One issue about the hot corrosion of the WTC 7 steel.
there is no way to know if that happened before the collapse or after.
Personally, I suspect it happened after as the fires burned and and the columns were coated with drywall dust.
Also, if it happened before, you would expect to see significant distortion of the steel I beam shape as it weakened under load.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 12 2007, 11:38 PM)
I'm desperate?
I will give you the bowed in columns from distorted pictures (smoke ,one angle).It is not worth arguing about.
Show were NIST validates or simulated that the trusses pulled the walls in initiating collapse?
The simulations stop before global collapse ensued.
Now, I find out the FEA analysis did not even support collapse initiation (pulling in the walls).
It showed the walls bowing out.
Yes, DESPERATE.
Since you want to PICK at ISOLATED parts of the NIST report, and not realize how the parts mesh into a whole.
You try to find flaws in the isolated models, ignoring they weren't supposed to exactly model what happened in the Global situation.
Which means we then have to spoon feed you how the parts go together.
So, once again, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Section 5.4.9 Truss Analysis for Thermal and Gravity Loads.
See how at 565 C the buckling of the diagonals led to sagging of the trusses and PULLING IN OF THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS.
Or See section 5.5.2 on Failure Modes.
or see section on 5.5.15 on how the inclusion of Creep would increase the sag and thus the PULL IN FORCES.
Arthur
I will give you the bowed in columns from distorted pictures (smoke ,one angle).It is not worth arguing about.
Show were NIST validates or simulated that the trusses pulled the walls in initiating collapse?
The simulations stop before global collapse ensued.
Now, I find out the FEA analysis did not even support collapse initiation (pulling in the walls).
It showed the walls bowing out.
Yes, DESPERATE.
Since you want to PICK at ISOLATED parts of the NIST report, and not realize how the parts mesh into a whole.
You try to find flaws in the isolated models, ignoring they weren't supposed to exactly model what happened in the Global situation.
Which means we then have to spoon feed you how the parts go together.
So, once again, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Section 5.4.9 Truss Analysis for Thermal and Gravity Loads.
See how at 565 C the buckling of the diagonals led to sagging of the trusses and PULLING IN OF THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS.
Or See section 5.5.2 on Failure Modes.
or see section on 5.5.15 on how the inclusion of Creep would increase the sag and thus the PULL IN FORCES.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2007, 07:37 PM)
... we then have to spoon feed you ...
So true. Even in NCSTAR1-6D...
So true. Even in NCSTAR1-6D...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 13 2007, 09:27 AM)
Wrong yet once again. The sudden partial floor collapse about 2 minutes prior to the collapse of WTC 1 was not modeled. NCSTAR1-5D has text specifically saying so.
What was modeled was the disconnection of about a dozen trusses over a period of about 20 minutes. This did not lead to the sudden expulsion of smoke that is presumably due to a partial floor collapse along the south wall.
Show were I have been wrong about anything I have posted in regards to NIST?
You reference a 146 page document without page number titled "NIST NCSTAR 1-5D: Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks ".
Wrong document again!!!
They did model the floor assembly in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers , the document for collapse initiation.
What was modeled was the disconnection of about a dozen trusses over a period of about 20 minutes. This did not lead to the sudden expulsion of smoke that is presumably due to a partial floor collapse along the south wall.
Show were I have been wrong about anything I have posted in regards to NIST?
You reference a 146 page document without page number titled "NIST NCSTAR 1-5D: Reaction of Ceiling Tile Systems to Shocks ".
Wrong document again!!!They did model the floor assembly in NIST NCSTAR 1-6 Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers , the document for collapse initiation.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2007, 11:37 AM)
Yes, DESPERATE.
Since you want to PICK at ISOLATED parts of the NIST report, and not realize how the parts mesh into a whole.
You try to find flaws in the isolated models, ignoring they weren't supposed to exactly model what happened in the Global situation.
What are you babbling about, not supposed to match the global model? They did a great job because it didn't.
Which means we then have to spoon feed you how the parts go together.
The parts do not go together, if they did the floor assembly would show pulling forces not the opposite.
So, once again, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Section 5.4.9 Truss Analysis for Thermal and Gravity Loads.
See how at 565 C the buckling of the diagonals led to sagging of the trusses and PULLING IN OF THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS.
Or See section 5.5.2 on Failure Modes. .
Your evidence is one truss of a composite floor assembly (see how much fiberglass cloth sags without the resin) ?
or see section on 5.5.15 on how the inclusion of Creep would increase the sag and thus the PULL IN FORCES.
Arthur
Then they obviously should have added this to the simulation to prove it was true.
Like I stated before, simply show were NIST modeled and validated the trusses pulling in the walls to initiate collapse?
Estimations from a photo do not provide the source of the force that caused the wall to bow.
The model that should have shown the 5 kip force did not for obvious reasons, disconnected trusses do not pull as NIST has made clear.
Since you want to PICK at ISOLATED parts of the NIST report, and not realize how the parts mesh into a whole.
You try to find flaws in the isolated models, ignoring they weren't supposed to exactly model what happened in the Global situation.
What are you babbling about, not supposed to match the global model? They did a great job because it didn't.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2007, 11:37 AM)
Which means we then have to spoon feed you how the parts go together.
The parts do not go together, if they did the floor assembly would show pulling forces not the opposite.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2007, 11:37 AM)
So, once again, see NIST NCSTAR 1-6C Section 5.4.9 Truss Analysis for Thermal and Gravity Loads.
See how at 565 C the buckling of the diagonals led to sagging of the trusses and PULLING IN OF THE EXTERIOR COLUMNS.
Or See section 5.5.2 on Failure Modes. .
Your evidence is one truss of a composite floor assembly (see how much fiberglass cloth sags without the resin) ?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 13 2007, 11:37 AM)
or see section on 5.5.15 on how the inclusion of Creep would increase the sag and thus the PULL IN FORCES.
Arthur
Then they obviously should have added this to the simulation to prove it was true.
Like I stated before, simply show were NIST modeled and validated the trusses pulling in the walls to initiate collapse?
Estimations from a photo do not provide the source of the force that caused the wall to bow.
The model that should have shown the 5 kip force did not for obvious reasons, disconnected trusses do not pull as NIST has made clear.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 13 2007, 12:57 PM)
So true. Even in NCSTAR1-6D...
What a JOKE (same as the NIST reports), you don't even give page numbers or quotes, just like Arthurs.
Not being able to model collapse initiation (don't confuse this with global collapse) proves the NIST report was a waste of time and money. I am sure very few people have bothered to read the entire report so they don't realize NIST is estimating the pull-in force from a single view photo after the floor assembly model showed the walls bowing-out. Ops
What a JOKE (same as the NIST reports), you don't even give page numbers or quotes, just like Arthurs.
Not being able to model collapse initiation (don't confuse this with global collapse) proves the NIST report was a waste of time and money. I am sure very few people have bothered to read the entire report so they don't realize NIST is estimating the pull-in force from a single view photo after the floor assembly model showed the walls bowing-out. Ops
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 13 2007, 08:47 AM)
Will it be another collapse initiation report ? 
Even if the collapse initiation model doesn't initiate collapse, just add forces were necessary until it appear it might collapse.
Even if the collapse initiation model doesn't initiate collapse, just add forces were necessary until it appear it might collapse.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 13 2007, 09:12 AM)
einsteen
He says he no longer thinks it was a deliberate CD.
Grumpy
He thinks it was an accidental CD?
Please provide your source.
He says he no longer thinks it was a deliberate CD.
Grumpy
He thinks it was an accidental CD?
Please provide your source.
applause goes out to all the good Critical Thinkers, here, or "CTers", as arthurs call them.
'new' picture.
http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1az6.jpg
'new' picture.
http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1az6.jpg
A guy recently called Jowenko, we've put the source online. If you think the guy is a liar and it was a fake Jowenko then that is up to you. There are no CD professionals who think a fire can do their job, try to find them.
einsteen
Wrong again.
Albuquerque Journal
September 21, 2001
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.
That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.
But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.
Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%...Explosives.html
Grumpy
QUOTE
There are no CD professionals who think a fire can do their job, try to find them.
Wrong again.
Albuquerque Journal
September 21, 2001
Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer
A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.
"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.
Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.
Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above.
That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.
Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.
But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.
Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.
Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.
"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%...Explosives.html
Grumpy
His original opinion was :
"The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
"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," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Van Romero's change of opinion couldn't have anything to do with the availablity of Defense funded research contracts for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, could it?
"The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.
"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," Romero said.
Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.
Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.
"It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Van Romero's change of opinion couldn't have anything to do with the availablity of Defense funded research contracts for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, could it?
And again.
ASSERTION #9
“Anyone denying that explosives were used is intentionally ignoring or dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit their conclusion.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention.
As you have noticed, most of our comments relate to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they would have seen had explosives been present. Absent any evidence of explosives use, that is all we can offer (well, that and noting how no evidence has surfaced during five years of furious independent web investigations and intense media hubbub).
It also bears repeating that the men and women who actually deconstructed and removed the debris from Ground Zero were not part of a clandestine cartel of government stooges working to obstruct justice. Rather this collection of several hundred workers represented some of the country’s most experienced and highly respected demolition veterans (recall the impressive fact that no one was killed during the clean-up). Most quickly became consumed by the project and worked on site from the first day to the last, stressing marriages and families to the breaking point. But their consistent presence – combined with their vast collection of past experiences working on explosive demolition projects – made them precisely the group of people who would have been most likely to spot and call attention to abnormalities in the debris had there been any.
With all due respect to distinguished scholars and others alike, it matters little whether Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E. Coyote; for assertions to be credible they must eventually comply with the scientific principles of explosive initiation and of structural failure, realistic judgments of probability, and indisputable visual evidence.
Thus far, every assertion we have investigated scores a resounding 0 for 3.
Our team welcomes the opportunity to review additional data as it becomes available. However barring any additional evidence, those making allegations similar to the points above may do well to consider that sometimes “asking tough questions” isn’t the biggest challenge; It’s accepting the answers and decisively moving on to other areas that render their contributions productive and valuable.
Brent Blanchard, Implosion world
Actually, einsteen, you will not find a single explosives expert that DOESN'T think the collapses were caused by the aircraft impacts and fires. NONE OF THEM think explosives were used.
NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND OF THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES(OR THERMITE)ANYWHERE ON THE WTC SITE, PERIOD. And that is a fact, deal with it.
Grumpy
ASSERTION #9
“Anyone denying that explosives were used is intentionally ignoring or dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit their conclusion.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Please…if anyone knows of specific physical evidence relating to explosives being used in any manner on the Ground Zero site, bring it to our attention.
As you have noticed, most of our comments relate to the differences between what people actually saw on 9/11 and what they would have seen had explosives been present. Absent any evidence of explosives use, that is all we can offer (well, that and noting how no evidence has surfaced during five years of furious independent web investigations and intense media hubbub).
It also bears repeating that the men and women who actually deconstructed and removed the debris from Ground Zero were not part of a clandestine cartel of government stooges working to obstruct justice. Rather this collection of several hundred workers represented some of the country’s most experienced and highly respected demolition veterans (recall the impressive fact that no one was killed during the clean-up). Most quickly became consumed by the project and worked on site from the first day to the last, stressing marriages and families to the breaking point. But their consistent presence – combined with their vast collection of past experiences working on explosive demolition projects – made them precisely the group of people who would have been most likely to spot and call attention to abnormalities in the debris had there been any.
With all due respect to distinguished scholars and others alike, it matters little whether Alex Jones is drawing parallels to building implosions, Steven Jones is drawing conclusions from hot metal or Chuck Jones is drawing dynamite in the hands of Wile E. Coyote; for assertions to be credible they must eventually comply with the scientific principles of explosive initiation and of structural failure, realistic judgments of probability, and indisputable visual evidence.
