick, aren't you? Looks like I hit a nerve or two.
I invite readers to review "Common Sense's" writing, and to decide for themselves whether he/she exhibits common sense or is a propagandist, and not a very clever one at that.
Warning: The level of cool headed logic will be quite similar to what you see in the quoted post.
Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories.
Hence, your wack-a-doodle argument that deflects from the issue, and that pre-supposes the correctness of your wack-a-doodle notion that getting Bush out of office should be the only concern of any serious citizen, is shown to have no merit. (Or, if not the only concern, then such an overriding concern that a real 911 investigation should not even be contemplated.)
I have previously posted a link to my proposal, to which I note I have since added some comments in the Randi Rhodes forum. Apparently you missed it......
This link, once again, is:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Summary:
"A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis."
I ASK THAT ANY CITIZEN WHO IS DISGUSTED WITH OUR PRESENT CORRUPT MEDIA PROPAGATE MY PROPOSAL TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Laying it on kind of thick, aren't you? Looks like I hit a nerve or two.
I invite readers to review "Common Sense's" writing, and to decide for themselves whether he/she exhibits common sense or is a propagandist, and not a very clever one at that.
Warning: The level of cool headed logic will be quite similar to what you see in the quoted post.
Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories.
Hence, your wack-a-doodle argument that deflects from the issue, and that pre-supposes the correctness of your wack-a-doodle notion that getting Bush out of office should be the only concern of any serious citizen, is shown to have no merit. (Or, if not the only concern, then such an overriding concern that a real 911 investigation should not even be contemplated.)
I have previously posted a link to my proposal, to which I note I have since added some comments in the Randi Rhodes forum. Apparently you missed it......
This link, once again, is:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Summary:
"A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis."
I ASK THAT ANY CITIZEN WHO IS DISGUSTED WITH OUR PRESENT CORRUPT MEDIA PROPAGATE MY PROPOSAL TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
Actually, you can choose to filter it out yourself. Some forums have an 'Ignore' feature, such that when you plug in the name of some poster that you recognize as a shill or a troll, the forum deletes those messages from what you see in the thread... Usually with a notice that ...
"This poster is on your Ignore list - If you wish to read the message you can click 'here' to read it."
No one reading this thread (or any other) is 'forced' to read all posts. You might want to try my 'filtering' process. As I scan the thread, my eye is on the left hand column which states the name of poster of that particular post. As I have come to recognize those sock-puppets of The Schneibster, I just scroll past that post to the next. I don't need to read 5 different versions of what Schniebster is saying.
This is a bit of a 'problem' for newcomers to the thread (and for them it is unfortunately an effective spamming tool used By Trolls to obfuscate issues, insult those he chooses with extreme language whilst denying he does so, and add reinforcement to his own weak position). Nevertheless, any rational and objective newcomer will quickly learn to see through Schneibsters tricks, and if they don't, well... no loss of input.
Once you understand to use your own freedom of choice to filter OUT the 'noise' the thread becomes much more readable and enjoyable. Try it, you might like it.
Another famous internet saying is "Don't Feed the 'Trolls' ". The ONLY purpose of trolls is to purposely disrupt conversations through flagrant insults and obscenities to distract and interrupt the positive flow of communications. They actually 'Feed' upon responses which fuel their disruptive psychological traits. The WORST thing you can do to a TROLL is to ignore them. That REALLY pisses them off, because it destroys their 'attention-getting' desire for validity.
Those who I personally recognize as Schniebster 'alter-egos' are...
'cOmMMonSenSE'
'Chuckles'
and 'Divine Provinence' (or whatever name such 'Guest' called himself).
When I see these names, I don't even bother to waste my time reading their posts, but just move on to the next one.
Now, NOT EVERY 'Guest' who parrots Schneibster is actually he himself. The poster 'Coastal' is well known to utilize "Guest' names to support other trolls, and some of the anonymous posts (which you might initially speculate to BE Schneibster) will NOt be, and will be 'Coastal' adding support. generally I can tell the difference whether the 'anonymous Guest' is Schneibster or Coastal - (depending on how much they reveal in such 'anonymous posts', but usually these anonymous puppet posts are quite short and devoid of content, so it can be hard to tell... but then again I only skim the first few sentences of a 'Guest' post anyway, before deciding to read the rest of that post... or just move on to the next VALID post.
Cheers, but remember... if you post an 'answer' or 'response' to a troll, you are ONLY feeding their 'reason for being'...
Don't Feed the Trolls.
Confine your responses to 'The Schneibster', and forget about responding to his parrot. You know that if the parrot doesn't get a response to some 'alleged point' he is trying to make... then he'll just post the same point under the Schneibster handle anyway.
QUOTE
"1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)"
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "1) this "theme" of the naive, mis-directed, Bush-bashing liberal CT'ist is repeated elsewhere, by other "popes" (e.g., dpetonic on the Randi Rhodes forum)" |
Who cares. So is the "theme" where everyone who concludes the NIST report has merit is a "shill". If you can stop them from calling me and others shills then you can't stop me from calling them Roves puppets. You KNOW they're shills for Rove because you are one yourself. Why else would you keep moving the target to a more obsurd theory after we expose your last CT theory flawed?
"2) it was already pointed out to you that your share of the tax burden of a serious $20 million 911 investigation comes out to about 20 cents"
And as it's already pointed out to you I don't want to spend a thin dime of money that isn't even mine! That's right, because thanks to Bush we now have an 8.1 trillion dollar national debt. So by the time our grand children pay that 20,000,000 dollars it will look more like 200,000,0000. It's moronic to spend 70 million on a cum stained dress and it's moronic to spend one dollar every time you CTers see a flying saucer land in Area 51.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN BS TO WARNED THIS? Out of the thousands of people who must have been involved in this cover-up, do you have ONE whistle blower?... A wife of an accomplice? Anyone? NO Do you have a memo? A chip from a timing device? A piece of steel with a round laser hole? You have shiit. You just keep pulling shiit out of your A$$ and saying it's gold. Min-nukes with no evidence one even exist that can take a building down from the top if placed in the basement.. Space lasers which defy physics... A conspiracy which involves everyone and their mother yet nothing... nada, zip, zero... The SECOND you get some real evidence I, and I'm sure everyone else who concludes the NIST evidence is good will fall behind you. Until then you're just in the way of REAL conspiracies involving the decision to invade Iraq and spying on Americans. These involve only a hand full of people and have ALREADY been exposed! What are you waiting for! Create a hundred web sites for that! Oh, I forgot, you work for Rove. It would be defeating your reason for living...
QUOTE
"3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over"
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "3) all the hours you put into posting on this board, if you had been paid minimum wage, would have paid for your share of a re-investigation thousands of time over" |
What a moron you are, you've been right here with me. If you had been paid minimum wage we could have investigated things which have NEVER been investigated. Crimes Bush is just about ADMITING TOO!!! Look in the mirror before you make ironic statements like that. The irony escapes you.
"So, your choice of words - "not one thin dime", is consistent with your cheapness, but I wonder about the intelligence of such a viewpoint. Have you no respect for your own time?"
Here's the lie, because I don't want to waste a good nickle on something so vacuous as a conspiracy without evidence I'm cheap.. No I have common sense. Something lacking in Cters like you. It's a moronic cheap trick everyone here sees through. It's something Rove would do. Talk about not having self respect... No irony here...
QUOTE
"Either a very unintelligent cheapness, or a hidden agenda behind your attitude or ...."
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Laying it on kind of thick, aren't you? Looks like I hit a nerve or two.
I invite readers to review "Common Sense's" writing, and to decide for themselves whether he/she exhibits common sense or is a propagandist, and not a very clever one at that.
Warning: The level of cool headed logic will be quite similar to what you see in the quoted post.
Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories.
Hence, your wack-a-doodle argument that deflects from the issue, and that pre-supposes the correctness of your wack-a-doodle notion that getting Bush out of office should be the only concern of any serious citizen, is shown to have no merit. (Or, if not the only concern, then such an overriding concern that a real 911 investigation should not even be contemplated.)
I have previously posted a link to my proposal, to which I note I have since added some comments in the Randi Rhodes forum. Apparently you missed it......
This link, once again, is:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Summary:
"A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis."
I ASK THAT ANY CITIZEN WHO IS DISGUSTED WITH OUR PRESENT CORRUPT MEDIA PROPAGATE MY PROPOSAL TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Either a very unintelligent cheapness, or a hidden agenda behind your attitude or ...." |
My agenda is clear, to stop you and the other Rove plants from destroying the liberals in America. We all aren't dumb enough to fall for your "Poison the well" tactics. You can get on the red phone to Washington and tell Rove directly. Heh!
Laying it on kind of thick, aren't you? Looks like I hit a nerve or two.
I invite readers to review "Common Sense's" writing, and to decide for themselves whether he/she exhibits common sense or is a propagandist, and not a very clever one at that.
Warning: The level of cool headed logic will be quite similar to what you see in the quoted post.
Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories.
Hence, your wack-a-doodle argument that deflects from the issue, and that pre-supposes the correctness of your wack-a-doodle notion that getting Bush out of office should be the only concern of any serious citizen, is shown to have no merit. (Or, if not the only concern, then such an overriding concern that a real 911 investigation should not even be contemplated.)
I have previously posted a link to my proposal, to which I note I have since added some comments in the Randi Rhodes forum. Apparently you missed it......
This link, once again, is:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
Summary:
"A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis."
I ASK THAT ANY CITIZEN WHO IS DISGUSTED WITH OUR PRESENT CORRUPT MEDIA PROPAGATE MY PROPOSAL TO ANYBODY WHO MIGHT BE INTERESTED
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
QUOTE (frater plecticus+Jan 14 2006, 07:08 PM)
Common Sense Jan 14 2006, 07:02 PM
Are you talking about NIST or FEMA ?
No, frater plecticus
QUOTE
Then why did you feel the need edit the reply and take shiit out of context? People don't need to lie if they have a strong case. It's only the lairs who have no case which need to lie.
Are you talking about NIST or FEMA ?
No, frater plecticus
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 06:00 PM)
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
LIE
Out of context = Lie
Just because I have the brains to double check your lies doesn't mean you weren't implying that article said something it doesn't. And in doing so you were LYING
Now apologise to the members on this board for insulting their intelligence.
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
LIE
Out of context = Lie
Just because I have the brains to double check your lies doesn't mean you weren't implying that article said something it doesn't. And in doing so you were LYING
Now apologise to the members on this board for insulting their intelligence.
QUOTE
Originally posted by reasonwhy
A forum is needed were the sock puppets and useless Shill information can be filtered out.
A forum is needed were the sock puppets and useless Shill information can be filtered out.
Actually, you can choose to filter it out yourself. Some forums have an 'Ignore' feature, such that when you plug in the name of some poster that you recognize as a shill or a troll, the forum deletes those messages from what you see in the thread... Usually with a notice that ...
"This poster is on your Ignore list - If you wish to read the message you can click 'here' to read it."
No one reading this thread (or any other) is 'forced' to read all posts. You might want to try my 'filtering' process. As I scan the thread, my eye is on the left hand column which states the name of poster of that particular post. As I have come to recognize those sock-puppets of The Schneibster, I just scroll past that post to the next. I don't need to read 5 different versions of what Schniebster is saying.
This is a bit of a 'problem' for newcomers to the thread (and for them it is unfortunately an effective spamming tool used By Trolls to obfuscate issues, insult those he chooses with extreme language whilst denying he does so, and add reinforcement to his own weak position). Nevertheless, any rational and objective newcomer will quickly learn to see through Schneibsters tricks, and if they don't, well... no loss of input.
Once you understand to use your own freedom of choice to filter OUT the 'noise' the thread becomes much more readable and enjoyable. Try it, you might like it.
Another famous internet saying is "Don't Feed the 'Trolls' ". The ONLY purpose of trolls is to purposely disrupt conversations through flagrant insults and obscenities to distract and interrupt the positive flow of communications. They actually 'Feed' upon responses which fuel their disruptive psychological traits. The WORST thing you can do to a TROLL is to ignore them. That REALLY pisses them off, because it destroys their 'attention-getting' desire for validity.