Thus far, every assertion we have investigated scores a resounding 0 for 3.
Our team welcomes the opportunity to review additional data as it becomes available. However barring any additional evidence, those making allegations similar to the points above may do well to consider that sometimes “asking tough questions” isn’t the biggest challenge; It’s accepting the answers and decisively moving on to other areas that render their contributions productive and valuable.
Brent Blanchard, Implosion world
Actually, einsteen, you will not find a single explosives expert that DOESN'T think the collapses were caused by the aircraft impacts and fires. NONE OF THEM think explosives were used.
NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND OF THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES(OR THERMITE)ANYWHERE ON THE WTC SITE, PERIOD. And that is a fact, deal with it.
Grumpy
Thanks for the info, I knew that Romero story, but I was refering to the salomon brothers building...
Skeptik
Wrong, as he himself said. A real scientist must be able to change his conclusions, given new info. This is what Romero says he has done, so his original statements are null and void, it is dishonest to try to continue to represent them as his current opinion.
Wrong, as he himself said. A real scientist must be able to change his conclusions, given new info. This is what Romero says he has done, so his original statements are null and void, it is dishonest to try to continue to represent them as his current opinion.
Van Romero's change of opinion couldn't have anything to do with the availablity of Defense funded research contracts for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, could it?
To my knowledge the DOD doesn't do any mining. Your paranoia is showing, how about zipping up.
Grumpy
QUOTE
His original opinion was :
Wrong, as he himself said. A real scientist must be able to change his conclusions, given new info. This is what Romero says he has done, so his original statements are null and void, it is dishonest to try to continue to represent them as his current opinion.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| His original opinion was : |
Wrong, as he himself said. A real scientist must be able to change his conclusions, given new info. This is what Romero says he has done, so his original statements are null and void, it is dishonest to try to continue to represent them as his current opinion.
Van Romero's change of opinion couldn't have anything to do with the availablity of Defense funded research contracts for the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, could it?
To my knowledge the DOD doesn't do any mining. Your paranoia is showing, how about zipping up.
Grumpy
"Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon.
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. "
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after me!
He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. "
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not after me!
So, are you impling that Romero is somehow complicit in the 9/11 attacks?
Don't be a prat.
Romero gave his opinion about what happened to WTC1 &2. He then subsequently changed it. The question is- why?
Romero gave his opinion about what happened to WTC1 &2. He then subsequently changed it. The question is- why?
for scientifical reasons or other rea$on$ ?
einsteen
He says for scientific reasons. I tend to take him at his word until proven otherwise.
Once again...
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES BEING USED AT WTC,PERIOD. Not opinions, not "it looks like"(clouds can look like bunnies, that does not mean bunnies have anything to do with clouds), not "sounded like"(tornados sound like freight trains, but that is not evidence that freight trains cause tornados), not "couldn't be anything else"(and what idiot said that?). EVIDENCE, real unmistakeable, unambiguous hard facts. In over five years, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, YA' GOT NOTHIN'.
Until you produce some you have no case!
Grumpy
QUOTE
for scientifical reasons or other rea$on$ ?
He says for scientific reasons. I tend to take him at his word until proven otherwise.
Once again...
THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIVES BEING USED AT WTC,PERIOD. Not opinions, not "it looks like"(clouds can look like bunnies, that does not mean bunnies have anything to do with clouds), not "sounded like"(tornados sound like freight trains, but that is not evidence that freight trains cause tornados), not "couldn't be anything else"(and what idiot said that?). EVIDENCE, real unmistakeable, unambiguous hard facts. In over five years, NADA, ZILCH, ZERO, YA' GOT NOTHIN'.
Until you produce some you have no case!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Skeptik+Mar 14 2007, 08:55 AM)
Don't be a prat.
Romero gave his opinion about what happened to WTC1 &2. He then subsequently changed it. The question is- why?
I think that he explained his reasons for changing his opinions.
You are are ignoring his explanation and implying that this change was coerced in some way.
Thus, you are accusing him of somehow being an accessory after the fact of the 9/11 attacks, irregardless of who you think was actually involved in the attacks.
Are you prepared to back that accusation up in court? Because that is exactly where that accusation will land you, if Romero ever gets tired of his reputation being dragged through the mud.
I think that he explained his reasons for changing his opinions.
You are are ignoring his explanation and implying that this change was coerced in some way.
Thus, you are accusing him of somehow being an accessory after the fact of the 9/11 attacks, irregardless of who you think was actually involved in the attacks.
Are you prepared to back that accusation up in court? Because that is exactly where that accusation will land you, if Romero ever gets tired of his reputation being dragged through the mud.
You too, Einsteen.
Romero gave his opinion about what happened to WTC1 &2. He then subsequently changed it. The question is- why?
I think that he explained his reasons for changing his opinions.
You are are ignoring his explanation and implying that this change was coerced in some way.
Thus, you are accusing him of somehow being an accessory after the fact of the 9/11 attacks, irregardless of who you think was actually involved in the attacks.
Are you prepared to back that accusation up in court? Because that is exactly where that accusation will land you, if Romero ever gets tired of his reputation being dragged through the mud.
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 14 2007, 09:15 AM)
for scientifical reasons or other rea$on$ ?
You too, Einsteen.
You too, Einsteen.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 14 2007, 10:32 AM)
I think that he explained his reasons for changing his opinions.
You are are ignoring his explanation and implying that this change was coerced in some way.
Thus, you are accusing him of somehow being an accessory after the fact of the 9/11 attacks, irregardless of who you think was actually involved in the attacks.
Are you prepared to back that accusation up in court? Because that is exactly where that accusation will land you, if Romero ever gets tired of his reputation being dragged through the mud.
You too, Einsteen.
WHY IS IT that the majority of the CT'ers think that damn near EVERYONE could be incented to IGNORE or PARTICIPATE in a COVER UP of the killing of 3,000 of their fellow citizens for a few pieces of SILVER?
Arthur
Arthur
reasonwhy --- Yes, I meant NCSTAR1-6D. Apologies. Now go read it with some understanding, please. 
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 14 2007, 01:03 PM)
WHY IS IT that the majority of the CT'ers think that damn near EVERYONE could be incented to IGNORE or PARTICIPATE in a COVER UP of the killing of 3,000 of their fellow citizens for a few pieces of SILVER?
Arthur
Probably because they assume that everyone else is as morally vacuous as they are.
Arthur
Probably because they assume that everyone else is as morally vacuous as they are.
Time will tell folks, time will tell...
einsteen
Six years, still nada...
Grumpy
QUOTE
Time will tell folks, time will tell...
Six years, still nada...
Grumpy
NCSTAR1-6D, page 314 (378 ordinal):
"Partial collapse of the floor[sic] may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5--2, but this phenomenon was not modeled." (emphasis added)
"Partial collapse of the floor[sic] may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5--2, but this phenomenon was not modeled." (emphasis added)
Just a few questions before I leave:
Were the WTC floor pans really 22-gauge steel....that's only about 1 mm thick....
And did the steel decking meet the applicable ASTM A653 sheet-steel standard?
What was the type of steel used in the floor pans and was it galvanized?
Was REBAR used in the floor concrete?
Is this information in the NIST Report?
10,000 pages and 2 lines on the floor pans?
NF
Were the WTC floor pans really 22-gauge steel....that's only about 1 mm thick....
And did the steel decking meet the applicable ASTM A653 sheet-steel standard?
What was the type of steel used in the floor pans and was it galvanized?
Was REBAR used in the floor concrete?
Is this information in the NIST Report?
10,000 pages and 2 lines on the floor pans?
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 14 2007, 08:46 PM)
Just a few questions before I leave:
Were the WTC floor pans really 22-gauge steel....that's only about 1 mm thick....
And did the steel decking meet the applicable ASTM A653 sheet-steel standard?
What was the type of steel used in the floor pans and was it galvanized?
Was REBAR used in the floor concrete?
Is this information in the NIST Report?
10,000 pages and 2 lines on the floor pans?
NF
There is a LOT more than 2 pages on the floor units.
The NIST NCSTAR 1-6B report details the construction of the floor units.
For your specific questions see Section 4.2.4 Metal Deck and 4.2.5 Welded Wire.
The floor pans were 22 gauge galvanized steel, custom manufactured for the WTC towers.
Rebar was not used, they used W4.2 (long) & W4.3 Welded Wire Fabric in the concrete.
See Appndx. A in the same report for Steel specifications.
Arthur
Were the WTC floor pans really 22-gauge steel....that's only about 1 mm thick....
And did the steel decking meet the applicable ASTM A653 sheet-steel standard?
What was the type of steel used in the floor pans and was it galvanized?
Was REBAR used in the floor concrete?
Is this information in the NIST Report?
10,000 pages and 2 lines on the floor pans?
NF
There is a LOT more than 2 pages on the floor units.
The NIST NCSTAR 1-6B report details the construction of the floor units.
For your specific questions see Section 4.2.4 Metal Deck and 4.2.5 Welded Wire.
The floor pans were 22 gauge galvanized steel, custom manufactured for the WTC towers.
Rebar was not used, they used W4.2 (long) & W4.3 Welded Wire Fabric in the concrete.
See Appndx. A in the same report for Steel specifications.
Arthur
Arthur:
NIST DO NOT SAY WHAT GRADE OF STEEL WAS USED IN THE DECKING
What STEEL was galvanized?
ASTM specification please....
SEE NCSTAR 1-6B
NF
NIST DO NOT SAY WHAT GRADE OF STEEL WAS USED IN THE DECKING
What STEEL was galvanized?
ASTM specification please....
SEE NCSTAR 1-6B
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 14 2007, 09:29 PM)
Arthur:
NIST DO NOT SAY WHAT GRADE OF STEEL WAS USED IN THE DECKING
What STEEL was galvanized?
ASTM specification please....
SEE NCSTAR 1-6B
NF
Neu,
I'm not sure they know what the ASTM grade was used for the steel floors.
If they did, I can't find a reference to it (and they do seem to reference nearly every other piece of steel in the towers by grade)
As they said, the decking was a CUSTOM job for the WTC towers.
They DO state that the decking was galvanized.
But I sincerely doubt the decking was sub-standard, as we have seen, virtually all the steel used in the towers either met or exceeded specifications.
Arthur
NIST DO NOT SAY WHAT GRADE OF STEEL WAS USED IN THE DECKING
What STEEL was galvanized?
ASTM specification please....
SEE NCSTAR 1-6B
NF
Neu,
I'm not sure they know what the ASTM grade was used for the steel floors.
If they did, I can't find a reference to it (and they do seem to reference nearly every other piece of steel in the towers by grade)
As they said, the decking was a CUSTOM job for the WTC towers.
They DO state that the decking was galvanized.
But I sincerely doubt the decking was sub-standard, as we have seen, virtually all the steel used in the towers either met or exceeded specifications.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 14 2007, 05:28 PM)
NCSTAR1-6D, page 314 (378 ordinal):
"Partial collapse of the floor[sic] may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5--2, but this phenomenon was not modeled." (emphasis added)
More selective interpretations by the OCT:
DBB, the phenomenon NIST was referring to was the smoke puffs (squibs). The failing trusses and disconnection to the walls obviously were modeled and under the circumstances would not be considered a phenomenon (of course NIST would not pursue the smoke puffs because it might lead to evidence of CD when NIST was not able to model it). Not being able to model global collapse ,then collapse initiation and finally the squib's would really make NIST look incompetent.