Those who I personally recognize as Schniebster 'alter-egos' are...
'cOmMMonSenSE'
'Chuckles'
and 'Divine Provinence' (or whatever name such 'Guest' called himself).
When I see these names, I don't even bother to waste my time reading their posts, but just move on to the next one.
Now, NOT EVERY 'Guest' who parrots Schneibster is actually he himself. The poster 'Coastal' is well known to utilize "Guest' names to support other trolls, and some of the anonymous posts (which you might initially speculate to BE Schneibster) will NOt be, and will be 'Coastal' adding support. generally I can tell the difference whether the 'anonymous Guest' is Schneibster or Coastal - (depending on how much they reveal in such 'anonymous posts', but usually these anonymous puppet posts are quite short and devoid of content, so it can be hard to tell... but then again I only skim the first few sentences of a 'Guest' post anyway, before deciding to read the rest of that post... or just move on to the next VALID post.
Cheers, but remember... if you post an 'answer' or 'response' to a troll, you are ONLY feeding their 'reason for being'...
Don't Feed the Trolls.
Confine your responses to 'The Schneibster', and forget about responding to his parrot. You know that if the parrot doesn't get a response to some 'alleged point' he is trying to make... then he'll just post the same point under the Schneibster handle anyway.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 06:00 PM)
""It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
[b]No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
LIE
Out of context = Lie
Just because I have the brains to double check your lies doesn't mean you weren't implying that artical said something it doesn't. And in doing so you were LYING
Now apologise to the members on this board for insulting their intelligence.
Common sense will allow those with a modicum of it to see who is the liar in this.
My point was simple - firemen were being refused the opportunity to testify, why when many had reported explosions. The rest of the article made not one iota of difference to that.
These people who support THE LIE are in the main nasty pieces of work who will stoop way beyond the gutter to promote THE LIE.
THE LIE is no more - the dissemination of the truth has only begun.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
[b]No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
LIE
Out of context = Lie
Just because I have the brains to double check your lies doesn't mean you weren't implying that artical said something it doesn't. And in doing so you were LYING
Now apologise to the members on this board for insulting their intelligence.
Common sense will allow those with a modicum of it to see who is the liar in this.
My point was simple - firemen were being refused the opportunity to testify, why when many had reported explosions. The rest of the article made not one iota of difference to that.
These people who support THE LIE are in the main nasty pieces of work who will stoop way beyond the gutter to promote THE LIE.
THE LIE is no more - the dissemination of the truth has only begun.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
QUOTE (Guest_Temp+Jan 14 2006, 10:37 AM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 13 2006, 06:47 PM)
Hey temp, the spirefinish video won't download.
Uhm, works fine here.
You must have missed where I said I finally got it- I had to "view source" and "save as" to get it, and apparently found a way to cause a segmentation violation while I was doing so the first time, but I finally got it to work. Thanks for paying attention, though.
Uhm, works fine here.
You must have missed where I said I finally got it- I had to "view source" and "save as" to get it, and apparently found a way to cause a segmentation violation while I was doing so the first time, but I finally got it to work. Thanks for paying attention, though.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 07:43 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:25 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 06:00 PM)
""It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
[b]No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
LIE
Out of context = Lie
Just because I have the brains to double check your lies doesn't mean you weren't implying that artical said something it doesn't. And in doing so you were LYING
Now apologise to the members on this board for insulting their intelligence.
Common sense will allow those with a modicum of it to see who is the liar in this.
My point was simple - firemen were being refused the opportunity to testify, why when many had reported explosions. The rest of the article made not one iota of difference to that.
These people who support THE LIE are in the main nasty pieces of work who will stoop way beyond the gutter to promote THE LIE.
THE LIE is no more - the dissemination of the truth has only begun.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
I told you the CT sites take their quotes out of context just as you tried to do here. Some even said they thought the exposions were electrical in nature. I even saw a CT site which took one firemans quote which said they heard the 111 bodies falling one after another sound like explosions when they hit the ground then cut it to make the fireman sound like he was talking about BOMB explosions. How dishonest...
I posted time and time again what a transformer sounds like when it expoldes yet you ignore it. This can only mean one thing. YOUR LYING.
If the fire department hasn't said a word about the possibility about bombs why are you implying they are.. Because you're lying.
And how sick to take these people words out of context for your petty little games.
Fire Fighters excluded from 9/11 testimony
May 23, 2004
NEW YORK — The independent commission probing the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington decided not to hear from the worker group that lost more lives than anyone else to the terrorists: The Fire Fighters. -
- IAFF President Harold Schaitberger called the city's response "lip service" or worse. -
-"Since no Fire Fighters were asked to speak, all the people of New York will hear is the opinion of politicians and people who work for politicians" he said
http://www.workdayminnesota.org/view_artic...cfa2c8d6212427c
[b]No doubt heard enough about all those explosions eh.
LIE
Out of context = Lie
Just because I have the brains to double check your lies doesn't mean you weren't implying that artical said something it doesn't. And in doing so you were LYING
Now apologise to the members on this board for insulting their intelligence.
Common sense will allow those with a modicum of it to see who is the liar in this.
My point was simple - firemen were being refused the opportunity to testify, why when many had reported explosions. The rest of the article made not one iota of difference to that.
These people who support THE LIE are in the main nasty pieces of work who will stoop way beyond the gutter to promote THE LIE.
THE LIE is no more - the dissemination of the truth has only begun.
"It is already possible to know, beyond a reasonable doubt, one very important thing: the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job, orchestrated by terrorists within our own government."
I told you the CT sites take their quotes out of context just as you tried to do here. Some even said they thought the exposions were electrical in nature. I even saw a CT site which took one firemans quote which said they heard the 111 bodies falling one after another sound like explosions when they hit the ground then cut it to make the fireman sound like he was talking about BOMB explosions. How dishonest...
I posted time and time again what a transformer sounds like when it expoldes yet you ignore it. This can only mean one thing. YOUR LYING.
If the fire department hasn't said a word about the possibility about bombs why are you implying they are.. Because you're lying.
And how sick to take these people words out of context for your petty little games.
QUOTE (Foxx+Jan 14 2006, 06:33 PM)
The NIST Reports contain thousands of pages of irrelevant materials.
The "Draft report on Mechanical & Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel" (NISTNCSTAR 1-3) is comprised of 5 sections :
* (1-3A)Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
* (1-3B)Steel Inventory and Identification
* (1-3C)Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
* (1-3D)Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
* (1-3E) Physical Properties of Structural Steels
with an Executive Summary of the findings covered in these sections.
This mechanical & metallurgical report goes into great detail to tell us about the properties (physical & mechanical) related to steels in general, and the specific grades of steel within the towers. It is a great resource for learning about steel in general, and gives us some insight into steel used in the towers. However, it (like all of the NIST report gives us precious little factual information about the mechanics of HOW this alleged "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" occured
In order to take a critical look at the collapses themselves, it is helpful to analyse the information in this report, but NOT absolutely essential to coming to an understanding of the alleged fires and HOW they affected the steel in the towers.
The gravity-driven collapse supporters are quick to state that opponents 'cherry pick' statements from ALL NIST reports. This, as far as I am concerned, is mere obfuscation and an attempt to muddy the waters. Of course certain statements are gleaned from the reports which bolster ones position. What does anyone expect a poster to do - copy/paste the entire document into a post, and then turn around and say... "See... It's right there... I prove my case" ?
There is an Invalid use of 'cherry-picking' points from the NIST reports. This is often done by gravity-driven collapse supporters. That is - 'taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT with an entire report', and twisting that 'out-of-context' quote to support a position (or to counter a statement made by others).
This is the 'rebuttal method' used by pope adoucette in an attempt to counter the quote used by myself (taken from the NISTNCSTAR 1-3 Executive Summary report)...
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C.
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Certainly, NIST DOES make this statement, however it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, as I have previously shown here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
NIST avoids in the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary relevant facts which I have pointed out in the above post, regarding the selection process utilized by The SEAoNY (Structural Engineers Association of New York, FEMA, and the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).
Further, then 'pope' adoucette goes off into 'cherry-picked' quotes from the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary which seems to support his position that the Mechanical & Mettalurgical report has essentially NOTHING to do with how wtc steel was affected by fires, but ONLY with the mechanical properties of the various grades of steel within the towers.
This is so WRONG, and out of context with the IMPORTANT findings in that report.
By purposely selecting quotes out of context with the entire report, he has done a fine job of obfuscating the actual IMPORTANT parts of the mechanical & metallurgical report which relate DIRECTLY to the 'initiation' of the 'collapse'.
As far as the mechanical & metallurgical report relates to the quality and specifics of steel used in the towers, the entire summary of 'evidence' can be boiled down to...
no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Yeah..."Other forensic analysis" ... such as examination for heat absorption and fire effects
from Section E-3
Extensive failure analysis of the recovered steel was conducted to determine damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Post collapse analysis concentrated on the damage characteristics of the recovered structural steel elements... Of particular importance were the samples located near the airplane impact regions and those where the fire was known to exist before the collapse of the buildings.
In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independant study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Now WHO was this 'other contractor' who did an 'independant study'. Well that would be Underwriters (UL) as reported in other NIST documents.
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services. UL has been in operation since 1894 and today is a worldwide company with approximately 6000 employees. UL provides conformity assessment services for a wide range of products, equipment and construction materials, including determination of fire resistance ratings. Fire ratings are based upon the test method and acceptance criteria in ANSI/UL 263 (ASTM E119 and NFPA 251), “Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Regardless of all the attacks and obfuscations the gravity-driven collapse supporters levy against the Ryan letter and consequences.... The FACT remains that the steel WAS tested by an independant laboratory and found to be 'certified' and NOT subject to failure under comparable fire conditions as were supposed to be existent within the towers.
In addition to all of the above, adoucette (and other 'popes') refuse to accept that the steel collected from the fire & impact zones WAS sufficient for the required testing and analysis (often quoting NISTs apologies that the samples collected are NOT representative of all other columns in the zone).
I have no disagreement with the statement that they do not give an accurate picture of all other columns in the areas under question.
The 'disagreement' I have is when NIST or other gravity-driven collapse supporters extrapolate from that fact and CONCLUDE with absolutely NO forensic or empirical evidence whatsoever that (by extension) this means THAT OTHER columns suffered GREATER heat effects.
There is absolutely No evidence to support such a contention. On the contrary, it is more LIKELY and reasonable that the collectors of steel evidence SPECIFICALLY looked for the MOST REPRESENTATIVE (worst damaged) steel evidence they could find. They DID, and came up with ZIP, Zero, Nada, Ziltch (as was revealed through proper scientific testing)... yet STILL the gravity-driven collapse supporters try to fit square evidence into a round hole to support their unsupportable Fairy Tales.
Speculation & Theories are NOT Scientific or Forensic Evidence, yet when the actual scientific & forensic evidence collected does NOT Fit the Fairy Tale, they 'throw away' that evidence & make up further speculative fairy tales to support their position.
Furthermore, with regard to the NCSTAR 1-3 mechanical & metallurgical report, one of the most important pieces of evidence stated in that report is the fallacious DENIAL by NIST that steel WAS IN FACT collected from WTC7.
There is NO Question that NIST is OUTRIGHT LYING with regard to this when they state...
from section E.6
"NO steel WAS recovered from WTC7"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
The reasons & motives for such LIES can only be speculated on, nevertheless...
NIST (and those gravity-driven collapse 'believers' who support them with statements such as...
"I found the NIST reports very 'professional' and convincing"...
are OUTRIGHT LIARS --- (or 'fools', 'obfuscators', 'idiots', 'unintelligently biased', or 'have not actually studied the documents with a critical eye'... choose your own word).
Foxx,
Now you really are a lying sack of shiit.
Talk about being Popeish.