1. pl. phe•nom•e•nons
a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
DBB, the phenomenon NIST was referring to was the smoke puffs (squibs). The failing trusses and disconnection to the walls obviously were modeled and under the circumstances would not be considered a phenomenon (of course NIST would not pursue the smoke puffs because it might lead to evidence of CD when NIST was not able to model it). Not being able to model global collapse ,then collapse initiation and finally the squib's would really make NIST look incompetent.
1. pl. phe•nom•e•nons
a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
Table 5–2. Observations on WTC 1 provided by NIST.
10:18:43 92
Smoke suddenly expelled on Floor 92 north wall, Floor 94 east side ofnorth wall, Floor 95 to Floor 98 on west side of north wall, Floor 95 and Floor 98 on north side of west wall, lower floor on south side.
10:28:18 102
Smoke puff out of north edge and center of west wall; smoke and debris clouds out of the north, east, and west walls on Floor 98. Fire out of windows on the north, east, west, and south walls between Floor 92 and Floor 98, and on Floor 104.
Just like the molten metal , NIST ignores the squibs and does not even try to scientifically explain the phenomenon.
Except from the EXPERTS ON THE SCENE of the towers, they were obviously mistaken, transformers and all, you know.
So, no matter whose OPINION of what it LOOKED LIKE on VIDEOS you quote, I will still take the EVIDENCE provided by EXPERTS ON THE SCENE and the evidence found(or, in the case of explosives, NOT FOUND)on the scene, over your lack of vision and understanding every time(as will 99.9% of the world's scientists and engineers).
Grumpy
What do you make of the fact that NIST used the videos and photos since the model did not show the pull-in forces that NIST claimed coursed collapse?
The experts on the scene claimed it looked and sounded like a CD.
"Partial collapse of the floor[sic] may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5--2, but this phenomenon was not modeled." (emphasis added)
More selective interpretations by the OCT:
QUOTE
The sagging floors pulled in the south wall columns over Floors 95 to 99. In addition, the exterior seats on the south wall in the hot zone of Floors 97 and 98 began to fail due to their reduced vertical shear capacity at around 80 min, and by 100 min about 20 percent of the exterior seats on the south wall of Floors 97 and 98 failed, as shown in Figs. 5–4 and 5–5. Partial collapse of the floor may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5–2,but this phenomenon was not modeled. (emphasis added)
DBB, the phenomenon NIST was referring to was the smoke puffs (squibs). The failing trusses and disconnection to the walls obviously were modeled and under the circumstances would not be considered a phenomenon (of course NIST would not pursue the smoke puffs because it might lead to evidence of CD when NIST was not able to model it). Not being able to model global collapse ,then collapse initiation and finally the squib's would really make NIST look incompetent.
1. pl. phe•nom•e•nons
a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The sagging floors pulled in the south wall columns over Floors 95 to 99. In addition, the exterior seats on the south wall in the hot zone of Floors 97 and 98 began to fail due to their reduced vertical shear capacity at around 80 min, and by 100 min about 20 percent of the exterior seats on the south wall of Floors 97 and 98 failed, as shown in Figs. 5–4 and 5–5. Partial collapse of the floor may have occurred at Floors 97 and 98, resulting from the exterior seat failures, as indicated by the observed smoke puff at 92 min (10:19 a.m.) in Table 5–2,but this phenomenon was not modeled. (emphasis added) |
DBB, the phenomenon NIST was referring to was the smoke puffs (squibs). The failing trusses and disconnection to the walls obviously were modeled and under the circumstances would not be considered a phenomenon (of course NIST would not pursue the smoke puffs because it might lead to evidence of CD when NIST was not able to model it). Not being able to model global collapse ,then collapse initiation and finally the squib's would really make NIST look incompetent.
1. pl. phe•nom•e•nons
a. An unusual, significant, or unaccountable fact or occurrence; a marvel.
Table 5–2. Observations on WTC 1 provided by NIST.
10:18:43 92
Smoke suddenly expelled on Floor 92 north wall, Floor 94 east side ofnorth wall, Floor 95 to Floor 98 on west side of north wall, Floor 95 and Floor 98 on north side of west wall, lower floor on south side.
10:28:18 102
Smoke puff out of north edge and center of west wall; smoke and debris clouds out of the north, east, and west walls on Floor 98. Fire out of windows on the north, east, west, and south walls between Floor 92 and Floor 98, and on Floor 104.
Just like the molten metal , NIST ignores the squibs and does not even try to scientifically explain the phenomenon.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 14 2007, 11:17 AM)
reasonwhy --- Yes, I meant NCSTAR1-6D. Apologies. Now go read it with some understanding, please.
DBB, if you need any more help understanding the report I will do my best to help (I realize I have to repeat certain facts over and over for the OCT to understand).
DBB, if you need any more help understanding the report I will do my best to help (I realize I have to repeat certain facts over and over for the OCT to understand).
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 14 2007, 04:36 AM)
Actually, einsteen, you will not find a single explosives expert that DOESN'T think the collapses were caused by the aircraft impacts and fires. NONE OF THEM think explosives were used.
Grumpy
I new you were slow but I didn't realize you were this slow( Jowenko is not Romero)!
Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:
"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."
"This is controlled demolition."
"A team of experts did this."
"This is professional work, without any doubt."
ImplosionWorld.com lists Danny Jowenko as being a contributor to their production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America". Scroll down to "Interviews and conversations with the following licensed blasters and associates":
Link: http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2807
Einsteen had a good idea. Why don't you call the guy, grumpster?
Grumpy
I new you were slow but I didn't realize you were this slow( Jowenko is not Romero)!
Controlled Demolitions Expert Danny Jowenko:
"...it starts from below... They have simply blown away columns."
"This is controlled demolition."
"A team of experts did this."
"This is professional work, without any doubt."
ImplosionWorld.com lists Danny Jowenko as being a contributor to their production of "A History of Structural Demolition in America". Scroll down to "Interviews and conversations with the following licensed blasters and associates":
Link: http://www.implosionworld.com/history4.htm
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2807
Einsteen had a good idea. Why don't you call the guy, grumpster?
Let me add this:
I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded, if this is the result of the fall of the world trade center, that would greatly astonish me, I cannot imagine that no.
On this the building will stand guaranteed, guaranteed (referring to the map of the damaged columns)
I’ve seen the videos, I’ve looked at the building and fire cannot do it, absolutely not.
I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded, if this is the result of the fall of the world trade center, that would greatly astonish me, I cannot imagine that no.
On this the building will stand guaranteed, guaranteed (referring to the map of the damaged columns)
I’ve seen the videos, I’ve looked at the building and fire cannot do it, absolutely not.
einsteen
And you base this claim on what??? Your lack of imagination??? Your inability to accept what the evidence tells us??? Your evident extensive ignorance of that evidence??? Your inability to think in a rational manner??? Your predisposition to find nefarious conspiracies and characters behind otherwise physically explainable phenomina???
Let's take a look at what the real experts ON THE SCENE thought about building 7
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
(This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".)
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
So, no matter whose OPINION of what it LOOKED LIKE on VIDEOS you quote, I will still take the EVIDENCE provided by EXPERTS ON THE SCENE and the evidence found(or, in the case of explosives, NOT FOUND)on the scene, over your lack of vision and understanding every time(as will 99.9% of the world's scientists and engineers).
Grumpy
QUOTE
Let me add this:
I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded, if this is the result of the fall of the world trade center, that would greatly astonish me, I cannot imagine that no.
On this the building will stand guaranteed, guaranteed (referring to the map of the damaged columns)
I’ve seen the videos, I’ve looked at the building and fire cannot do it, absolutely not
I think this is obviously a building that has been imploded, if this is the result of the fall of the world trade center, that would greatly astonish me, I cannot imagine that no.
On this the building will stand guaranteed, guaranteed (referring to the map of the damaged columns)
I’ve seen the videos, I’ve looked at the building and fire cannot do it, absolutely not
And you base this claim on what??? Your lack of imagination??? Your inability to accept what the evidence tells us??? Your evident extensive ignorance of that evidence??? Your inability to think in a rational manner??? Your predisposition to find nefarious conspiracies and characters behind otherwise physically explainable phenomina???
Let's take a look at what the real experts ON THE SCENE thought about building 7
"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Banaciski_Richard.txt
Here is more evidence they pulled the teams out waiting for a normal collapse from fire...
"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...12_WTC_GRAPHIC/
Nigro_Daniel.txt
"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed." - Chief Cruthers
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
"Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 [o'clock], that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, [we've] got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there. (Q. Initially when you were there, you had said you heard a few Maydays?) Oh, yes. We had Maydays like crazy.... The heat must have been tremendous. There was so much [expletive] fire there. This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you [couldn't] see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and [that's] when 7 collapsed.... Basically, we fell back for 7 to collapse, and then we waited a while and it got a lot more organized, I would guess." - Lieutenant William Ryan
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Ryan_William.txt
"Firehouse: Did that chief give an assignment to go to building 7?
Boyle: He gave out an assignment. I didn’t know exactly what it was, but he told the chief that we were heading down to the site.
Firehouse: How many companies?
Boyle: There were four engines and at least three trucks. So we’re heading east on Vesey, we couldn’t see much past Broadway. We couldn’t see Church Street. We couldn’t see what was down there. It was really smoky and dusty."
"A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.
But they had a hoseline operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too. Then we received an order from Fellini, we’re going to make a move on 7. That was the first time really my stomach tightened up because the building didn’t look good. I was figuring probably the standpipe systems were shot. There was no hydrant pressure. I wasn’t really keen on the idea. Then this other officer I’m standing next to said, that building doesn’t look straight. So I’m standing there. I’m looking at the building. It didn’t look right, but, well, we’ll go in, we’ll see.
So we gathered up rollups and most of us had masks at that time. We headed toward 7. And just around we were about a hundred yards away and Butch Brandies came running up. He said forget it, nobody’s going into 7, there’s creaking, there are noises coming out of there, so we just stopped. And probably about 10 minutes after that, Visconti, he was on West Street, and I guess he had another report of further damage either in some basements and things like that, so Visconti said nobody goes into 7, so that was the final thing and that was abandoned.
Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?
Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.
Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day."
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag...e/gz/boyle.html
(This proves there was a big hole on the south side of the building. From the photographic evidence and these quotes which aren't meant to be technical, there was a large hole in the center of the building which may have gone up 10 stories connected to a large rip on the left side of the building which continued up another 10 or more stories. Together they would make "a hole 20 stories tall".)
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.
Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that’s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn’t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that’s a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that’s a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn’t seem so bad. But that’s what we were concerned about. We had said to the guys, we lost as many as 300 guys. We didn’t want to lose any more people that day. And when those numbers start to set in among everybody… My feeling early on was we weren’t going to find any survivors. You either made it out or you didn’t make it out. It was a cataclysmic event. The idea of somebody living in that thing to me would have been only short of a miracle. This thing became geographically sectored because of the collapse. I was at West and Liberty. I couldn’t go further north on West Street. And I couldn’t go further east on Liberty because of the collapse of the south tower, so physically we were boxed in.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/mag.../gz/hayden.html
WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/02]
Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]
Heavy, thick smoke rises near 7 World Trade Center. Smoke is visible from the upper floors of the 47-story building. Firefighters using transits to determine whether there was any movement in the structure were surprised to discover that is was moving. The area was evacuated and the building collapsed later in the afternoon of Sept. 11.
http://www.firehouse.com/911/magazine/towers.html
So, no matter whose OPINION of what it LOOKED LIKE on VIDEOS you quote, I will still take the EVIDENCE provided by EXPERTS ON THE SCENE and the evidence found(or, in the case of explosives, NOT FOUND)on the scene, over your lack of vision and understanding every time(as will 99.9% of the world's scientists and engineers).