Certainly, NIST DOES make this statement, however it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, as I have previously shown here...
Now Foxx is using HIMSELF as a reference.
What a putz.
Now Foxx, if you REALLY want an HONEST debate, how about providing PAGE #s for your references.
You KNOW it is a 336 page document, and while I can use the FIND function, it pretty much eats my machine to do so and takes forever.
But then you've never really wanted a free and open debate, have you?
Like in your quote from the NIST document about 'no conclusive evidence', you conveniently leave out the first NINE words of the sentence.
FROM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF RECOVERED STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS,
or the sentence that FOLLOWS the quote, in that NIST only had available 3% of Perimeter steel and 1% of Core Steel ON THE FLOORS THAT INTERSECTED THE FIRE DAMAGE.
As to the UL tests.
Those tests ALL had their fire retardant IN PLACE. They appear to be the CONTROL TESTS.
Arthur
The "Draft report on Mechanical & Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel" (NISTNCSTAR 1-3) is comprised of 5 sections :
* (1-3A)Contemporaneous Structural Steel Specifications
* (1-3B)Steel Inventory and Identification
* (1-3C)Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components
* (1-3D)Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
* (1-3E) Physical Properties of Structural Steels
with an Executive Summary of the findings covered in these sections.
This mechanical & metallurgical report goes into great detail to tell us about the properties (physical & mechanical) related to steels in general, and the specific grades of steel within the towers. It is a great resource for learning about steel in general, and gives us some insight into steel used in the towers. However, it (like all of the NIST report gives us precious little factual information about the mechanics of HOW this alleged "Global Disproportionate Progressive Collapse" occured
In order to take a critical look at the collapses themselves, it is helpful to analyse the information in this report, but NOT absolutely essential to coming to an understanding of the alleged fires and HOW they affected the steel in the towers.
The gravity-driven collapse supporters are quick to state that opponents 'cherry pick' statements from ALL NIST reports. This, as far as I am concerned, is mere obfuscation and an attempt to muddy the waters. Of course certain statements are gleaned from the reports which bolster ones position. What does anyone expect a poster to do - copy/paste the entire document into a post, and then turn around and say... "See... It's right there... I prove my case" ?
There is an Invalid use of 'cherry-picking' points from the NIST reports. This is often done by gravity-driven collapse supporters. That is - 'taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT with an entire report', and twisting that 'out-of-context' quote to support a position (or to counter a statement made by others).
This is the 'rebuttal method' used by pope adoucette in an attempt to counter the quote used by myself (taken from the NISTNCSTAR 1-3 Executive Summary report)...
QUOTE
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C.
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 deg C… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 deg C. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 deg C. |
The 'popes' reject this statement out-of-hand claiming that these represent ONLY about 1/4 - 1/2 % of ALL steel within the towers. Adoucette further attempts to reinforce this proclamation by quoting the statement from NIST that...
Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of the columns exposed to fire in the towers.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Certainly, NIST DOES make this statement, however it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, as I have previously shown here...
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=53079
NIST avoids in the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary relevant facts which I have pointed out in the above post, regarding the selection process utilized by The SEAoNY (Structural Engineers Association of New York, FEMA, and the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers).
Further, then 'pope' adoucette goes off into 'cherry-picked' quotes from the NCSTAR 1-3 Summary which seems to support his position that the Mechanical & Mettalurgical report has essentially NOTHING to do with how wtc steel was affected by fires, but ONLY with the mechanical properties of the various grades of steel within the towers.
This is so WRONG, and out of context with the IMPORTANT findings in that report.
By purposely selecting quotes out of context with the entire report, he has done a fine job of obfuscating the actual IMPORTANT parts of the mechanical & metallurgical report which relate DIRECTLY to the 'initiation' of the 'collapse'.
As far as the mechanical & metallurgical report relates to the quality and specifics of steel used in the towers, the entire summary of 'evidence' can be boiled down to...
QUOTE
no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure" |
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf
This is reported in the Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components section of the report (NCSTAR 1-3 C)
Adoucette goes on and on with quote after quote regarding the actual mechanical properties of the steel, while AT THE SAME TIME, LEAVING OUT ALL metallurgical references in that very document which relate to the FIRES and how the steels used in the towers were affected by such fires. Of course, he (and other gravity-driven collapse supporters), accuse me of doing the same thing in not mentioning the mechanical properties quotes.
There is a BIG difference in WHAT is left out by opposing sides.
I have left out the mechanical properties aspects because they are insignificant as related to the 'initiation' of collapse...(There was nothing wrong with the grades of steel used in the towers related to their physical & mechanical properties).
On the other hand, the gravity-driven collapse supporters leave out all references to the most relevant factor related to the steel...(How the FIRES affected said steel) because such facts are NOT supportive of their arguments.
While concentrating on unimportant physical aspects of the steel, adoucette deliberately leaves out...
A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas. These pieces provided opportunity for failure and other forensic analyses.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Yeah..."Other forensic analysis" ... such as examination for heat absorption and fire effects
QUOTE
from Section E-3
Extensive failure analysis of the recovered steel was conducted to determine damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
from Section E-3 Extensive failure analysis of the recovered steel was conducted to determine damage characteristics, failure modes, and fire-related degradation of the recovered structural components. |
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Post collapse analysis concentrated on the damage characteristics of the recovered structural steel elements... Of particular importance were the samples located near the airplane impact regions and those where the fire was known to exist before the collapse of the buildings.
In addition to the NIST analysis, an outside contractor made an independant study of the recovered steel elements. In general, the observations concerning local failure mechanisms by the contractor agreed with those that NIST found.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Now WHO was this 'other contractor' who did an 'independant study'. Well that would be Underwriters (UL) as reported in other NIST documents.
QUOTE
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint.
Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services. UL has been in operation since 1894 and today is a worldwide company with approximately 6000 employees. UL provides conformity assessment services for a wide range of products, equipment and construction materials, including determination of fire resistance ratings. Fire ratings are based upon the test method and acceptance criteria in ANSI/UL 263 (ASTM E119 and NFPA 251), “Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.”
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Under solicitation number SB1341-03-Q-0281, a firm fixed-price purchase order has been awarded to Underwriters Laboratory Inc. for the testing of the steel joist-supported floor system of the Word Trade Center towers under the fire conditions prescribed in ASTM E119. The results of the testing will provide the fire endurance ratings of typical floor construction to evaluate three primary factors, 1) test scale, 2) fireproofing thickness, and 3) thermal restraint. Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the testing, certification and quality assessment of products, systems and services. UL has been in operation since 1894 and today is a worldwide company with approximately 6000 employees. UL provides conformity assessment services for a wide range of products, equipment and construction materials, including determination of fire resistance ratings. Fire ratings are based upon the test method and acceptance criteria in ANSI/UL 263 (ASTM E119 and NFPA 251), “Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials.” |
http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/wtc_awardQ0281.htm
And what did UL find in their 'independant studies'?
Larger and clearer image can be found here...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/Firerefute.html
Findings --- The floor system DID NOT FAIL to support loads in any test.
Kevin Ryan (of UL) was fired for pointing this fact out to Dr. Frank Gayle of NIST (Nov 11, 2004)...
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041112144051451
Regardless of all the attacks and obfuscations the gravity-driven collapse supporters levy against the Ryan letter and consequences.... The FACT remains that the steel WAS tested by an independant laboratory and found to be 'certified' and NOT subject to failure under comparable fire conditions as were supposed to be existent within the towers.
In addition to all of the above, adoucette (and other 'popes') refuse to accept that the steel collected from the fire & impact zones WAS sufficient for the required testing and analysis (often quoting NISTs apologies that the samples collected are NOT representative of all other columns in the zone).
I have no disagreement with the statement that they do not give an accurate picture of all other columns in the areas under question.
The 'disagreement' I have is when NIST or other gravity-driven collapse supporters extrapolate from that fact and CONCLUDE with absolutely NO forensic or empirical evidence whatsoever that (by extension) this means THAT OTHER columns suffered GREATER heat effects.
There is absolutely No evidence to support such a contention. On the contrary, it is more LIKELY and reasonable that the collectors of steel evidence SPECIFICALLY looked for the MOST REPRESENTATIVE (worst damaged) steel evidence they could find. They DID, and came up with ZIP, Zero, Nada, Ziltch (as was revealed through proper scientific testing)... yet STILL the gravity-driven collapse supporters try to fit square evidence into a round hole to support their unsupportable Fairy Tales.
Speculation & Theories are NOT Scientific or Forensic Evidence, yet when the actual scientific & forensic evidence collected does NOT Fit the Fairy Tale, they 'throw away' that evidence & make up further speculative fairy tales to support their position.
Furthermore, with regard to the NCSTAR 1-3 mechanical & metallurgical report, one of the most important pieces of evidence stated in that report is the fallacious DENIAL by NIST that steel WAS IN FACT collected from WTC7.
There is NO Question that NIST is OUTRIGHT LYING with regard to this when they state...
QUOTE
from section E.6
"NO steel WAS recovered from WTC7"
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
The reasons & motives for such LIES can only be speculated on, nevertheless...
NIST (and those gravity-driven collapse 'believers' who support them with statements such as...
"I found the NIST reports very 'professional' and convincing"...
are OUTRIGHT LIARS --- (or 'fools', 'obfuscators', 'idiots', 'unintelligently biased', or 'have not actually studied the documents with a critical eye'... choose your own word).
Foxx,
Now you really are a lying sack of shiit.
Talk about being Popeish.
Certainly, NIST DOES make this statement, however it does not hold up to careful scrutiny, as I have previously shown here...
Now Foxx is using HIMSELF as a reference.
What a putz.
Now Foxx, if you REALLY want an HONEST debate, how about providing PAGE #s for your references.
You KNOW it is a 336 page document, and while I can use the FIND function, it pretty much eats my machine to do so and takes forever.
But then you've never really wanted a free and open debate, have you?
Like in your quote from the NIST document about 'no conclusive evidence', you conveniently leave out the first NINE words of the sentence.
FROM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF RECOVERED STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS,
or the sentence that FOLLOWS the quote, in that NIST only had available 3% of Perimeter steel and 1% of Core Steel ON THE FLOORS THAT INTERSECTED THE FIRE DAMAGE.
As to the UL tests.
Those tests ALL had their fire retardant IN PLACE. They appear to be the CONTROL TESTS.
Arthur
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 07:47 PM)
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
WOW the mayor of the biggest city in the world wasn't in a particular place. It couldn't be hes a busy mayor with 8 million people to take care of.. No, there has to be something sinister about it...
So the mayor, the governor, the NYC fire department, The police department, The port athority, On and on... They're all in on this conspiracy to help Bush mass murder thousands. Many of whom are there own people!
And you say I have no sense... OH THE IRONY!!!!
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
WOW the mayor of the biggest city in the world wasn't in a particular place. It couldn't be hes a busy mayor with 8 million people to take care of.. No, there has to be something sinister about it...
So the mayor, the governor, the NYC fire department, The police department, The port athority, On and on... They're all in on this conspiracy to help Bush mass murder thousands. Many of whom are there own people!
And you say I have no sense... OH THE IRONY!!!!
Here are the twin towers and WTC 7 still standing on 9-11:
Here are the twin towers & WTC 7 being demolished by explosives on 9-11:
Here are photos and video of explosions ejecting vertically from the towers during their demolition on 9-11:
Video: http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wt...ition_waves.mpg
Video: http://tinyurl.com/7dkv3
Here are witnesses saying that they heard loud explosions in rapid sequence and saw orange and red flashes resembling controlled demolition BEFORE the towers "collapsed" at the WTC on 9-11:
# From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
# Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 explosions before collapse: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Link to quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
# From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Link to quote:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
# "When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York
Link to quote:
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/
#PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA:
Q. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE? A. It was a frigging noise at first. At first I thought it was a professional demolition, where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. That’s exactly what I thought it was when I heard that frigging noise. That’s when I saw the building coming down.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14
...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
# Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
# September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building....
Link to article:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
# NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
# DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK FDNY
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY
I hear what sounded like firecrackers and a low rumble. I look up, and the south tower – I could see the top part of the siding overlapping the bottom side of the siding.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson:
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.....explosions.wmv
# Street Reporter:
"45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
# Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
# Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
# Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg
# Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief
...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone...