Grumpy
QUOTE
So, no matter whose OPINION of what it LOOKED LIKE on VIDEOS you quote, I will still take the EVIDENCE provided by EXPERTS ON THE SCENE and the evidence found(or, in the case of explosives, NOT FOUND)on the scene, over your lack of vision and understanding every time(as will 99.9% of the world's scientists and engineers).
Except from the EXPERTS ON THE SCENE of the towers, they were obviously mistaken, transformers and all, you know.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 15 2007, 07:42 AM)
So, no matter whose OPINION of what it LOOKED LIKE on VIDEOS you quote, I will still take the EVIDENCE provided by EXPERTS ON THE SCENE and the evidence found(or, in the case of explosives, NOT FOUND)on the scene, over your lack of vision and understanding every time(as will 99.9% of the world's scientists and engineers).
Grumpy
What do you make of the fact that NIST used the videos and photos since the model did not show the pull-in forces that NIST claimed coursed collapse?
The experts on the scene claimed it looked and sounded like a CD.
phenomenon. 2. Any observable fact or event; specif. a In scientific usage, any fact or event of scientific interest susceptible or scientific description and explanation. b In a secondary use in science, a rare fact or event, or one of unique significance.
reasonwhy
NIST used ALL the evidence to come to their conclusions, that includes, but is not limited to, the isolated tests, videos and photographic (as well as many other sources) and their conclusions still stand uncontested by any peer reviewed papers.
As to what it "looked" like, or "sounded" like, the evidence(you know, the hard facts) say otherwise.(a cloud bunny is not a bunny, a tornado that sounds like a train is not a train)
roves shill
NIST used ALL the evidence to come to their conclusions, that includes, but is not limited to, the isolated tests, videos and photographic (as well as many other sources) and their conclusions still stand uncontested by any peer reviewed papers.
As to what it "looked" like, or "sounded" like, the evidence(you know, the hard facts) say otherwise.(a cloud bunny is not a bunny, a tornado that sounds like a train is not a train)
roves shill
Except from the EXPERTS ON THE SCENE of the towers, they were obviously mistaken, transformers and all, you know.
The EVIDENCE, ahole, the EVIDENCE.
Grumpy
QUOTE
What do you make of the fact that NIST used the videos and photos since the model did not show the pull-in forces that NIST claimed coursed collapse?
The experts on the scene claimed it looked and sounded like a CD.
The experts on the scene claimed it looked and sounded like a CD.
NIST used ALL the evidence to come to their conclusions, that includes, but is not limited to, the isolated tests, videos and photographic (as well as many other sources) and their conclusions still stand uncontested by any peer reviewed papers.
As to what it "looked" like, or "sounded" like, the evidence(you know, the hard facts) say otherwise.(a cloud bunny is not a bunny, a tornado that sounds like a train is not a train)
roves shill
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What do you make of the fact that NIST used the videos and photos since the model did not show the pull-in forces that NIST claimed coursed collapse? The experts on the scene claimed it looked and sounded like a CD. |
NIST used ALL the evidence to come to their conclusions, that includes, but is not limited to, the isolated tests, videos and photographic (as well as many other sources) and their conclusions still stand uncontested by any peer reviewed papers.
As to what it "looked" like, or "sounded" like, the evidence(you know, the hard facts) say otherwise.(a cloud bunny is not a bunny, a tornado that sounds like a train is not a train)
roves shill
Except from the EXPERTS ON THE SCENE of the towers, they were obviously mistaken, transformers and all, you know.
The EVIDENCE, ahole, the EVIDENCE.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 15 2007, 07:15 PM)
reasonwhy
NIST used ALL the evidence to come to their conclusions, that includes, but is not limited to, the isolated tests, videos and photographic (as well as many other sources) and their conclusions still stand uncontested by any peer reviewed papers.
As to what it "looked" like, or "sounded" like, the evidence(you know, the hard facts) say otherwise.(a cloud bunny is not a bunny, a tornado that sounds like a train is not a train)
roves shill
The EVIDENCE, ahole, the EVIDENCE.
Grumpy
There is no EVIDENCE of the massive damage or bulging of #7, DF. Just cherry picked observation.
NIST used ALL the evidence to come to their conclusions, that includes, but is not limited to, the isolated tests, videos and photographic (as well as many other sources) and their conclusions still stand uncontested by any peer reviewed papers.
As to what it "looked" like, or "sounded" like, the evidence(you know, the hard facts) say otherwise.(a cloud bunny is not a bunny, a tornado that sounds like a train is not a train)
roves shill
The EVIDENCE, ahole, the EVIDENCE.
Grumpy
There is no EVIDENCE of the massive damage or bulging of #7, DF. Just cherry picked observation.
roves shill
Then what was it they were measuring with the transit??? How else did they know the building was leaning over more as the day went by??? I've seen photos of huge gaps and missing corners+large multifloor fires, that's pretty solid evidence. And the seismic records indicate over 18 seconds of debris hitting the ground, add the 6 seconds of freefall speed and you get 24 seconds of the building crumbling of which only the last 7 seconds are shown on the videos from the north side.
EVIDENCE by trained observers(firemen) who knew what they were looking at is much more substantial than Joe Blow from the accounting department saying it "Sounded like explosions" or "it looked like a CD". And the complete lack of EVIDENCE(that pesky word) for any explosives anywhere on the WTC complex rules out the use of explosives until you produce solid EVIDENCE(not opinion) like explosively cut beams, shaped charge channels(which almost always survive), det cord or electrical blasting wires and caps(parts of which almost always survive), timers or radio detonators(which ALWAYS survive), thermite/mate(which is NEVER used in CDs), substantial radioactive fallout and EMP damage(none found), Beam weapons(and the multiple nuclear powerplants needed to power them), Aliens, invisible planes, rocket firing helicopters, invisible ninja thermite fairies.....
Over six years and you've got NOTHING!!!
Grumpy
Then what was it they were measuring with the transit??? How else did they know the building was leaning over more as the day went by??? I've seen photos of huge gaps and missing corners+large multifloor fires, that's pretty solid evidence. And the seismic records indicate over 18 seconds of debris hitting the ground, add the 6 seconds of freefall speed and you get 24 seconds of the building crumbling of which only the last 7 seconds are shown on the videos from the north side.
EVIDENCE by trained observers(firemen) who knew what they were looking at is much more substantial than Joe Blow from the accounting department saying it "Sounded like explosions" or "it looked like a CD". And the complete lack of EVIDENCE(that pesky word) for any explosives anywhere on the WTC complex rules out the use of explosives until you produce solid EVIDENCE(not opinion) like explosively cut beams, shaped charge channels(which almost always survive), det cord or electrical blasting wires and caps(parts of which almost always survive), timers or radio detonators(which ALWAYS survive), thermite/mate(which is NEVER used in CDs), substantial radioactive fallout and EMP damage(none found), Beam weapons(and the multiple nuclear powerplants needed to power them), Aliens, invisible planes, rocket firing helicopters, invisible ninja thermite fairies.....
Over six years and you've got NOTHING!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 15 2007, 09:34 PM)
roves shill
Then what was it they were measuring with the transit??? How else did they know the building was leaning over more as the day went by??? I've seen photos of huge gaps and missing corners+large multifloor fires, that's pretty solid evidence. And the seismic records indicate over 18 seconds of debris hitting the ground, add the 6 seconds of freefall speed and you get 24 seconds of the building crumbling of which only the last 7 seconds are shown on the videos from the north side.
EVIDENCE by trained observers(firemen) who knew what they were looking at is much more substantial than Joe Blow from the accounting department saying it "Sounded like explosions" or "it looked like a CD". And the complete lack of EVIDENCE(that pesky word) for any explosives anywhere on the WTC complex rules out the use of explosives until you produce solid EVIDENCE(not opinion) like explosively cut beams, shaped charge channels(which almost always survive), det cord or electrical blasting wires and caps(parts of which almost always survive), timers or radio detonators(which ALWAYS survive), thermite/mate(which is NEVER used in CDs), substantial radioactive fallout and EMP damage(none found), Beam weapons(and the multiple nuclear powerplants needed to power them), Aliens, invisible planes, rocket firing helicopters, invisible ninja thermite fairies.....
Over six years and you've got NOTHING!!!
Grumpy
If you have photos of huge gaps, then by all means BRING THEM FOR ALL TO SEE!!!! You are a cherry pickin liar Grumpy and you know it. You tout firemen observations of #7 as evidence and call the firemens observations of the tower collapses 'misleading'. You are a fraud.
Then what was it they were measuring with the transit??? How else did they know the building was leaning over more as the day went by??? I've seen photos of huge gaps and missing corners+large multifloor fires, that's pretty solid evidence. And the seismic records indicate over 18 seconds of debris hitting the ground, add the 6 seconds of freefall speed and you get 24 seconds of the building crumbling of which only the last 7 seconds are shown on the videos from the north side.
EVIDENCE by trained observers(firemen) who knew what they were looking at is much more substantial than Joe Blow from the accounting department saying it "Sounded like explosions" or "it looked like a CD". And the complete lack of EVIDENCE(that pesky word) for any explosives anywhere on the WTC complex rules out the use of explosives until you produce solid EVIDENCE(not opinion) like explosively cut beams, shaped charge channels(which almost always survive), det cord or electrical blasting wires and caps(parts of which almost always survive), timers or radio detonators(which ALWAYS survive), thermite/mate(which is NEVER used in CDs), substantial radioactive fallout and EMP damage(none found), Beam weapons(and the multiple nuclear powerplants needed to power them), Aliens, invisible planes, rocket firing helicopters, invisible ninja thermite fairies.....
Over six years and you've got NOTHING!!!
Grumpy
If you have photos of huge gaps, then by all means BRING THEM FOR ALL TO SEE!!!! You are a cherry pickin liar Grumpy and you know it. You tout firemen observations of #7 as evidence and call the firemens observations of the tower collapses 'misleading'. You are a fraud.
Different construction.
Different design.
Different damage.
Different everything.
Well, they were both buildings.
Sheesh.
Arthur
Different design.
Different damage.
Different everything.
Well, they were both buildings.
Sheesh.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 15 2007, 11:54 PM)
Different construction.
Different design.
Different damage.
Different everything.
Well, they were both buildings.
Sheesh.
Arthur
Yeah, Murrah was made of anti-gravity steel, anti-gravity concrete......
Different design.
Different damage.
Different everything.
Well, they were both buildings.
Sheesh.
Arthur
Yeah, Murrah was made of anti-gravity steel, anti-gravity concrete......
But most important, it did not suffer an uncontrolled fire. 
No, just a huge explosion at the BASE of the sructure.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 16 2007, 12:02 AM)
But most important, it did not suffer an uncontrolled fire.
DBB, you keep saying this. That it was uncontrolled, but then you insist Silverstein was "pulling" firefighters. It seems contadictory, doesn't it?
DBB, you keep saying this. That it was uncontrolled, but then you insist Silverstein was "pulling" firefighters. It seems contadictory, doesn't it?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 15 2007, 09:34 PM)
roves shill
Then what was it they were measuring with the transit??? How else did they know the building was leaning over more as the day went by??? I've seen photos of huge gaps and missing corners+large multifloor fires, that's pretty solid evidence. And the seismic records indicate over 18 seconds of debris hitting the ground, add the 6 seconds of freefall speed and you get 24 seconds of the building crumbling of which only the last 7 seconds are shown on the videos from the north side.
EVIDENCE by trained observers(firemen) who knew what they were looking at is much more substantial than Joe Blow from the accounting department saying it "Sounded like explosions" or "it looked like a CD". And the complete lack of EVIDENCE(that pesky word) for any explosives anywhere on the WTC complex rules out the use of explosives until you produce solid EVIDENCE(not opinion) like explosively cut beams, shaped charge channels(which almost always survive), det cord or electrical blasting wires and caps(parts of which almost always survive), timers or radio detonators(which ALWAYS survive), thermite/mate(which is NEVER used in CDs), substantial radioactive fallout and EMP damage(none found), Beam weapons(and the multiple nuclear powerplants needed to power them), Aliens, invisible planes, rocket firing helicopters, invisible ninja thermite fairies.....