Link to article:
http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp
# An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson
The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President...
From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror
...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion...
...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first...
Link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's email:
http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html
# Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News
"...I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.
"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
The BBC received more than 1,300 e-mails from witnesses and other concerned readers within the first few hours after the attack.
Link to article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm
# 9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
# 9/11 hero, William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, states that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit:
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.
"I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers."
Link to quotes:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
# "Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..."
- War Corespondent, Jack Kelley
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm
MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv
#“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
- CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 during a Live television broadcast, September 11, 2001.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Here's an excerpt from a radio interview with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh, who said that she and others were told to move away from WTC 7 by members of the FDNY, because they were going to have to bring the building down on 9-11:
# Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpts from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview.
Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/7dww8
Here are the words of award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of the firemen raising the flag at ground zero. He says that ground zero was evacuated approximately 30 minutes before WTC 7 was demolished on 9-11:
"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey.
Before leaving, I took one last look at Ground Zero. Three firefighters were attaching an American flag to a slanted pole while standing on top of a pile of rubble about fifteen feet high. I was about thirty yards away, and I zoomed in and fired off a few frames with my digital camera. The flag-raising itself was spontaneous and unceremonious. It took only a few minutes, and I don't think the firemen had any idea they were being watched. One firefighter hoisted the flag up as the other two looked on. I shot a burst of frames as it went up, then ran to where they were. But before I could shoot any more they disappeared into the crowd leaving the area."
Link to article:
http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp
Here is an interview with Larry Silverstein, who signed the lease to the WTC complex six weeks before 9-11:
# "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
Here are some opinions from experts concerning the demolitions of the twin towers & WTC 7 on 9-11:
# "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"
- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down
Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
# The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed.
"I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling."
- Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics/BYU, in an email sent to his colleagues concerning the World Trade Center demolitions
# Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.
According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
Link to article:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0920_80655.html
# Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says
Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse
"It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that
"It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points
- Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings (Romero retracted his statements only days after making them, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the buildings to fail.").
Original Link to quote
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
Archived link of Romero's statements:
http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html
New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20284
Romero receives promotion soon after he recants his "bombs brought down the WTC" statements - January 11, 2002:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/11jan05.html
Romero appointed Co-Chair to the Presidential Advisory Commission:
http://www.yic.gov/paceea/adcom/bios.html
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
Here are some examples of buildings that were "brought down" by controlled demolition:
# Building Demolition Videos:
J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpg
Seattle Kingdome
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/kingdome.mpg
Various building demolitions
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
Any questions??? :-x
Here are the twin towers & WTC 7 being demolished by explosives on 9-11:
Here are photos and video of explosions ejecting vertically from the towers during their demolition on 9-11:
Video: http://images.indymedia.org/imc/ontario/wt...ition_waves.mpg
Video: http://tinyurl.com/7dkv3
Here are witnesses saying that they heard loud explosions in rapid sequence and saw orange and red flashes resembling controlled demolition BEFORE the towers "collapsed" at the WTC on 9-11:
# From THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ory_Stephen.txt
# Edward Cachia FDNY WTC2 explosions before collapse: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . [W]e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Link to quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...chia_Edward.txt
# From The San Francisco Chronicle / SFGate.com:
Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
Link to quote:
http://sfgate.com/gate/pictures/2005/09/10...rin_deshore.pdf
# "When we got to about 50 feet from the South Tower, we heard the most eerie sound that you would ever hear. A high-pitched noise and a popping noise made everyone stop. We all looked up. At the point, it all let go...
...There was an explosion and the whole top leaned toward us and started coming down. I stood there for a second in total awe, and then said, "What the F###?" I honestly thought it was Hollywood."
- Eye-witness Jeff Birnbaum, president of Broadway Electrical Supply Co., New York
Link to quote:
http://september11.ceenews.com/ar/electric...trical_supplys/
#PARAMEDIC DANIEL RIVERA:
Q. WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE? A. It was a frigging noise at first. At first I thought it was a professional demolition, where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear Pop Pop Pop Pop. That’s exactly what I thought it was when I heard that frigging noise. That’s when I saw the building coming down.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# Stephen Gregory , Assistant Commissioner (F.D.N.Y.) flashes, explosions p 14
...I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# Member of the FDNY:
"We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses."
Video: http://www.911blimp.net/videos/FDNY-explosions.mov
# Firefighter:
"As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/heavy.duty.explosion.wmv
# September 12, 2001, New York City, People.com
Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.
We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building....
Link to article:
http://prisonplanet.com/louie_cacchioli.htm
# NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as quickly as he could, but he said there was another explosion which took place, and then an hour after the first hit, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he thinks that took place after the initial impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.1.wmv
# DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THOMAS FlTZPATRlCK FDNY
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# FIREFIGHTER FRANK SWEENEY
I hear what sounded like firecrackers and a low rumble. I look up, and the south tower – I could see the top part of the siding overlapping the bottom side of the siding.
http://www.flcv.com/firemen.html
# MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson:
"At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last.."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.....explosions.wmv
# Street Reporter:
"45 minutes into the taping we were doing, there was an explosion. It was way up where the fire was and the whole building at that point bellied out in flames and everybody ran."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.reporter.2.wmv
# Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"I was about five blocks away when I heard explosions... three thuds and turned around to see the building that we just got out of... tip over and fall in on itself."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.1.wmv
# Witness / 9-11 survivor:
"...and then all of a sudden it started like... it sounded like gunfire... you know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang and then all of a sudden three big explosions."
Video: http://terrorize.dk/911/witnesses/911.wtc.witness.2.wmv
# Firemen recall "detonations" in South Tower:
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
Video: http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos...n_firehouse.mpg
# Terror in the City, September 12 , 2001, Notes from Robert Ivy, FAIA Editor-in-chief
...we felt a rumble like faraway thunder and turned. The impossible was happening. The south tower of the World Trade Center shook, and in what resembled an elemental act, fell to earth in a mighty shout. The entire dissolution, the changeover from solid elements to ash, took only seconds, and it was gone...
Link to article:
http://www.archrecord.com/news/fromTheFiel.../0109terror.asp
# An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks
from Neil deGrasse Tyson
The following is the text from an email Neil deGrasse Tyson sent to his family and friends on 12 September 2001. Neil witnessed the attacks on the twin towers from his apartment only six blocks from the World Trade Center. He is Director of the Hayden Planetarium of the American Museum of Natural History, which is located in New York City. Neil also serves as The Planetary Society's Vice President...
From: Neil deGrasse Tyson
Sent: 10AM, Wednesday, 12 September 2001
Subject: The Horror, The Horror
...4) As more and more and more and more and more emergency vehicles descended on the World Trade Center, I hear a second explosion in WTC 2, then a loud, low-frequency rumble that precipitates the unthinkable -- a collapse of all the floors above the point of explosion. First the top surface, containing the helipad, tips sideways in full view. Then the upper floors fall straight down in a demolition-style implosion, taking all lower floors with it, even those below the point of the explosion...
...6) I decide it's time to get my daughter, who was taken by the parents of a friend of hers to a small office building, six blocks farther from the WTC than my apartment. As I dress for survival: boots, flashlight, wet towels, swimming goggles, bicycle helmet, gloves, I hear another explosion followed by a now all-too familiar rumble that signaled the collapse of WTC 1, the first of the two towers to have been hit. I saw the iconic antenna on this building descend straight down in an implosion twinning the first...
Link to Neil deGrasse Tyson's email:
http://www.planetary.org/html/society/advi...t11account.html
# Tuesday, 11 September, 2001, Eyewitnesses tell of horror, BBC News
"...I saw everything from my balcony in Soho. The first plane tried to veer off the tower but slammed straight into it, followed by the second plane," Nadine Keller of New York City wrote in an e-mail to BBC News Online.
"There was smoke everywhere. I heard the bomb and saw both buildings crumble like biscuits," Ms Keller said.
The BBC received more than 1,300 e-mails from witnesses and other concerned readers within the first few hours after the attack.
Link to article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1537500.stm
# 9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Source: "Teresa Veliz: A Prayer to Die Quickly and Painlessly," in September 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/veliz-bombs.htm
# 9/11 hero, William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, states that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit:
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.
"I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.
"I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers."
Link to quotes:
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/artic...18131/28031.htm
# "Apparently what appears to happen was that at the same time two planes hit the building that there... that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the buildings which also exploded at the same time..."
- War Corespondent, Jack Kelley
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....jack.kelley.rm
MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
"Police have found what they believe to be a suspicious device and they fear that it may lead to another explosion...I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosion at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
Video: http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.w....explosives.wmv
#“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
- CBS News anchor, Dan Rather, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 during a Live television broadcast, September 11, 2001.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Here's an excerpt from a radio interview with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh, who said that she and others were told to move away from WTC 7 by members of the FDNY, because they were going to have to bring the building down on 9-11:
# Radio host Bonnie Falkner: How long did you work as an emergency medical technician and exactly what is it that you were doing (at ground zero)?
Indira Singh: ...when I got there we were setting up triage sites (at ground zero), close, very close to the area. The triage site that I was setting up was behind, well, to the east of Building 7 where Building 7 came down...
...we were setting up triages as close to the pile as possible… so what we were doing was setting up different kinds of stations… IV stations, cardiac stations, wound stations, burn stations ...just trying to have an organized space. What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon afternoon, after mid-day on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or being brought down.
Bonnie Falkner: Did they actually use the word "brought" down and who was it that was telling you this?
Indira Singh: The fire department... the fire department and they did use the word "we're going to have to bring it down."
The entire interview can be listened to at the link below. The excerpts from above can be found approximately 10 minutes into the interview.
Guns & Butter Radio interview w/ Indira Singh hosted by Bonnie Falkner - April 27th 2005:
http://tinyurl.com/7dww8
Here are the words of award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of the firemen raising the flag at ground zero. He says that ground zero was evacuated approximately 30 minutes before WTC 7 was demolished on 9-11:
"Much of what happened to me on September 11 is a blur, but this moment I clearly remember: It was 4:45 p.m., and all the firemen and rescue workers were evacuating Ground Zero after word came that a third building -- WTC 7 -- was ready to fall. I had only a few frames left, and an entire day's worth of pictures to develop, so I prepared to head back to New Jersey.
Before leaving, I took one last look at Ground Zero. Three firefighters were attaching an American flag to a slanted pole while standing on top of a pile of rubble about fifteen feet high. I was about thirty yards away, and I zoomed in and fired off a few frames with my digital camera. The flag-raising itself was spontaneous and unceremonious. It took only a few minutes, and I don't think the firemen had any idea they were being watched. One firefighter hoisted the flag up as the other two looked on. I shot a burst of frames as it went up, then ran to where they were. But before I could shoot any more they disappeared into the crowd leaving the area."
Link to article:
http://archives.cjr.org/year/02/2/franklin.asp
Here is an interview with Larry Silverstein, who signed the lease to the WTC complex six weeks before 9-11:
# "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
- World Trade Center lease holder, Larry Silverstein, commenting on the demolition of Building 7 in the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds", which aired in September of 2002
Video: http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PULLIT.mp3
In the same documentary, America Rebuilds, a clean up worker at ground zero uses the term "pull" when preparing for the controlled demolition of Building 6:
"... we're getting ready to pull building six."
Audio: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/pull-it2.mp3
Here are some opinions from experts concerning the demolitions of the twin towers & WTC 7 on 9-11:
# "If you've seen many of the managed demolitions where they implode a building and they cause it to essentially to fall vertically because they cause all of the vertical columns to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened"
- Matthys Levy, Structural Engineer and co author of Why buildings Fall Down
Video: http://www.freepressinternational.com/discovery.html
# The fact that WTC-7 fell down symmetrically, onto its own footprint very neatly, even though fires were just observed on one side of the building. A symmetrical collapse, as observed, requires the simultaneous "pulling" of support beams. By my count, there were 24 core columns and 57 perimeter columns in WTC-7. Heat transport considerations for steel beams heated by fire suggest that failure of even a few columns at the same time is very small. Adding in the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("law of increasing entropy") leads to the conclusion that the likelihood of near-symmetrical collapse of the building due to fires (the "government" theory) -- requiring as it does near-simultaneous failure of many support columns -- is infinitesimal. Yet near-symmetrical collapse of WTC-7 was observed.
"I have performed other analyses regarding the WTC collapses on 9-11-01 which may be of interest --let me know if you're interested. The matter is highly interesting to me as a physicist -- and as a citizen of the United States. I conclude that the evidence for pre-positioned explosives in WTC 7 (also in towers 1 and 2) is truly compelling."
- Steven E. Jones, Professor of Physics/BYU, in an email sent to his colleagues concerning the World Trade Center demolitions
# Why WTC Steel Towers Collapsed at One Blow
September 20, 2001
english.people.com.cn
Professor Shi Yongjiu, director of civil engineering department of Qinghua University and an expert on steel structure, guesses that the lower part of the WTC twin towers may got seriously damaged.
According to steel structure's mechanical nature, the towers shouldn't collapse as late as an hour later after the planes slammed into. What's more, it should be in a way to topple over gradually instead of crashing down as seen in videotapes. It looks more like a directional blast in doing the job of destruction, so he feels that huge damages must have been done at the lower part of the towers.
Link to article:
http://english.people.com.cn/english/20010...0920_80655.html
# Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says
Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001
"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse
"It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that
"It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points
- Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings (Romero retracted his statements only days after making them, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the buildings to fail.").
Original Link to quote
http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm
Archived link of Romero's statements:
http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html
New Mexico Tech Explosives Expert 'Flip-Flops' On WTC Controlled Demo Theory; Refuses To Explain Why
http://news.baou.com/main.php?action=recent&rid=20284
Romero receives promotion soon after he recants his "bombs brought down the WTC" statements - January 11, 2002:
http://infohost.nmt.edu/mainpage/news/2002/11jan05.html
Romero appointed Co-Chair to the Presidential Advisory Commission:
http://www.yic.gov/paceea/adcom/bios.html
Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center
by David Heller
BS: Physics Bard College
MA: S. F. Inst. Architecture
Architect and Builder
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
Here are some examples of buildings that were "brought down" by controlled demolition:
# Building Demolition Videos:
J.L. Hudson Department Store - Detroit, Michigan
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/jlhudson.mpg
Seattle Kingdome
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/image...nt/kingdome.mpg
Various building demolitions
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
Any questions??? :-x
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:59 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 07:47 PM)
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
WOW the mayor of the biggest city in the world wasn't in a particular place. It couldn't be hes a busy mayor with 8 million people to take care of.. No, there has to be something sinister about it...
So the mayor, the governor, the NYC fire department, The police department, The port athority, On and on... They're all in on this conspiracy to help Bush mass murder thousands. Many of whom are there own people!
And you say I have no sense... OH THE IRONY!!!!
Anyone any idea what the Common chap is on about? No point in asking him, he is lacking Sense.
Lets see if spelling it out helps
Whilst the brave firemen were reporting a couple of hoses could deal with the fire the Mayor is being told the buildings are about to collapse. How could this possibly be known when NEVER IN HISTORY have such buildings collapsed AND there was NOTHING to suggest they were about to?
WHY were those who had this knowledge, like the firemen who heard AND EXPERIENCED explosions, not asked at the inquiry the source of their knowledge?
EDIT - cheers Foxx
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
WOW the mayor of the biggest city in the world wasn't in a particular place. It couldn't be hes a busy mayor with 8 million people to take care of.. No, there has to be something sinister about it...
So the mayor, the governor, the NYC fire department, The police department, The port athority, On and on... They're all in on this conspiracy to help Bush mass murder thousands. Many of whom are there own people!
And you say I have no sense... OH THE IRONY!!!!
Anyone any idea what the Common chap is on about? No point in asking him, he is lacking Sense.
Lets see if spelling it out helps
Whilst the brave firemen were reporting a couple of hoses could deal with the fire the Mayor is being told the buildings are about to collapse. How could this possibly be known when NEVER IN HISTORY have such buildings collapsed AND there was NOTHING to suggest they were about to?
WHY were those who had this knowledge, like the firemen who heard AND EXPERIENCED explosions, not asked at the inquiry the source of their knowledge?
EDIT - cheers Foxx
Anybody noticed the congruence between Faux constantly claiming that it's being attacked by a "conspiracy" (Coastal and I are apparently now responsible for every Faux-attacking post on this thread, mmmmmmmBWAHAHAHAHAHA), and Faux constantly claiming that the WTC were brought down by "conspiracy?" Food for thought.
Oh, and anybody else notice as well how Faux' posts seem to mutate to cover or eliminate the most egregious lies, which it then claims never happened? I LOVE watching it squirm.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 14 2006, 08:19 PM)
Oh, and anybody else notice as well how Faux' posts seem to mutate to cover or eliminate the most egregious lies, which it then claims never happened? I LOVE watching it squirm.
Schneibster, If you are not being paid to post get help.
Schneibster, If you are not being paid to post get help.
For any newcomers, who may be confused about the validity of 'Schneibster' and his 'sock-puppet choir' of Liars please see the following...
Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
And you can prove this because...
...you want it to be so SO BADLY?
...you don't like my conclusions, so I MUST be lying?
...you are telepathic?
...the reptilians told you?
Forget it. It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, and you're a troll. Period.
Troll? No, not really. More like the lead attorney for the prosecution, attempting to establish the credibility of a witness (that's you, Schneibster).
Here's the court-room transcript:
Prosecution: Your Honor, before hearing testimony from this witness, re. the alleged 'pancake collapse' of the WTC towers, we first need to establish the witness's credibility. To this end, I would like to ask the defendant a few questions, if I may.
Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Mel.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Mister Schneibster: on Dec. 14, 2005 7:00pm, did you or did you not claim that Mr. Rodriquez 'has been shown to have engaged in perjury'?
Defendant: Yes sir, I did.
Prosecution: And on Dec. 14, 7:38pm, did a Mr. metamars question you on the veracity of this 'perjury' claim, and further, ask you to cite the source of your information?
Defendant: Yes, but...
Prosecution: A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr Schneibster. Now, approximately 2 short hours later, did you or did you not offer a retraction of the original claim, stating that you were misled by a disinformation web site?
Defendant: I guess that's plain for all to see, isn't it, you idiot.
Judge: If you don't mind, Mr. Schneibster, please keep the arrogant wise-cracks to yourself.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Now, Mr. Schneibster, were you or were you not asked by yours truly, some 3.5 hours later, to post a link to the web site that you had already deemed 'dis-informational', and 4 hours later you replied that you were unable to find the link to the site that only 7 hours previous you had determined lied to you?
Defendant: Huh? I don't think I understand the question...but, but, I really was unable to find the site...it wasn't even in my 'history list'. As mentioned, though, I do visit a lot of...you know..."kiddie" web sites, and I clear my history list often so my wife doesn't see where I've been...
Prosecution: That's nice, Mr. Schneibster...more info than we needed, really. So, to clarify one more time, are you claiming that in the course of a 7 hour period, you were able to find a web site, determine that its information was bogus, then be completely unable to produce a link to same said site?
Defendant: Ya, I guess I am. But I am "The Schneibster", you know, and I can contain such contradictions and blatant Tom-foolery. I am ordained -- by God himself -- to make any claim I deem necessary to defend the WTC 'pancake theory'.
Prosecution: (bitch-slapping defendant) No further questions, your Honor. It is abundantly clear that the initial claim of 'perjury' was slanderous, and the timely retraction and subsequent 'excuse' for the slander were themselves blatant lies. Given this, I feel it is in the best interest of this court room to disallow further testimony from this witness with regards to the events of 9/11/2005.
Defendant: Ya, but, but, but...you're a 'this', and you're a 'that'. And I don't like you very much anymore. You have no right to call me on my lies. MOMMY!
Judge: Settle down, Mr. Schneibster. Given the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr. Mel, I have no choice but to dismiss you from this court room. You may step down, Mr. Schneibster...and please don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Court adjourned. [QUOTE]
And here he is, taking pictures at the kiddies playground...
Here is his favourite picture (very fitting for an intelligent person with no 'issues' on a science forum)...
And here is how he sees himself debating with other intelligent beings...(he's a legend in his own mind)...
Of course ... his favourite allegation against any who would dare expose (or even disagree with) him...
Odd that cOMonSenSE exhibits all the same characteristics (in his 'search for Truth')
Schneibster... get 'help'...
(and I say this without regard to 9/11 issues).
Sheer obfuscating nonsense. This issue was addressed in my original post regarding this issue...
Sheer obfuscating nonsense. This issue was addressed in my original post regarding this issue...
1 - From the NIST report...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf (pg 235 of the pdf file --- bold text added for emphasis)...
This is one of the most important summary findings in the report.
No evidence was found in the metallurgical analysis of the steel for fire causing the collapses.
Now this is damning evidence from the NIST report itself.
Not being 'stupid', the sophists and semantics people quickly discover their 'supposed salvation' of the gravity-collapse Fairy Tale through the words...
This is one of the most important summary findings in the report.
No evidence was found in the metallurgical analysis of the steel for fire causing the collapses.
Now this is damning evidence from the NIST report itself.
Not being 'stupid', the sophists and semantics people quickly discover their 'supposed salvation' of the gravity-collapse Fairy Tale through the words...
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements... no evidence... tada tada
This is what all the Liars always use to try to obfuscate this NIST statement and 'salvage' their precious Fairy Tale.
However in doing so, they wish to ignore certain relevant FACTS related to the collection of steel in the FIRST PLACE, as is well documented in pre-NIST (and even NIST) reports.
Those 'pre-NIST' collectors-of-evidence specifically looked for steel samples from the cores of the towers that had been exposed to fire and/OR been exposed to aircraft impact damage... From the NIST report -
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
From the draft summary...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file)
From the draft summary...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file)
"A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas.
The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C {as mentioned before}.
They did not procure ANY steel samples that were not relevant for analysis due to lack of impact or fire damage.
That is also significant in that this 'unprocured & rejected' samples represented the vast majority of all the steel they rummaged through at the debris sites.
There WAS NO NEED (according to the parameters which they wished to study) to COLLECT Columns OUTSIDE of the FIRE and Aircraft DAMAGE ZONE. WHY??? (unless you want to study it for evidence of 'explosives'?... and they surely DID NOT WANT to Go THERE).
If they had collected ALL steel having been identified as "undamaged by fire or impact", the percentage of total steel identified would be much greater than the specifically damaged 1/4 to 1/2% they analysed.
IF, they were looking for evidence of explosive demolition... THEN... ALL the steel would HAVE to be collected and SAVED for investigation... but they WEREN'T... WERE THEY ???
So their 'task' was ONLY to collect and save the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces of steel FROM the...
NOW ... the gravity-driven collapse supporters wail and cry with crocodile tears about... the 'collected pieces' ONLY represented about 1/4 - 1/2 of 1 %the steel in the towers. Hey... don't go crying on MY shoulder. YOU were THE ONES who said...
"We don't NEED ALL the steel, JUST the MOST REPRESENTATIVE steel FROM the areas of the Impact & FIRES.
Well, I'm afraid your 'knowledgeable buddies in the civil engineering field', DID go out and collect the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces they could find from these Fire & Impact Areas... (no need to collect pieces from those areas which showed NO SIGNS of heat OR Impact damage....
NOW ... the gravity-driven collapse supporters wail and cry with crocodile tears about... the 'collected pieces' ONLY represented about 1/4 - 1/2 of 1 %the steel in the towers. Hey... don't go crying on MY shoulder. YOU were THE ONES who said...