Over six years and you've got NOTHING!!!
Grumpy
You are right Grumpy, observations should count as evidence:
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
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.
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, explains that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower:
"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
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
"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 explosions at the World Trade Center, besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked in 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, September 11, 2001.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Excerpt from a radio interview with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh. She explains 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
Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the flag at ground zero. He explains 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
"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
"In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
[snip]
CONCLUSIONS
I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives and chemical-cutters. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
[snip]
- Excerpt from BYU Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones' academic paper submitted for peer-review entitled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Link to Prof. Jones' entire paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
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
But just not these observations, right?
Then what was it they were measuring with the transit??? How else did they know the building was leaning over more as the day went by??? I've seen photos of huge gaps and missing corners+large multifloor fires, that's pretty solid evidence. And the seismic records indicate over 18 seconds of debris hitting the ground, add the 6 seconds of freefall speed and you get 24 seconds of the building crumbling of which only the last 7 seconds are shown on the videos from the north side.
EVIDENCE by trained observers(firemen) who knew what they were looking at is much more substantial than Joe Blow from the accounting department saying it "Sounded like explosions" or "it looked like a CD". And the complete lack of EVIDENCE(that pesky word) for any explosives anywhere on the WTC complex rules out the use of explosives until you produce solid EVIDENCE(not opinion) like explosively cut beams, shaped charge channels(which almost always survive), det cord or electrical blasting wires and caps(parts of which almost always survive), timers or radio detonators(which ALWAYS survive), thermite/mate(which is NEVER used in CDs), substantial radioactive fallout and EMP damage(none found), Beam weapons(and the multiple nuclear powerplants needed to power them), Aliens, invisible planes, rocket firing helicopters, invisible ninja thermite fairies.....
Over six years and you've got NOTHING!!!
Grumpy
You are right Grumpy, observations should count as evidence:
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
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.
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, explains that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower basement BEFORE the plane hit the tower:
"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
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
"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 explosions at the World Trade Center, besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked in 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, September 11, 2001.
Video: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w..._demolition.mpg
Excerpt from a radio interview with ground zero rescue worker, Indira Singh. She explains 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
Excerpt from an article written by award winning photographer, Thomas Franklin, who snapped the world famous photo of firemen raising the flag at ground zero. He explains 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
"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
"In writing this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned explosives. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the explosive-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.
[snip]
CONCLUSIONS
I have called attention to glaring inadequacies in the “final” reports funded by the US government and shown evidences for a likely alternative hypothesis. In particular, the official theory lacks repeatability in that no actual models or buildings (before or since 9-11-01) have been observed to completely collapse due to the proposed fire-based mechanisms. On the other hand, dozens of buildings have been completely and symmetrically demolished through the use of pre-positioned explosives and chemical-cutters. And high-temperature chemical reactions can account for the observed large pools of molten metal, under both Towers and WTC 7. The “explosive demolition” hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not “junk science.” It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.
A truly independent, international panel would consider all viable hypotheses, including the pre-positioned-explosives theory, guided not by politicized notions and constraints, but rather by observations and calculations, to reach a scientific conclusion. Questioning (preferably under oath) of officials who approved the rapid removal and destruction of the WTC steel beams and columns before they could be properly analyzed – and others as outlined above – should proceed in the United States.
None of the government-funded studies have provided serious analyses of the explosive demolition hypothesis at all. Until the above steps are taken, the case for accusing ill-trained Muslims of causing all the destruction on 9-11-01 is far from compelling. It just does not add up.
[snip]
- Excerpt from BYU Professor of Physics, Steven E. Jones' academic paper submitted for peer-review entitled, Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
Link to Prof. Jones' entire paper:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
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
But just not these observations, right?
I think you are also wrong about this:
"NIST still stands as the best investigation of any catastrophe known to man."
Kenneth Starr Investigation = 80,000,000 dollars
Columbia Shuttle disaster = 50,000,000 dollars
NIST Twin Tower Collapse Initiation = 20,000,000 dollars
Daily News 3/7/2002
WTC Probe Ills Bared By PAUL H.B. SHIN Daily News Staff Writer
WASHINGTON
An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit by hijacked jetliners may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.
About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert, mostly because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence, the experts said.
... "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation.
"The current World Trade Center disaster inquiry has exposed a gaping hole in the way that we investigate disasters," he said.
PA Wanted a Waiver
The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.
"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.
"Where does the buck stop on this investigation?" asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn).
Weiner's query was followed by a round of conflicting testimony by officials from FEMA and other federal agencies about exactly who is in charge of the inquiry.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-Utica), chairman of the committee, said the confusion points to a need to define which agency will take the lead in investigating future collapses.
"No one is sure what powers the federal government can exercise. No one is sure of the scope of the investigation," he said. "That has to be fixed right away."
Boehlert's committee is expected to recommend the creation of a group like the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates plane and railroad crashes.
The group, tentatively dubbed the National Construction Safety Board, would likely be a branch of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is one of the groups probing the Trade Center collapse.
Victims' relatives said those measures would be a step in the right direction.
"We want at least the same level of investigation as a plane crash," said Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, 28, a probationary firefighter, died in the collapse.
--------------------------------- NY Times 3/7/2002
BUILDING STANDARDS
Mismanagement Muddled Collapse Inquiry, House Panel Says
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 6 - Members of Congress today criticized the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center, saying it had been mismanaged, far too slow to start and hampered by a lack of cooperation by New York City and other government agencies controlling the disaster site.
"No one is in charge, no one is sure what powers the federal government can exercise, no one is sure of the scope of an investigation," said Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, a Republican from New York and the House Science Committee's chairman. "And that has to be fixed right away."
Representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal officials, who faced the criticism during testimony before the committee today, conceded that the investigation had been plagued by financing problems and confusion over authority almost from the start.
The hearing, the first to be held by Congress on the trade center collapse, concluded with an agreement by Bush administration officials and the committee members that a new entity like the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and crashes, is needed to avoid such problems in inquiries into building collapses.
At least $40 million in additional federal aid is also needed to expand the World Trade Center inquiry, the House members said. To date, approximately $600,000 has been invested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Expanding the inquiry, House members and the leaders of the inquiry said, could help investigators determine whether there were weaknesses in the trade center towers that exist in other skyscrapers.
There is also an urgent need, the investigators and House members agreed, to evaluate the fire-prevention systems in the building as well as the Fire Department's response.
"As engineers, as architects, as builders, as firefighters, as citizens who occupy high-rises, and as those who are in the position to help those citizens, there are critical questions regarding this collapse and they need answering," Glenn P. Corbett, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert on firefighting, testified today. "There are many high-rise structures in the United States and more on the way that demand that we learn from the disaster of 9/11 and apply the lessons learned."
The most intense criticism from both Republican and Democratic House members centered on the confusion over just who is overseeing the investigation - the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the American Society of Civil Engineers.
At one point, Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat from New York City, asked for the official in charge to raise his hand, and two men, and then three appeared to do so. "We have very serious problems here," added Representative John B. Larson, a Connecticut Democrat.
The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating.
"The delay in the receipt of the plans did somewhat hinder the team's ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings," said Dr. W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer leading the investigative committee organized by FEMA.
A Port Authority spokesman defended the agency, saying that building plans had been given to federal officials within a week of the attack and that the agency was cooperating fully with the inquiry.
The federal officials who testified yesterday - Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Robert F. Shea, the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Insurance and Mitigation Administration - repeatedly nodded their agreement.
In response to criticism from one committee member, Mr. Shea said, "Frankly, I agree with you. There are many things in hindsight we would have done differently."
The problem, they said, was the lack of clear authority in federal law and financing. None of the investigators, for example, had subpoena power, meaning that they could not order the city to stop sending the steel off for recycling or demand a copy of the building blueprints.
The criticism and the admissions by the federal officials brought little relief to the more than two dozen parents, spouses and other relatives of those victims in the Sept. 11 attacks, who filled many of the hearing room seats, some holding photographs of lost loved ones.
"It has been six months, and nobody knows who is responsible for what. It is a disgrace," said Russell Mercer of Queens, whose son-in-law, Scott Kopytko, 32, was a victim.
But the federal officials and leaders from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which is coordinating the initial investigation, all said a great deal remained to be done.
Original Publication Date: 3/7/02
Here is a paragraph or two from this letter:
Firefighters Union on Gulliani handling of material after 9/11
"NIST still stands as the best investigation of any catastrophe known to man."
Kenneth Starr Investigation = 80,000,000 dollars
Columbia Shuttle disaster = 50,000,000 dollars
NIST Twin Tower Collapse Initiation = 20,000,000 dollars
Daily News 3/7/2002
WTC Probe Ills Bared By PAUL H.B. SHIN Daily News Staff Writer
WASHINGTON
An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit by hijacked jetliners may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.
About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert, mostly because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence, the experts said.
... "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation.
"The current World Trade Center disaster inquiry has exposed a gaping hole in the way that we investigate disasters," he said.
PA Wanted a Waiver
The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.
"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.
"Where does the buck stop on this investigation?" asked Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn).
Weiner's query was followed by a round of conflicting testimony by officials from FEMA and other federal agencies about exactly who is in charge of the inquiry.
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-Utica), chairman of the committee, said the confusion points to a need to define which agency will take the lead in investigating future collapses.
"No one is sure what powers the federal government can exercise. No one is sure of the scope of the investigation," he said. "That has to be fixed right away."
Boehlert's committee is expected to recommend the creation of a group like the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates plane and railroad crashes.
The group, tentatively dubbed the National Construction Safety Board, would likely be a branch of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is one of the groups probing the Trade Center collapse.
Victims' relatives said those measures would be a step in the right direction.
"We want at least the same level of investigation as a plane crash," said Sally Regenhard, whose son, Christian, 28, a probationary firefighter, died in the collapse.
--------------------------------- NY Times 3/7/2002
BUILDING STANDARDS
Mismanagement Muddled Collapse Inquiry, House Panel Says
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, March 6 - Members of Congress today criticized the investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center, saying it had been mismanaged, far too slow to start and hampered by a lack of cooperation by New York City and other government agencies controlling the disaster site.
"No one is in charge, no one is sure what powers the federal government can exercise, no one is sure of the scope of an investigation," said Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert, a Republican from New York and the House Science Committee's chairman. "And that has to be fixed right away."
Representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other federal officials, who faced the criticism during testimony before the committee today, conceded that the investigation had been plagued by financing problems and confusion over authority almost from the start.
The hearing, the first to be held by Congress on the trade center collapse, concluded with an agreement by Bush administration officials and the committee members that a new entity like the National Transportation Safety Board, which investigates transportation accidents and crashes, is needed to avoid such problems in inquiries into building collapses.
At least $40 million in additional federal aid is also needed to expand the World Trade Center inquiry, the House members said. To date, approximately $600,000 has been invested by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Expanding the inquiry, House members and the leaders of the inquiry said, could help investigators determine whether there were weaknesses in the trade center towers that exist in other skyscrapers.
There is also an urgent need, the investigators and House members agreed, to evaluate the fire-prevention systems in the building as well as the Fire Department's response.
"As engineers, as architects, as builders, as firefighters, as citizens who occupy high-rises, and as those who are in the position to help those citizens, there are critical questions regarding this collapse and they need answering," Glenn P. Corbett, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and an expert on firefighting, testified today. "There are many high-rise structures in the United States and more on the way that demand that we learn from the disaster of 9/11 and apply the lessons learned."