"We don't NEED ALL the steel, JUST the MOST REPRESENTATIVE steel FROM the areas of the Impact & FIRES.
Well, I'm afraid your 'knowledgeable buddies in the civil engineering field', DID go out and collect the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces they could find from these Fire & Impact Areas... (no need to collect pieces from those areas which showed NO SIGNS of heat OR Impact damage....
"Yep, we CAN IDENTIFY 'THESE PARTS' as having come from the Fire / Impact Damage Zone...
But, we don't find any extreme signs of impact or fire on 'THESE' Pieces (so we don't NEED to save THEM).
We are ONLY LOOKING to save 'Relevant' parts from the fire & impact zones which exhibit Fire & Impact Damage.
Well, they DID THAT, Folks! They DID SAVE THE MOST RELEVANT PIECES they could find from the Fire & Impact zones.... some 230 pieces?
UNFORTUNATELY...
These 'MOST RELEVANT' pieces they COULD find, DO NOT support the Fairy Tale of these mythological raging infernos...
these 'MOST RELEVANT' pieces they collected & catalogued... REFUTE the FAIRY TALE of these Amazing Hiding Steel-EATING & Compromising FIRES !!!
The towers had 400,000 tons of steel. And, "more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling." (from NIST report Appendix D, page 1 of pdf file - 1st link above)
So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of over 250C.
So again, NIST summarizes....
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf (page 235 of pdf file)...
In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...."
I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found"
EDIT to ADD --- What was that you were saying about I don't post the relevant page numbers for your reference? You obviously have NOT checked out the relevant references I have already supplied... Ignoring such 'evidence' taken from the entire CONTEXT of the 4 year investigation (not JUST the latest NIST smoke & mirrors document)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 17 2005, 12:50 AM)
QUOTE (Mel+Dec 16 2005, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 16 2005, 06:51 AM)
QUOTE
Again, you made no mistake .
Ummm, I admitted as much. Yes, you admitted a mistake. But what you wrote wasn't a mistake, it was a lie. Which part of this are you not understanding that doubtless everyone else seems to?
Admit you lied, son, and then we can move on.
And you can prove this because...
...you want it to be so SO BADLY?
...you don't like my conclusions, so I MUST be lying?
...you are telepathic?
...the reptilians told you?
Forget it. It wasn't a lie, it was a mistake, and you're a troll. Period.
Troll? No, not really. More like the lead attorney for the prosecution, attempting to establish the credibility of a witness (that's you, Schneibster).
Here's the court-room transcript:
Prosecution: Your Honor, before hearing testimony from this witness, re. the alleged 'pancake collapse' of the WTC towers, we first need to establish the witness's credibility. To this end, I would like to ask the defendant a few questions, if I may.
Judge: Please proceed, Mr. Mel.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Mister Schneibster: on Dec. 14, 2005 7:00pm, did you or did you not claim that Mr. Rodriquez 'has been shown to have engaged in perjury'?
Defendant: Yes sir, I did.
Prosecution: And on Dec. 14, 7:38pm, did a Mr. metamars question you on the veracity of this 'perjury' claim, and further, ask you to cite the source of your information?
Defendant: Yes, but...
Prosecution: A simple yes or no will suffice, Mr Schneibster. Now, approximately 2 short hours later, did you or did you not offer a retraction of the original claim, stating that you were misled by a disinformation web site?
Defendant: I guess that's plain for all to see, isn't it, you idiot.
Judge: If you don't mind, Mr. Schneibster, please keep the arrogant wise-cracks to yourself.
Prosecution: Thank-you, your Honor. Now, Mr. Schneibster, were you or were you not asked by yours truly, some 3.5 hours later, to post a link to the web site that you had already deemed 'dis-informational', and 4 hours later you replied that you were unable to find the link to the site that only 7 hours previous you had determined lied to you?
Defendant: Huh? I don't think I understand the question...but, but, I really was unable to find the site...it wasn't even in my 'history list'. As mentioned, though, I do visit a lot of...you know..."kiddie" web sites, and I clear my history list often so my wife doesn't see where I've been...
Prosecution: That's nice, Mr. Schneibster...more info than we needed, really. So, to clarify one more time, are you claiming that in the course of a 7 hour period, you were able to find a web site, determine that its information was bogus, then be completely unable to produce a link to same said site?
Defendant: Ya, I guess I am. But I am "The Schneibster", you know, and I can contain such contradictions and blatant Tom-foolery. I am ordained -- by God himself -- to make any claim I deem necessary to defend the WTC 'pancake theory'.
Prosecution: (bitch-slapping defendant) No further questions, your Honor. It is abundantly clear that the initial claim of 'perjury' was slanderous, and the timely retraction and subsequent 'excuse' for the slander were themselves blatant lies. Given this, I feel it is in the best interest of this court room to disallow further testimony from this witness with regards to the events of 9/11/2005.
Defendant: Ya, but, but, but...you're a 'this', and you're a 'that'. And I don't like you very much anymore. You have no right to call me on my lies. MOMMY!
Judge: Settle down, Mr. Schneibster. Given the overwhelming evidence provided by Mr. Mel, I have no choice but to dismiss you from this court room. You may step down, Mr. Schneibster...and please don't let the door hit you in the *ss on the way out.
Court adjourned. [QUOTE]
And here he is, taking pictures at the kiddies playground...
Here is his favourite picture (very fitting for an intelligent person with no 'issues' on a science forum)...
And here is how he sees himself debating with other intelligent beings...(he's a legend in his own mind)...
Of course ... his favourite allegation against any who would dare expose (or even disagree with) him...
Odd that cOMonSenSE exhibits all the same characteristics (in his 'search for Truth')
Schneibster... get 'help'...
(and I say this without regard to 9/11 issues).
QUOTE
Originally posted by Adoucette
But then you've never really wanted a free and open debate, have you?
Like in your quote from the NIST document about 'no conclusive evidence', you conveniently leave out the first NINE words of the sentence.
FROM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF RECOVERED STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS,
or the sentence that FOLLOWS the quote, in that NIST only had available 3% of Perimeter steel and 1% of Core Steel ON THE FLOORS THAT INTERSECTED THE FIRE DAMAGE.
But then you've never really wanted a free and open debate, have you?
Like in your quote from the NIST document about 'no conclusive evidence', you conveniently leave out the first NINE words of the sentence.
FROM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF RECOVERED STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS,
or the sentence that FOLLOWS the quote, in that NIST only had available 3% of Perimeter steel and 1% of Core Steel ON THE FLOORS THAT INTERSECTED THE FIRE DAMAGE.
Sheer obfuscating nonsense. This issue was addressed in my original post regarding this issue...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Adoucette But then you've never really wanted a free and open debate, have you? Like in your quote from the NIST document about 'no conclusive evidence', you conveniently leave out the first NINE words of the sentence. FROM THE LIMITED NUMBER OF RECOVERED STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS, or the sentence that FOLLOWS the quote, in that NIST only had available 3% of Perimeter steel and 1% of Core Steel ON THE FLOORS THAT INTERSECTED THE FIRE DAMAGE. |
Sheer obfuscating nonsense. This issue was addressed in my original post regarding this issue...
1 - From the NIST report...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf (pg 235 of the pdf file --- bold text added for emphasis)...
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
This is one of the most important summary findings in the report.
No evidence was found in the metallurgical analysis of the steel for fire causing the collapses.
Now this is damning evidence from the NIST report itself.
Not being 'stupid', the sophists and semantics people quickly discover their 'supposed salvation' of the gravity-collapse Fairy Tale through the words...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure" |
This is one of the most important summary findings in the report.
No evidence was found in the metallurgical analysis of the steel for fire causing the collapses.
Now this is damning evidence from the NIST report itself.
Not being 'stupid', the sophists and semantics people quickly discover their 'supposed salvation' of the gravity-collapse Fairy Tale through the words...
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements... no evidence... tada tada
This is what all the Liars always use to try to obfuscate this NIST statement and 'salvage' their precious Fairy Tale.
However in doing so, they wish to ignore certain relevant FACTS related to the collection of steel in the FIRST PLACE, as is well documented in pre-NIST (and even NIST) reports.
Those 'pre-NIST' collectors-of-evidence specifically looked for steel samples from the cores of the towers that had been exposed to fire and/OR been exposed to aircraft impact damage... From the NIST report -
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (Appendix D (pages 2, 3 of the pdf file)...
QUOTE
Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
From the draft summary...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members: Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft. Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone. Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7. |
From the draft summary...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf (page 3 of the pdf file)
"A number of structural pieces were recovered from locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers, including four perimeter panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns located within these areas.
The three core columns purposely recovered from the impact and fire-damaged regions did not reach temperatures even up to 250C {as mentioned before}.
They did not procure ANY steel samples that were not relevant for analysis due to lack of impact or fire damage.
That is also significant in that this 'unprocured & rejected' samples represented the vast majority of all the steel they rummaged through at the debris sites.
There WAS NO NEED (according to the parameters which they wished to study) to COLLECT Columns OUTSIDE of the FIRE and Aircraft DAMAGE ZONE. WHY??? (unless you want to study it for evidence of 'explosives'?... and they surely DID NOT WANT to Go THERE).
If they had collected ALL steel having been identified as "undamaged by fire or impact", the percentage of total steel identified would be much greater than the specifically damaged 1/4 to 1/2% they analysed.
IF, they were looking for evidence of explosive demolition... THEN... ALL the steel would HAVE to be collected and SAVED for investigation... but they WEREN'T... WERE THEY ???
So their 'task' was ONLY to collect and save the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces of steel FROM the...
QUOTE
"locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers"
NOW ... the gravity-driven collapse supporters wail and cry with crocodile tears about... the 'collected pieces' ONLY represented about 1/4 - 1/2 of 1 %the steel in the towers. Hey... don't go crying on MY shoulder. YOU were THE ONES who said...
"We don't NEED ALL the steel, JUST the MOST REPRESENTATIVE steel FROM the areas of the Impact & FIRES.
Well, I'm afraid your 'knowledgeable buddies in the civil engineering field', DID go out and collect the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces they could find from these Fire & Impact Areas... (no need to collect pieces from those areas which showed NO SIGNS of heat OR Impact damage....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "locations in or near the impact- and fire-damaged regions of the towers" |
NOW ... the gravity-driven collapse supporters wail and cry with crocodile tears about... the 'collected pieces' ONLY represented about 1/4 - 1/2 of 1 %the steel in the towers. Hey... don't go crying on MY shoulder. YOU were THE ONES who said...
"We don't NEED ALL the steel, JUST the MOST REPRESENTATIVE steel FROM the areas of the Impact & FIRES.
Well, I'm afraid your 'knowledgeable buddies in the civil engineering field', DID go out and collect the MOST REPRESENTATIVE pieces they could find from these Fire & Impact Areas... (no need to collect pieces from those areas which showed NO SIGNS of heat OR Impact damage....
"Yep, we CAN IDENTIFY 'THESE PARTS' as having come from the Fire / Impact Damage Zone...
But, we don't find any extreme signs of impact or fire on 'THESE' Pieces (so we don't NEED to save THEM).
We are ONLY LOOKING to save 'Relevant' parts from the fire & impact zones which exhibit Fire & Impact Damage.
Well, they DID THAT, Folks! They DID SAVE THE MOST RELEVANT PIECES they could find from the Fire & Impact zones.... some 230 pieces?
UNFORTUNATELY...
These 'MOST RELEVANT' pieces they COULD find, DO NOT support the Fairy Tale of these mythological raging infernos...
these 'MOST RELEVANT' pieces they collected & catalogued... REFUTE the FAIRY TALE of these Amazing Hiding Steel-EATING & Compromising FIRES !!!