The most intense criticism from both Republican and Democratic House members centered on the confusion over just who is overseeing the investigation - the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology or the American Society of Civil Engineers.
At one point, Representative Anthony D. Weiner, a Democrat from New York City, asked for the official in charge to raise his hand, and two men, and then three appeared to do so. "We have very serious problems here," added Representative John B. Larson, a Connecticut Democrat.
The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating.
"The delay in the receipt of the plans did somewhat hinder the team's ability to confirm their understanding of the buildings," said Dr. W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer leading the investigative committee organized by FEMA.
A Port Authority spokesman defended the agency, saying that building plans had been given to federal officials within a week of the attack and that the agency was cooperating fully with the inquiry.
The federal officials who testified yesterday - Dr. Arden L. Bement Jr., the director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Robert F. Shea, the acting administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Insurance and Mitigation Administration - repeatedly nodded their agreement.
In response to criticism from one committee member, Mr. Shea said, "Frankly, I agree with you. There are many things in hindsight we would have done differently."
The problem, they said, was the lack of clear authority in federal law and financing. None of the investigators, for example, had subpoena power, meaning that they could not order the city to stop sending the steel off for recycling or demand a copy of the building blueprints.
The criticism and the admissions by the federal officials brought little relief to the more than two dozen parents, spouses and other relatives of those victims in the Sept. 11 attacks, who filled many of the hearing room seats, some holding photographs of lost loved ones.
"It has been six months, and nobody knows who is responsible for what. It is a disgrace," said Russell Mercer of Queens, whose son-in-law, Scott Kopytko, 32, was a victim.
But the federal officials and leaders from the American Society of Civil Engineers, which is coordinating the initial investigation, all said a great deal remained to be done.
Original Publication Date: 3/7/02
Here is a paragraph or two from this letter:
Firefighters Union on Gulliani handling of material after 9/11
QUOTE
In conjunction with the cut in fire fighters allowed to search, Giuliani also made a conscious decision to institute a "scoop-and-dump" operation to expedite the clean-up of Ground Zero in lieu of the more time-consuming, but respectful, process of removing debris piece by piece in hope of uncovering more remains.
YAWN
Arthur
Arthur
roves shill
Murrah was a steel framed/concrete reinforced building, NONE of the three buildings(1,2,7) had a concrete core or a lattice steel frame. Nor did the Murrah building have widespread, massive fires so the outcomes were different.
Murrah was a steel framed/concrete reinforced building, NONE of the three buildings(1,2,7) had a concrete core or a lattice steel frame. Nor did the Murrah building have widespread, massive fires so the outcomes were different.
If you have photos of huge gaps, then by all means BRING THEM FOR ALL TO SEE!!!! You are a cherry pickin liar Grumpy and you know it. You tout firemen observations of #7 as evidence and call the firemens observations of the tower collapses 'misleading'. You are a fraud.
The fraud is in you claiming to be a "trooth seeker". The firemen's observations were just statements and descriptions of the damage to 7 by highly trained professionals, not comparisons to explosions like the long list you posted(most of your cites have been shown to be disingenuous as the people quoted do not hold the views your selective editing attributes to them, the slimiest type of lie), it is your selective and dishonest editing which is fraudulent..
Let's look at your first example...
Now, the WHOLE quote in context(emphasis mine)...
"I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason 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-leve] 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, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
This shows that despite your attempt to lie about the meaning of his words and what he believed he saw, HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR "SPIN" ON HIS WORDS. IE he does not say he saw explosives going off.
This is just the first example of your mendacity, most, if not all the quotes you cited are also lying by selective editting and misrepresenting of the meanings of their words, it is unfortunately a common tactic of the "troother" movement.
I'll leave it to others to decide who is the biggest liar here, me, who only presented the testimony of the trained firefighters describing the damage to 7, or you, who has deliberately selectively editted other's words in a deliberate attempt to have the reader think the quotee meant something other than the quotee meant.
Grumpy
Regardless of the facts.
didn't collapse
eventual partial collapse:
can you see any difference Grumpy?
Call me a liar some more Grumpy. Tell me how I am misrepresenting the facts and evidence.
QUOTE
Yeah, Murrah was made of anti-gravity steel, anti-gravity concrete......
Murrah was a steel framed/concrete reinforced building, NONE of the three buildings(1,2,7) had a concrete core or a lattice steel frame. Nor did the Murrah building have widespread, massive fires so the outcomes were different.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, Murrah was made of anti-gravity steel, anti-gravity concrete...... |
Murrah was a steel framed/concrete reinforced building, NONE of the three buildings(1,2,7) had a concrete core or a lattice steel frame. Nor did the Murrah building have widespread, massive fires so the outcomes were different.
If you have photos of huge gaps, then by all means BRING THEM FOR ALL TO SEE!!!! You are a cherry pickin liar Grumpy and you know it. You tout firemen observations of #7 as evidence and call the firemens observations of the tower collapses 'misleading'. You are a fraud.
The fraud is in you claiming to be a "trooth seeker". The firemen's observations were just statements and descriptions of the damage to 7 by highly trained professionals, not comparisons to explosions like the long list you posted(most of your cites have been shown to be disingenuous as the people quoted do not hold the views your selective editing attributes to them, the slimiest type of lie), it is your selective and dishonest editing which is fraudulent..
Let's look at your first example...
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are right Grumpy, observations should count as evidence: 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 |
Now, the WHOLE quote in context(emphasis mine)...
"I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason 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-leve] 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, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
This shows that despite your attempt to lie about the meaning of his words and what he believed he saw, HE DOES NOT AGREE WITH YOUR "SPIN" ON HIS WORDS. IE he does not say he saw explosives going off.
This is just the first example of your mendacity, most, if not all the quotes you cited are also lying by selective editting and misrepresenting of the meanings of their words, it is unfortunately a common tactic of the "troother" movement.
I'll leave it to others to decide who is the biggest liar here, me, who only presented the testimony of the trained firefighters describing the damage to 7, or you, who has deliberately selectively editted other's words in a deliberate attempt to have the reader think the quotee meant something other than the quotee meant.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 16 2007, 01:57 AM)
YAWN
Arthur
I know Arthurs, that is alot to deny even when you are getting paid. Go get a cup of coffee, you've got alot of dismissin' to do. You might have to call in another Arthur. You're probably exhausted from that beating RW has giving you and Co.
Arthur
I know Arthurs, that is alot to deny even when you are getting paid. Go get a cup of coffee, you've got alot of dismissin' to do. You might have to call in another Arthur. You're probably exhausted from that beating RW has giving you and Co.
Nope,
The YAWN is from the BORING relisting of already debunked OUT OF CONTEXT quotes you posted.
The only thing RW beats is himself.
I no longer care to spoon feed him the NIST report as he clearly is not interested in the SCIENCE behind what they did, he's just out flogging the ISOLATED models and then thinks he's proved something.
Pretty Pathetic actually.
Net Net, we are almost 2 years after the NIST report came out and not one CT'er YET has found one substantial error in the NIST report.
NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttle in a peer reviewed journal to any of its findings.
So what has the last 2 years amounted to from the CT'er camp?
NADA
NOTHING
ZIP
ZILCH.
Must drive ya'll nuts.
The CT'ers COME and GO, but mostly just slink off, while the OCTers just keep GOING AND GOING AND GOING AND GOING.....
Arthur
The YAWN is from the BORING relisting of already debunked OUT OF CONTEXT quotes you posted.
The only thing RW beats is himself.
I no longer care to spoon feed him the NIST report as he clearly is not interested in the SCIENCE behind what they did, he's just out flogging the ISOLATED models and then thinks he's proved something.
Pretty Pathetic actually.
Net Net, we are almost 2 years after the NIST report came out and not one CT'er YET has found one substantial error in the NIST report.
NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttle in a peer reviewed journal to any of its findings.
So what has the last 2 years amounted to from the CT'er camp?
NADA
NOTHING
ZIP
ZILCH.
Must drive ya'll nuts.
The CT'ers COME and GO, but mostly just slink off, while the OCTers just keep GOING AND GOING AND GOING AND GOING.....
Arthur
QUOTE
while the OCTers just keep GOING AND GOING AND GOING AND GOING.....
Regardless of the facts.
Grumpy, you still haven't produced the photos of the massive damage to #7 you promised. Let us all see them!
Show us the evidence of these massive fires too, please!
QUOTE
massive fires so the outcomes were different.
Show us the evidence of these massive fires too, please!
didn't collapse
eventual partial collapse:
can you see any difference Grumpy?
Call me a liar some more Grumpy. Tell me how I am misrepresenting the facts and evidence.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 15 2007, 07:50 PM)
Nope,
The YAWN is from the BORING relisting of already debunked OUT OF CONTEXT quotes you posted.
The only thing RW beats is himself.
I no longer care to spoon feed him the NIST report as he clearly is not interested in the SCIENCE behind what they did, he's just out flogging the ISOLATED models and then thinks he's proved something.
Pretty Pathetic actually.
Net Net, we are almost 2 years after the NIST report came out and not one CT'er YET has found one substantial error in the NIST report.
NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttle in a peer reviewed journal to any of its findings.
So what has the last 2 years amounted to from the CT'er camp?
NADA
NOTHING
ZIP
ZILCH.
Must drive ya'll nuts.
The CT'ers COME and GO, but mostly just slink off, while the OCTers just keep GOING AND GOING AND GOING AND GOING.....
Arthur
All Your NIST supporters are gone, Arthurs.
Even the diehard DDB is now claiming it is only a best approximation.
A 10,000 page report, claiming to use the latest FEA technology ,can not or will not model accurately, global collapse, collapse initiation (They prove the OCT initiation is not possible with the floor assembly model) and now the latest, simulating the smoke puffs (squibs).
If anyone bothered to read all of the ridicules report that makes no real recommendations ( that are not already covered by existing codes), they would realize (after reading 9000 plus pages filled with mostly unimportant details) that it proves the 5 Kip pull-in force was not possible because the trusses that supposedly pull-in are disconnected.
The TRUTH is OBVIOUS Arthurs (even OCT'er, besides Grumpster, can understand). You don't need a peer reviewed paper to publish the findings.
The YAWN is from the BORING relisting of already debunked OUT OF CONTEXT quotes you posted.
The only thing RW beats is himself.
I no longer care to spoon feed him the NIST report as he clearly is not interested in the SCIENCE behind what they did, he's just out flogging the ISOLATED models and then thinks he's proved something.
Pretty Pathetic actually.
Net Net, we are almost 2 years after the NIST report came out and not one CT'er YET has found one substantial error in the NIST report.
NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttle in a peer reviewed journal to any of its findings.
So what has the last 2 years amounted to from the CT'er camp?
NADA
NOTHING
ZIP
ZILCH.
Must drive ya'll nuts.
The CT'ers COME and GO, but mostly just slink off, while the OCTers just keep GOING AND GOING AND GOING AND GOING.....
Arthur
All Your NIST supporters are gone, Arthurs.
Even the diehard DDB is now claiming it is only a best approximation.
A 10,000 page report, claiming to use the latest FEA technology ,can not or will not model accurately, global collapse, collapse initiation (They prove the OCT initiation is not possible with the floor assembly model) and now the latest, simulating the smoke puffs (squibs).
If anyone bothered to read all of the ridicules report that makes no real recommendations ( that are not already covered by existing codes), they would realize (after reading 9000 plus pages filled with mostly unimportant details) that it proves the 5 Kip pull-in force was not possible because the trusses that supposedly pull-in are disconnected.
The TRUTH is OBVIOUS Arthurs (even OCT'er, besides Grumpster, can understand). You don't need a peer reviewed paper to publish the findings.
RS, you have to understand in the OCT's Orwellian world, all witnesses are equal, it is just that some are more equal the others ( the ones that agree with the official fairytale).
On the BBC news yesterday I heard one of the 9/11 bombers tell of other targets they had planned to destroy in America. Obviously this muslim is a Bush dupe lying to make other muslims look bad. Just like the muslim in the plane that crashed on it's way to it's target who in the black box recording claims that Allah is great. He was probably sitting in business class sipping champagne and had not really taken over the plane as claimed.
QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 16 2007, 01:49 AM)
I think you are also wrong about this:
"NIST still stands as the best investigation of any catastrophe known to man."
Kenneth Starr Investigation = 80,000,000 dollars
Columbia Shuttle disaster = 50,000,000 dollars
NIST Twin Tower Collapse Initiation = 20,000,000 dollars
Daily News 3/7/2002
WTC Probe Ills Bared By PAUL H.B. SHIN Daily News Staff Writer
WASHINGTON
An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit by hijacked jetliners may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.
About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert, mostly because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence, the experts said.
... "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation.
"The current World Trade Center disaster inquiry has exposed a gaping hole in the way that we investigate disasters," he said.
The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.
"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.
From Implosionworld;
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives March 6, 2002;
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives March 6, 2002;
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg
Look for yourself, very high res of fires with damage visible.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Corner damage as well.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Estimated damage of 7.
Damage further up the building, again obscurred by smoke from massive fires.
So, yes, those who say 7 was not damaged or didn't burn fiercly are simply liars ignoring or dismissing the EVIDENCE(damn that pesky stuff).
Grumpy
http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg
Look for yourself, very high res of fires with damage visible.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Corner damage as well.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Estimated damage of 7.
Damage further up the building, again obscurred by smoke from massive fires.
So, yes, those who say 7 was not damaged or didn't burn fiercly are simply liars ignoring or dismissing the EVIDENCE(damn that pesky stuff).
Grumpy
Cutting and pasting from your site does not explain these:
Let me guess Grumpy, buildings 1,2 + 7 were designed and built like pup tents and could not withstand gravity that day.
How could it fall over #6. It was pancaking according to NIST.
Only the floors, not the exterior columns.
Arthur
"NIST still stands as the best investigation of any catastrophe known to man."
Kenneth Starr Investigation = 80,000,000 dollars
Columbia Shuttle disaster = 50,000,000 dollars
NIST Twin Tower Collapse Initiation = 20,000,000 dollars
Daily News 3/7/2002
WTC Probe Ills Bared By PAUL H.B. SHIN Daily News Staff Writer
WASHINGTON
An inquiry into exactly what caused the twin towers to collapse after they were hit by hijacked jetliners may have been undermined by the hasty recycling of steel wreckage that could hold vital clues, experts told Congress yesterday.
About 80% of the structural steel from the World Trade Center was scrapped without being examined by even one fire expert, mostly because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage as evidence, the experts said.
... "The lack of significant amounts of steel for examination will make it difficult, if not impossible, to make a definitive statement as to the specific cause and chronology of the collapse," said Glenn Corbett, a fire science expert from John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan who testified before a House Science Committee inquiry into the collapse and the ensuing investigation.
"The current World Trade Center disaster inquiry has exposed a gaping hole in the way that we investigate disasters," he said.
The lead investigator in the case, Gene Corley of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said the Port Authority refused to hand over blueprints for the twin towers - crucial for evaluating the wreckage - until he signed a waiver saying his team would not use the plans in a lawsuit against the agency.
"This is the first time I have signed something like that," Corley said, setting off a wave of angry comments from members of Congress and outcries from an audience made up mostly of relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Corley leads a team of engineering experts empaneled by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, but his team lacks the power to subpoena witnesses or order the preservation of evidence.
From Implosionworld;
QUOTE
ASSERTION #6
“Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.
The large steel support members extracted from Ground Zero were handled differently than other debris, mostly because of their size and quantity (this type of initial separation increases jobsite efficiency and is not unusual on demolition projects).
Once the steel was extracted and/or cut away from other debris, it was piled in staging areas just outside the work zone. These piles were then loaded onto trucks that transported them a few blocks north to a secondary staging area on the Hudson River. Cranes transferred the steel from the trucks onto barges, which were shipped to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island. At this point it transferred into the control of Yannuzzi Demolition, whose team was responsible for off-loading the barges and storing the steel in an area separate from general debris arriving on other barges. It was then examined and cataloged by a series of forensic investigators, city officials and site managers. Some time later (the timing varied due to logistical factors), the steel was shipped off site to China.
Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of possession, as we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed activities that occurred at Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi, President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our team also reviewed commentary made by Dennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi’s Fresh Kills Site Supervisor, who oversaw the entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly and extensively at the National Demolition Association’s annual Convention in March 2003. According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush” or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals – working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas. In consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion.
“Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel.
The large steel support members extracted from Ground Zero were handled differently than other debris, mostly because of their size and quantity (this type of initial separation increases jobsite efficiency and is not unusual on demolition projects).
Once the steel was extracted and/or cut away from other debris, it was piled in staging areas just outside the work zone. These piles were then loaded onto trucks that transported them a few blocks north to a secondary staging area on the Hudson River. Cranes transferred the steel from the trucks onto barges, which were shipped to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island. At this point it transferred into the control of Yannuzzi Demolition, whose team was responsible for off-loading the barges and storing the steel in an area separate from general debris arriving on other barges. It was then examined and cataloged by a series of forensic investigators, city officials and site managers. Some time later (the timing varied due to logistical factors), the steel was shipped off site to China.
Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of possession, as we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed activities that occurred at Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi, President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our team also reviewed commentary made by Dennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi’s Fresh Kills Site Supervisor, who oversaw the entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly and extensively at the National Demolition Association’s annual Convention in March 2003. According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush” or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals – working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas. In consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion.
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives March 6, 2002;
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ASSERTION #6 “Debris removed from Ground Zero – particularly the large steel columns from towers #1 and 2 – were quickly shipped overseas to prevent independent examination or scrutiny.” PROTEC COMMENT: Not according to those who handled the steel. The large steel support members extracted from Ground Zero were handled differently than other debris, mostly because of their size and quantity (this type of initial separation increases jobsite efficiency and is not unusual on demolition projects). Once the steel was extracted and/or cut away from other debris, it was piled in staging areas just outside the work zone. These piles were then loaded onto trucks that transported them a few blocks north to a secondary staging area on the Hudson River. Cranes transferred the steel from the trucks onto barges, which were shipped to Fresh Kills Landfill in Staten Island. At this point it transferred into the control of Yannuzzi Demolition, whose team was responsible for off-loading the barges and storing the steel in an area separate from general debris arriving on other barges. It was then examined and cataloged by a series of forensic investigators, city officials and site managers. Some time later (the timing varied due to logistical factors), the steel was shipped off site to China. Our research team can personally verify the Lower Manhattan chain of possession, as we witnessed and documented this chain. We then reviewed activities that occurred at Fresh Kills by speaking with John Yannuzzi, President of Yannuzzi Demolition. Our team also reviewed commentary made by Dennis Dannenfelser, Yannuzzi’s Fresh Kills Site Supervisor, who oversaw the entire operation from start to finish and spoke candidly and extensively at the National Demolition Association’s annual Convention in March 2003. According to all parties, the steel went through the same series of steps as it would have on any other demolition project, albeit on a larger scale and with an increased presence of examiners. No one we spoke with perceived an attempt to “rush” or hide the process, and to the opposite, dozens if not hundreds of unrelated individuals – working for various entities and possessing various types of expertise – came in close contact with the steel over a period of months before it was eventually shipped overseas. In consideration of these first-hand experiences and interviews, and absent any dissenting commentary, we can find nothing to support this assertion. |
Testimony of Dr. W. Gene Corley Before the Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards & Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science U.S. House of Representatives March 6, 2002;
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.
QUOTE (kaneda+Mar 16 2007, 09:35 AM)
On the BBC news yesterday I heard one of the 9/11 bombers tell of other targets they had planned to destroy in America. Obviously this muslim is a Bush dupe lying to make other muslims look bad. Just like the muslim in the plane that crashed on it's way to it's target who in the black box recording claims that Allah is great. He was probably sitting in business class sipping champagne and had not really taken over the plane as claimed.
No need to doubt the obvious. There are various groups and individuals who would like to harm the US and its interests, and yes, some of them happen to be Muslim. Likewise there are those who would like to do harm to Muslims, and yes, some of them inhabit the highest levels of our government.
No need to doubt the obvious. There are various groups and individuals who would like to harm the US and its interests, and yes, some of them happen to be Muslim. Likewise there are those who would like to do harm to Muslims, and yes, some of them inhabit the highest levels of our government.
Arthur:
When you say:
"NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttle in a peer reviewed journal to any of its (NIST's) findings"
You are really missing the point!
I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!
I believe the same thing is happening with research questioning the "official" position on global warming.
And the same thing has happened to me with regard to work I tried to publish on problems with Canada's nuclear reactors...
I call it SCIENTIFIC FASCISM....
You are really being quite naive (deliberately?) if you think this kind of censorship doesn't happen!
NF
When you say:
"NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttle in a peer reviewed journal to any of its (NIST's) findings"
You are really missing the point!
I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!
I believe the same thing is happening with research questioning the "official" position on global warming.
And the same thing has happened to me with regard to work I tried to publish on problems with Canada's nuclear reactors...
I call it SCIENTIFIC FASCISM....
You are really being quite naive (deliberately?) if you think this kind of censorship doesn't happen!
NF
Neu,
I'm not naive, I KNOW it is HARD to get contrarian views published.
But it is not impossible.
What is the jist of your respected engineer's beef with the NIST report?
Does he believe that it was a CD for instance?
Arthur
I'm not naive, I KNOW it is HARD to get contrarian views published.
But it is not impossible.
What is the jist of your respected engineer's beef with the NIST report?
Does he believe that it was a CD for instance?
Arthur
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 16 2007, 10:26 AM)
No need to doubt the obvious. There are various groups and individuals who would like to harm the US and its interests, and yes, some of them happen to be Muslim. Likewise there are those who would like to do harm to Muslims, and yes, some of them inhabit the highest levels of our government.
Yeah, it's just like that guy that confessed to being involved in the Jon Bonet Ramsey case. He confessed also. We extradited him and ......... well I guess we should have water boarded him......it turns out he had nothing to do with it. Sorry capracus that wasn't a good example. Just so you know, I am down with torture just like you.
Yeah, it's just like that guy that confessed to being involved in the Jon Bonet Ramsey case. He confessed also. We extradited him and ......... well I guess we should have water boarded him......it turns out he had nothing to do with it. Sorry capracus that wasn't a good example. Just so you know, I am down with torture just like you.
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NF
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NF
QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 16 2007, 10:21 AM)
Yeah, it's just like that guy that confessed to being involved in the Jon Bonet Ramsey case. He confessed also. We extradited him and ......... well I guess we should have water boarded him......it turns out he had nothing to do with it. Sorry capracus that wasn't a good example. Just so you know, I am down with torture just like you.
Except, unlike in the Ramsey case, it wasn't JUST his confession that tied this guy to Atta and company.
Arthur
Except, unlike in the Ramsey case, it wasn't JUST his confession that tied this guy to Atta and company.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 10:26 AM)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NF
Neu, what is your basis for these outlandish statements?
I believe that NIST was CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation damage.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D section 2-3.
Arthur
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NF
Neu, what is your basis for these outlandish statements?
I believe that NIST was CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation damage.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D section 2-3.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 16 2007, 03:36 PM)
Except, unlike in the Ramsey case, it wasn't JUST his confession that tied this guy to Atta and company.