The towers had 400,000 tons of steel. And, "more than 350,000 tons of steel have been extracted from Ground Zero and barged or trucked to salvage yards where it is cut up for recycling." (from NIST report Appendix D, page 1 of pdf file - 1st link above)
So they were able to sift through over 80% of the steel at the yards, found four core columns worthy of analysis, three of them from the impact / fire areas, and none of them exposed to fires of over 250C.
So again, NIST summarizes....
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf (page 235 of pdf file)...
QUOTE
"From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure"
In light of the fact over 80% of the steel was available for inspection, and was nearly all rejected for analysis, they could have stated... "Over 80% of the total steel was sifted through, and of the 1/4 to 1/2% deemed worthy of recovering, no conclusive evidence was found that pre-collapse fires were severe enough...."
I think that inspecting over 80% of the steel makes it more like "no evidence was found" than "no conclusive evidence was found"
EDIT to ADD --- What was that you were saying about I don't post the relevant page numbers for your reference? You obviously have NOT checked out the relevant references I have already supplied... Ignoring such 'evidence' taken from the entire CONTEXT of the 4 year investigation (not JUST the latest NIST smoke & mirrors document)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
I was born and raised in New Jersey, about 17 miles from NYC. So, once again, we can observe not only your tendency to believe in Fairy Tales, but in this case a Fairy Tale of your own construction. Your slander against southerners is duly noted, and as a "Yankee", I feel badly for Southerners who have to deal with crap like this.
In fairness, I note that some Southerners don't care for "Yankees", and can also be pigs. They are definitely a minority, just like their mirror images north of the Mason Dixon line.
The NY respondents to the Zogby poll apparently also "told it like it is", which is how we know that you represent a minority view regarding reinvestigation. There is an effort to re-poll, and if that happens, I expect that you will also be in a minority regarding LIHOP and MIHOP. That's certainly the general trend.
I have not solicited CT'ers to donate for a more serious investigation, and would prefer that somebody with name-recognition and a forum more extensive then this take the lead. You can be sure, though, that if this comes to pass, I will indeed contribute.
Meanwhile, your comment inspired me to actually write down my thoughts that I wanted to discuss with Jim Fetzer, and emailed him (see my next post). Thank-you for your 'inspiration', such as it is.
My email to Jim Fetzer
Howdy. I often listen to your show on blackopradio.com, and find your eloquence and honesty refreshing (even if we don't see eye to eye on everything. :-) )
PH.D. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
==========================================
I wanted to present 3 ideas to you. The first involves organizing solicitations for funds to hire a Ph.D. construction engineer to analyze simple collapse scenarios for the WTC 1 & 2 towers. We have been looking into the physics of the collapses at physorg.com, in a thread entitled: "Basic Physics" and subtitled "Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse"
Although I have a bachelor's degree in physics and math and contributed to this thread as best I could, the best way to attack the 911 Fairy Tales (those would be stories told by our government) may well be to look at the physics and, more importantly, the engineering aspects involved in just collapsing a steel framed building. In particular, how much energy do you need to collapse a storey in a WTC type of scenario? (I say "JUST" collapsing a steel framed building" because there are many anomalous features of the collapses that point away from the "FEMA Fairty Tale", also. An analysis of steel frames, though, is right up the alley of construction engineers.)
Unfortunately, a definitive answer requires an enormously expensive, finite element computer simulation. Just the thing that NIST could have done, but only did up to the point of collapse initiation. (And, I might add, if I read Professor Jones correctly, even what they did may have been fraudulent.)
Short of such a huge effort, we need to study a bunch of plausible collapse scenarios in idealized situations that make the analysis and computation relatively easy. A poster at the physorg.com named Gordon has calculated the energy needed to inelastically deform the columns in an extemely simple scenario, and found that even after a free fall of 3.7 meters, the top of a WTC tower would have such a drop arrested in only about .519 meters.
This is the sort of investigation I would like to see funded directly by citizens. However, I would like a more complicated analysis that seeks to account for weakening due to fires, asymmetry of plane damage, effects of trusses, etc., but would still be orders of magnitude cheaper to conduct than a full blown finite element analysis.
>>>> My question to you is: If the upcoming seminar by Professor Steven Jones does not spark this kind of effort, would you be willing to spearhead such an effort? (Mostly by organizing and fund raising) You have a podium at blackopradio.com, as well as some name recognition. That is why I am asking you, rather than attempting this, myself. (Also, I am out of a job and will need to spend most of my time looking for work.) <<<
I am tired of seeing the well-intentioned time and efforts of honest citizens wasted by groups with hidden agendas. I myself have spent a HUGE amount of time tracking down info for physorg, and also writing. Had I simply worked all those hours at a minimum wage job, I probably could have hired a Ph.D. construction engineer by MYSELF!
Society is not properly organized to effectively capture or harness the resources of honest citizens, and 911 is no exception.
REPLACING OUR CORRUPT MEDIA
=============================================
I have uploaded a proposal which I believe would allow us to replace our current corrupt media, to the Randi Rhodes Forum at:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis.
>>> Please take a look and pass it on to anybody you know who might be interested. <<<
A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL FOR A CITIZEN RUN EXIT POLL
======================================
Besides brainstorming a way to do away with our corrupt media, I have also brainstormed a way to create a verifiable vote. This would have no legal standing, but would allow us to KNOW (with sufficient participation) if we have been robbed, again.
I know that you are up on the vote fraud issue, so I won't belabor the point.
Part of the solution (until full reform comes to pass - if it ever does) is presented by me on the Randi Rhodes forum. This proposal is more sketchy than the alternate media one, and there is no MS Word version of it, but the proposal and subsequent discussions do an OK job of communicating the key ideas.
See:
Voter Verification Project
-----------------------------------
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...59&hl=exit+poll
Is Dean a Dud (related)
------------------------------------
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...98&hl=exit+poll
Howard Dean and the PDA (related)
----------------------------------------------------
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...18&hl=exit+poll
>>> Feel free to pass this on to anybody who might be interested. Unfortuantely, I've not had any time to work on it, just like I've had no time to work on my media proposal. However, if the right people get enthused about these projects, they can and will happen. <<<
Howdy. I often listen to your show on blackopradio.com, and find your eloquence and honesty refreshing (even if we don't see eye to eye on everything. :-) )
PH.D. CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER
==========================================
I wanted to present 3 ideas to you. The first involves organizing solicitations for funds to hire a Ph.D. construction engineer to analyze simple collapse scenarios for the WTC 1 & 2 towers. We have been looking into the physics of the collapses at physorg.com, in a thread entitled: "Basic Physics" and subtitled "Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse"
Although I have a bachelor's degree in physics and math and contributed to this thread as best I could, the best way to attack the 911 Fairy Tales (those would be stories told by our government) may well be to look at the physics and, more importantly, the engineering aspects involved in just collapsing a steel framed building. In particular, how much energy do you need to collapse a storey in a WTC type of scenario? (I say "JUST" collapsing a steel framed building" because there are many anomalous features of the collapses that point away from the "FEMA Fairty Tale", also. An analysis of steel frames, though, is right up the alley of construction engineers.)
Unfortunately, a definitive answer requires an enormously expensive, finite element computer simulation. Just the thing that NIST could have done, but only did up to the point of collapse initiation. (And, I might add, if I read Professor Jones correctly, even what they did may have been fraudulent.)
Short of such a huge effort, we need to study a bunch of plausible collapse scenarios in idealized situations that make the analysis and computation relatively easy. A poster at the physorg.com named Gordon has calculated the energy needed to inelastically deform the columns in an extemely simple scenario, and found that even after a free fall of 3.7 meters, the top of a WTC tower would have such a drop arrested in only about .519 meters.
This is the sort of investigation I would like to see funded directly by citizens. However, I would like a more complicated analysis that seeks to account for weakening due to fires, asymmetry of plane damage, effects of trusses, etc., but would still be orders of magnitude cheaper to conduct than a full blown finite element analysis.
>>>> My question to you is: If the upcoming seminar by Professor Steven Jones does not spark this kind of effort, would you be willing to spearhead such an effort? (Mostly by organizing and fund raising) You have a podium at blackopradio.com, as well as some name recognition. That is why I am asking you, rather than attempting this, myself. (Also, I am out of a job and will need to spend most of my time looking for work.) <<<
I am tired of seeing the well-intentioned time and efforts of honest citizens wasted by groups with hidden agendas. I myself have spent a HUGE amount of time tracking down info for physorg, and also writing. Had I simply worked all those hours at a minimum wage job, I probably could have hired a Ph.D. construction engineer by MYSELF!
Society is not properly organized to effectively capture or harness the resources of honest citizens, and 911 is no exception.
REPLACING OUR CORRUPT MEDIA
=============================================
I have uploaded a proposal which I believe would allow us to replace our current corrupt media, to the Randi Rhodes Forum at:
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...showtopic=76406
The thread is entitled
" Putting the NY Times Out of Business
Proposal to replace ALL corrupt media"
A proposal for the creation of a new, internet-based media is presented, which bypasses manipulative filtering of traditional media outlets due to business and non-businees hidden agendas. Subscribers can select filtering agents that they trust, and also "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to investigate topics of interest to them, which may not get covered, otherwise. Very modest funding by a sufficiently large subscription base will not only enable flagship video content with high production values, but also enable small players to pursue truth-telling activities on a full time basis.
>>> Please take a look and pass it on to anybody you know who might be interested. <<<
A PRACTICAL PROPOSAL FOR A CITIZEN RUN EXIT POLL
======================================
Besides brainstorming a way to do away with our corrupt media, I have also brainstormed a way to create a verifiable vote. This would have no legal standing, but would allow us to KNOW (with sufficient participation) if we have been robbed, again.
I know that you are up on the vote fraud issue, so I won't belabor the point.
Part of the solution (until full reform comes to pass - if it ever does) is presented by me on the Randi Rhodes forum. This proposal is more sketchy than the alternate media one, and there is no MS Word version of it, but the proposal and subsequent discussions do an OK job of communicating the key ideas.
See:
Voter Verification Project
-----------------------------------
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...59&hl=exit+poll
Is Dean a Dud (related)
------------------------------------
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...98&hl=exit+poll
Howard Dean and the PDA (related)
----------------------------------------------------
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index...18&hl=exit+poll
>>> Feel free to pass this on to anybody who might be interested. Unfortuantely, I've not had any time to work on it, just like I've had no time to work on my media proposal. However, if the right people get enthused about these projects, they can and will happen. <<<
An EXCELLENT and intelligent post (& email) by metamars above. Kudos!
Please keep us informed of any response you receive.
Thanks
Foxx
Please keep us informed of any response you receive.
Thanks
Foxx
we are doing away with corrupt media as we speak/write.
it's all gone decentral....
and there is nothing they can do about it......
it's all gone decentral....
and there is nothing they can do about it......
Attn; Forum members
Steve1957 has been banned from our forum. He is not even allowed to passively view its' content. Considering that everyone else in the world can, I felt this was a bit extreme, to say the least. I sent the following e-mail to the board
I am a registered member of this forum. My main interest has been in the physics/general sub-forum on the "basic physics" thread. I've been here since October and watched the 911 threads go from tropical depressions to class 5 events. In my opinion, you need to start a sub- forum for this classification of discussion. Next to pornography, 911 issues, dominate the web. The constant constraint of forcing the discussion to stay within the rigid goal posts of physics is counterproductive to the process, IMHO. I know- "this is a physics forum"- at least once, every page, somebody reminds someone of that. 911 is a complicated, multi-faceted, hot button issue. Conceivably, a new piece of data, a hitherto unreleased photograph or video, a new testimony or recollection, a reinterpretation of existing perceptions,....., could lead to a change in how we view those events. Or, like the JFK assassination, the official story will endure. The advertisers are here because the viewers are here. "Basic physics" and the other emerging threads are essentially "911- content" threads. Please don't force a round discussion to fit into a square forum. Go with it.
It has come to my attention, that STEVE1957 has been banned from the forum. I won't lie to you, that I did not occasionally find his religious rhetoric to be a bit robust. With that said, I noticed that you are taking google add money from religious organizations pushing their agendas. That falls under the category of hypocrisy at least at the level of higher principle. I must assume, however, that this is really about money and business. I did watch an awful lot of his video links, many of which were pertinent to my quest for knowledge. It would be nice, if you could explain what happened if for no other reason than to avoid a future transgression.
P.S. compared to "schneibsters" expletive ridden, bombastic rants, steve1957 was mild. Hey, but it brings in the viewers and so did steve1957. Can't you contact him and discuss terms and conditions for reinstatement. Barring him from even viewing a public forum, that anyone else in the world can see, is a wee bit extreme. No?
Congratulations; on a hot forum. I'm honored to be a part of it!
Zoktoberfest
Steve1957 has been banned from our forum. He is not even allowed to passively view its' content. Considering that everyone else in the world can, I felt this was a bit extreme, to say the least. I sent the following e-mail to the board
I am a registered member of this forum. My main interest has been in the physics/general sub-forum on the "basic physics" thread. I've been here since October and watched the 911 threads go from tropical depressions to class 5 events. In my opinion, you need to start a sub- forum for this classification of discussion. Next to pornography, 911 issues, dominate the web. The constant constraint of forcing the discussion to stay within the rigid goal posts of physics is counterproductive to the process, IMHO. I know- "this is a physics forum"- at least once, every page, somebody reminds someone of that. 911 is a complicated, multi-faceted, hot button issue. Conceivably, a new piece of data, a hitherto unreleased photograph or video, a new testimony or recollection, a reinterpretation of existing perceptions,....., could lead to a change in how we view those events. Or, like the JFK assassination, the official story will endure. The advertisers are here because the viewers are here. "Basic physics" and the other emerging threads are essentially "911- content" threads. Please don't force a round discussion to fit into a square forum. Go with it.
It has come to my attention, that STEVE1957 has been banned from the forum. I won't lie to you, that I did not occasionally find his religious rhetoric to be a bit robust. With that said, I noticed that you are taking google add money from religious organizations pushing their agendas. That falls under the category of hypocrisy at least at the level of higher principle. I must assume, however, that this is really about money and business. I did watch an awful lot of his video links, many of which were pertinent to my quest for knowledge. It would be nice, if you could explain what happened if for no other reason than to avoid a future transgression.
P.S. compared to "schneibsters" expletive ridden, bombastic rants, steve1957 was mild. Hey, but it brings in the viewers and so did steve1957. Can't you contact him and discuss terms and conditions for reinstatement. Barring him from even viewing a public forum, that anyone else in the world can see, is a wee bit extreme. No?
Congratulations; on a hot forum. I'm honored to be a part of it!
Zoktoberfest
Yeah I am honored too.
250 pages later and not one explanation as to what caused the twin towers and WTC7 to collapse. I'm not exactly suprised either, vaporized steel cannot be explained by the official conspiracy theory.
250 pages later and not one explanation as to what caused the twin towers and WTC7 to collapse. I'm not exactly suprised either, vaporized steel cannot be explained by the official conspiracy theory.
Identifying and Saving Pieces ... The collection of evidence process...
From http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (page D-2 / pg 4 adobe)
HOW could they determine which piece was what?
HOW could they determine which piece was what?
The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow telling where it came from and where it was going... Additional markings (and duplicates of stenciled markings) may sometimes be found stamped into the steel pieces. These stamped markings are about 3/4 inch tall.
NIST (and the gravity-driven collapse supporters) are now trying to re-write history and claim...
"Well... these pieces saved were NOT chosen related to their relevance at all... the 'stoopid' engineers (tasked to perform this job) just picked out 'lesser-damaged' columns... leaving the more seriously fire-damaged pieces for the slow-boat to China."
Geez, man... who do you REALLY think you are going to fool with that BS !???
These engineers picked out THE MOST RELEVANT pieces they could find. So what... if these ONLY represent about 3% of the steel from the area. That IS a telling piece of information in-and-of ITSELF... (They could find less than 3% of the steel from the afflicted areas which exhibited 'any significant' or apparent signs of fire/heat damage).
Obviously, the 'rest' (which they rejected) was NOT important or relevant.
There is absolutely NO forensic or scientific evidence to support your fairy tales. You are spouting garbage and nonsensical sophistry... (as IS NIST).
From http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-r.../WTC_apndxD.pdf (page D-2 / pg 4 adobe)
QUOTE
Section D.3.1
"... The engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC5 and WTC7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire. Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:
* Exterior columns trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
* Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 & WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
* Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7
* Any piece that, in the engineers professional opinion, MIGHT be useful for evaluation. When there was ANY DOUBT about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.
"... The engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC5 and WTC7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire. Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:
* Exterior columns trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
* Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 & WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
* Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7
* Any piece that, in the engineers professional opinion, MIGHT be useful for evaluation. When there was ANY DOUBT about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.
HOW could they determine which piece was what?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Section D.3.1 "... The engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC5 and WTC7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire. Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members: * Exterior columns trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft. * Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 & WTC 2 that were above the impact zone. * Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7 * Any piece that, in the engineers professional opinion, MIGHT be useful for evaluation. When there was ANY DOUBT about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations. |
HOW could they determine which piece was what?
The engineers were able to identify many pieces by their markings. Each piece of steel was originally stenciled in white or yellow telling where it came from and where it was going... Additional markings (and duplicates of stenciled markings) may sometimes be found stamped into the steel pieces. These stamped markings are about 3/4 inch tall.
NIST (and the gravity-driven collapse supporters) are now trying to re-write history and claim...
"Well... these pieces saved were NOT chosen related to their relevance at all... the 'stoopid' engineers (tasked to perform this job) just picked out 'lesser-damaged' columns... leaving the more seriously fire-damaged pieces for the slow-boat to China."
Geez, man... who do you REALLY think you are going to fool with that BS !???
These engineers picked out THE MOST RELEVANT pieces they could find. So what... if these ONLY represent about 3% of the steel from the area. That IS a telling piece of information in-and-of ITSELF... (They could find less than 3% of the steel from the afflicted areas which exhibited 'any significant' or apparent signs of fire/heat damage).
Obviously, the 'rest' (which they rejected) was NOT important or relevant.
There is absolutely NO forensic or scientific evidence to support your fairy tales. You are spouting garbage and nonsensical sophistry... (as IS NIST).
Well, I guess those hurt a bit, didn't they, Fauxie? Thanks for letting me know where your buttons are. That'll be useful later.
Faux, you've been accused by many users here of lying; one even followed you from another board and provided links that showed you had a history of it there as well. It's plain to see what your tactics are, and anyone past the age of two can accurately evaluate the morality of it. I've seen more disgusting displays, but rarely. What makes you think anybody but your fanbois will be convinced by this escapes me completely; and what makes you think it's appropriate to post content like the above does as well. YOU wanted this, you were handed the olive branch of peace and chose to spit on it. That's fine, but please stop whining about the consequences.
Faux, you've been accused by many users here of lying; one even followed you from another board and provided links that showed you had a history of it there as well. It's plain to see what your tactics are, and anyone past the age of two can accurately evaluate the morality of it. I've seen more disgusting displays, but rarely. What makes you think anybody but your fanbois will be convinced by this escapes me completely; and what makes you think it's appropriate to post content like the above does as well. YOU wanted this, you were handed the olive branch of peace and chose to spit on it. That's fine, but please stop whining about the consequences.
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 08:12 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:59 PM)
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 07:47 PM)
Who Told Giuliani the WTC was Going to Collapse on 9/11?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
WOW the mayor of the biggest city in the world wasn't in a particular place. It couldn't be hes a busy mayor with 8 million people to take care of.. No, there has to be something sinister about it...
So the mayor, the governor, the NYC fire department, The police department, The port athority, On and on... They're all in on this conspiracy to help Bush mass murder thousands. Many of whom are there own people!
And you say I have no sense... OH THE IRONY!!!!
Anyone any idea what the Common chap is on about? No point in asking him, he is lacking Sense.
Lets see if spelling it out helps
Whilst the brave firemen were reporting a couple of hoses could deal with the fire the Mayor is being told the buildings are about to collapse. How could this possibly be known when NEVER IN HISTORY have such buildings collapsed AND there was NOTHING to suggest they were about to?
WHY were those who had this knowledge, like the firemen who heard AND EXPERIENCED explosions, not asked at the inquiry the source of their knowledge?
EDIT - cheers Foxx
That's another LIE I exposed...
The real story...
The now infamous quote:
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Now look at this...
USA Today graphic
South tower is WTC 2. Proof on page 4 below
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
As you can see the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it. Also, the 78th floor damage was caused by one of the wing tips. So it’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
You keep lying as if I never posted this stuff before. You KNOW it isn't true yet you keep posting this non-sense over and over. Pathetic...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_giuliani.html
The OEM Issued a WTC Collapse Warning
Why didn't the 9/11 Commission mention this?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oem_wtc.html
WOW the mayor of the biggest city in the world wasn't in a particular place. It couldn't be hes a busy mayor with 8 million people to take care of.. No, there has to be something sinister about it...
So the mayor, the governor, the NYC fire department, The police department, The port athority, On and on... They're all in on this conspiracy to help Bush mass murder thousands. Many of whom are there own people!
And you say I have no sense... OH THE IRONY!!!!
Anyone any idea what the Common chap is on about? No point in asking him, he is lacking Sense.
Lets see if spelling it out helps
Whilst the brave firemen were reporting a couple of hoses could deal with the fire the Mayor is being told the buildings are about to collapse. How could this possibly be known when NEVER IN HISTORY have such buildings collapsed AND there was NOTHING to suggest they were about to?
WHY were those who had this knowledge, like the firemen who heard AND EXPERIENCED explosions, not asked at the inquiry the source of their knowledge?
EDIT - cheers Foxx
That's another LIE I exposed...
The real story...
The now infamous quote:
"Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."
Ladder 15: "What stair are you in, Orio?"
Battalion Seven Aide: "Seven Alpha to lobby command post."
Ladder Fifteen: "Fifteen to Battalion Seven."
Battalion Seven Chief: "... Ladder 15."
Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"
Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."
Now look at this...
USA Today graphic
South tower is WTC 2. Proof on page 4 below
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/Media_Public_Brie...40505_final.pdf
As you can see the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it. Also, the 78th floor damage was caused by one of the wing tips. So it’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?
You keep lying as if I never posted this stuff before. You KNOW it isn't true yet you keep posting this non-sense over and over. Pathetic...
QUOTE (brian+Jan 14 2006, 08:24 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Jan 14 2006, 08:19 PM)
Oh, and anybody else notice as well how Faux' posts seem to mutate to cover or eliminate the most egregious lies, which it then claims never happened? I LOVE watching it squirm.
Schneibster, If you are not being paid to post get help.
Could you please hurry up, join a militia and attack the united states... We need to take you out our gene pool.
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.
Schneibster, If you are not being paid to post get help.
Could you please hurry up, join a militia and attack the united states... We need to take you out our gene pool.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 14 2006, 08:54 PM)
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 14 2006, 07:16 PM)
I'll also leave it to the reader to see whos the lunatic.
As for the way I communicate, I come from NY. We tell it like it is. You trailer trash southerners are all smiles, lairs and back stabbers. We in the north east let you know were coming. Heh!
QUOTE
"Regarding the minimum wage argument: I have indeed called for an entire new media, where subscribers can "vote" a portion of their subscription funds to bankroll projects that they want to see tackled. That includes investigating the misdeeds of our President (or any President), as well as the 911 stories."
What's a matter? Can't find enough CTers to donate to the cause using paypall?
"wack-a-doodle" Heh! Now I know your a hick. Don't you have some tits to pull on? Or a tire on your home which needs fillin'. Heh!
But your latest money making scheme is more telling. This is the real purpose for supporting the Rove regime. You WOULD like to get your hands on millions of dollars wouldn't you. No doubt Steve's cell mate looking to score a quick buck. IT'LL NEVER HAPPEN.