Arthur
Atta....Atta.....Oh, yeah. You mean Musharrafs' boy. The guy Musharraf gave 100,000 to right before the attacks. Yeah, yeah, wasn't he seen partying and gambling on Abramoffs' cruise lines in Florida. Right, I remember now. How was he fingered, again? Oh yeah. The FBI found his passport in the rubble of ground zero.........
Arthur
Atta....Atta.....Oh, yeah. You mean Musharrafs' boy. The guy Musharraf gave 100,000 to right before the attacks. Yeah, yeah, wasn't he seen partying and gambling on Abramoffs' cruise lines in Florida. Right, I remember now. How was he fingered, again? Oh yeah. The FBI found his passport in the rubble of ground zero.........
Section 2.5.2 of NCSTAR1-6d explains the limitations of the full floor model and their effect on limiting the ability to capture the pull-in forces on the exterior columns:
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
However, locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated by the full floor models for the following reasons:
• The full floor models did not and could not have an accurate set of boundary conditions on the columns. Columns extended from one floor below to one floor above, and the top and bottom of exterior columns were restrained in the direction normal to the exterior wall. These boundary conditions could not accurately portray the thermally-induced movements of floors above and below the floor being analyzed and could not accurately capture the stiffness of columns in the exterior walls. Photographs of the towers taken before collapse indicated that the exterior walls bowed inward over a height of several floors. Bowing of exterior columns as observed could not be captured in the floor model because the boundary condition of a full floor model could not be formulated to represent the observed bowing of the exterior wall over several floors.
• In the actual buildings, the strap anchors and studs must have been capable of transmitting a significant amount of force between the floor system and exterior wall. However, the full floor analysis with the strap anchors and studs resulted in sequential failure of these components and an extremely slow convergence in the analyses. Because these components were found to fail at early stages of fire, these elements were then removed from all the full floor models to obtain solution within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in these analyses, the only structural elements in the full floor model that could transfer horizontal interface forces between the floor system and the exterior walls were the gusset plates and seat bolts. This caused premature failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts in the analyses, which resulted in horizontal floor/wall disconnections. In addition, friction between bearing angles and seats was not modeled in the full floor analyses. Therefore, the full-floor model did not show significant tension at the floor/exterior wall interface. In the real structures, tension forces could develop between the floor system and walls following failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts through the mechanism of friction between the truss seats and bearing angles and through the strap anchors that had not failed.
• Creep at high temperature was found to significantly increase the sag of a floor system. A thermal response analysis of a simplified truss model removed from the full floor model showed a significant increase in vertical deflection when creep was considered, as shown in Fig. 2–27. However, full floor models were made with BEAM188/189 element types and were not run with creep due to inherent convergence problems of BEAM188/189 when used under thermal loadings with materials having temperature-dependent creep property.
• In the full floor models, crushing or cracking of the concrete slab was neglected. Extreme temperatures can crack and spall concrete, further reducing the floor stiffness, and increasing both the floor sag and the floor/wall pull-in forces.
• NIST may have underestimated the amount of thermal insulation that was damaged by the aircraft impacts. The estimates developed by NIST were limited to the insulation on sections of framing that were exposed to direct abrasion by the debris field, predicted in the impact analyses. Potential loss of insulation due to impact shock and vibration effects was not included. More severe insulation damage would have resulted in higher temperatures of the trusses than those used in the full floor analyses. This in turn would result in larger areas in which the floors would have sagged.
"
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
However, locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated by the full floor models for the following reasons:
• The full floor models did not and could not have an accurate set of boundary conditions on the columns. Columns extended from one floor below to one floor above, and the top and bottom of exterior columns were restrained in the direction normal to the exterior wall. These boundary conditions could not accurately portray the thermally-induced movements of floors above and below the floor being analyzed and could not accurately capture the stiffness of columns in the exterior walls. Photographs of the towers taken before collapse indicated that the exterior walls bowed inward over a height of several floors. Bowing of exterior columns as observed could not be captured in the floor model because the boundary condition of a full floor model could not be formulated to represent the observed bowing of the exterior wall over several floors.
• In the actual buildings, the strap anchors and studs must have been capable of transmitting a significant amount of force between the floor system and exterior wall. However, the full floor analysis with the strap anchors and studs resulted in sequential failure of these components and an extremely slow convergence in the analyses. Because these components were found to fail at early stages of fire, these elements were then removed from all the full floor models to obtain solution within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in these analyses, the only structural elements in the full floor model that could transfer horizontal interface forces between the floor system and the exterior walls were the gusset plates and seat bolts. This caused premature failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts in the analyses, which resulted in horizontal floor/wall disconnections. In addition, friction between bearing angles and seats was not modeled in the full floor analyses. Therefore, the full-floor model did not show significant tension at the floor/exterior wall interface. In the real structures, tension forces could develop between the floor system and walls following failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts through the mechanism of friction between the truss seats and bearing angles and through the strap anchors that had not failed.
• Creep at high temperature was found to significantly increase the sag of a floor system. A thermal response analysis of a simplified truss model removed from the full floor model showed a significant increase in vertical deflection when creep was considered, as shown in Fig. 2–27. However, full floor models were made with BEAM188/189 element types and were not run with creep due to inherent convergence problems of BEAM188/189 when used under thermal loadings with materials having temperature-dependent creep property.
• In the full floor models, crushing or cracking of the concrete slab was neglected. Extreme temperatures can crack and spall concrete, further reducing the floor stiffness, and increasing both the floor sag and the floor/wall pull-in forces.
• NIST may have underestimated the amount of thermal insulation that was damaged by the aircraft impacts. The estimates developed by NIST were limited to the insulation on sections of framing that were exposed to direct abrasion by the debris field, predicted in the impact analyses. Potential loss of insulation due to impact shock and vibration effects was not included. More severe insulation damage would have resulted in higher temperatures of the trusses than those used in the full floor analyses. This in turn would result in larger areas in which the floors would have sagged.
"
roves shill
You are the worst kind of liar, one who takes other's words and selectively edits them to mean something other than what they said.
You also lie when you compare the Madrid fire(of a concrete core structure) with the fires in 7(no concrete core). The steel framing in Madrid DID fail(the first collapse after only ~ 1 hour of the fire), it was the concrete core which resisted the fire, something 7 did not have. You also show only the last 7 seconds of the 24 it actually took for 7 to fall. Yes, I know the difference, it is you who continues to lie about it.
FEMA about WTC 7...
The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7,located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.
FEMA 5.6.2 paragraph 2-3
Expert testimony as to fires...
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110081.PDF
...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110447.PDF
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../visconti.html
All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110018.PDF
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF
Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110207.PDF
At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110222.PDF
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf page 48.
At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports03.pdf page 49
Smoke(from fires) obscures most of the image, yet extensive damage is partially seen.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Call me a liar some more Grumpy. Tell me how I am misrepresenting the facts and evidence.
You are the worst kind of liar, one who takes other's words and selectively edits them to mean something other than what they said.
You also lie when you compare the Madrid fire(of a concrete core structure) with the fires in 7(no concrete core). The steel framing in Madrid DID fail(the first collapse after only ~ 1 hour of the fire), it was the concrete core which resisted the fire, something 7 did not have. You also show only the last 7 seconds of the 24 it actually took for 7 to fall. Yes, I know the difference, it is you who continues to lie about it.
FEMA about WTC 7...
The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7,located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.
FEMA 5.6.2 paragraph 2-3
Expert testimony as to fires...
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110081.PDF
...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110447.PDF
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../visconti.html
All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110018.PDF
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF
Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110207.PDF
At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110222.PDF
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf page 48.
At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports03.pdf page 49
Smoke(from fires) obscures most of the image, yet extensive damage is partially seen.
Grumpy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 09:26 AM)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NF
There is considerable information available that indicates that the sprayed on material was falling off even before 9/11. In fact there was a program to replace the fireproofing as floors came up for rehab.
There are some pctures around that were taken in the late 1990's that show typical floor trusses missing most of the insulation.
finally, if the shock of the impact was suficient to knock down the suspended ceilings, then it would have been sufficient to knock loose the spray on. That stuff is called friable for a reason.
Is Louis DeBono ultimately responsible for the collapse?
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NF
There is considerable information available that indicates that the sprayed on material was falling off even before 9/11. In fact there was a program to replace the fireproofing as floors came up for rehab.
There are some pctures around that were taken in the late 1990's that show typical floor trusses missing most of the insulation.
finally, if the shock of the impact was suficient to knock down the suspended ceilings, then it would have been sufficient to knock loose the spray on. That stuff is called friable for a reason.
Is Louis DeBono ultimately responsible for the collapse?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 10 2007, 05:20 PM)
But this equation does not agree with the seismic data of >18 seconds. I believe that 7 crumbled progressively from the south face to what we all saw of the north curtain wall falling. Given a six second free fall time the collapse may have taken 24 seconds from the first failure to the north wall's collapse.
Grumpy
Seismic events spanning 18 s don't preclude a bottom-up global collapse with most of the building mass participating.
There was a partial collapse on the east side before the global bottom-up collapse that I was referring to. The collapse on the east side probably generated some of the seismic response. The debris from that partial collapse may have caused failures of the trusses and transfer girders on the 5th floor area that caused the global collapse a few seconds later. A global bottom-up collapse starting near the ground level is not inconsistent with a 6.6 s collapse duration.
There would have been dust generated for a longer time period if the building was collapsing progressively at various sections on the south side over 18 seconds. There appeared to be little or no dust generated when the east penthouse area collapsed internally and up until the 6.6 s global collapse.
The fact that dust didn't appear to be generated in a large amounts until the 6.6 s global collapse indicates that most of the building's mass participated during that 6.6 s, except for what already fell internally within the footprint of the east penthouse.
There were some intense fires burning on the east side of the building around the 11th and 12th stories in the same footprint region of the east penthouse. The longest span beams appear to be on that side of the building. Those two features probably played a role in the collapse of the region under the east penthouse.
Grumpy
Seismic events spanning 18 s don't preclude a bottom-up global collapse with most of the building mass participating.
There was a partial collapse on the east side before the global bottom-up collapse that I was referring to. The collapse on the east side probably generated some of the seismic response. The debris from that partial collapse may have caused failures of the trusses and transfer girders on the 5th floor area that caused the global collapse a few seconds later. A global bottom-up collapse starting near the ground level is not inconsistent with a 6.6 s collapse duration.
There would have been dust generated for a longer time period if the building was collapsing progressively at various sections on the south side over 18 seconds. There appeared to be little or no dust generated when the east penthouse area collapsed internally and up until the 6.6 s global collapse.
The fact that dust didn't appear to be generated in a large amounts until the 6.6 s global collapse indicates that most of the building's mass participated during that 6.6 s, except for what already fell internally within the footprint of the east penthouse.
There were some intense fires burning on the east side of the building around the 11th and 12th stories in the same footprint region of the east penthouse. The longest span beams appear to be on that side of the building. Those two features probably played a role in the collapse of the region under the east penthouse.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 16 2007, 04:12 PM)
roves shill
You are the worst kind of liar, one who takes other's words and selectively edits them to mean something other than what they said.
You also lie when you compare the Madrid fire(of a concrete core structure) with the fires in 7(no concrete core). The steel framing in Madrid DID fail(the first collapse after only ~ 1 hour of the fire), it was the concrete core which resisted the fire, something 7 did not have. You also show only the last 7 seconds of the 24 it actually took for 7 to fall. Yes, I know the difference, it is you who continues to lie about it.
FEMA about WTC 7...
The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7,located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.
FEMA 5.6.2 paragraph 2-3
Expert testimony as to fires...
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110081.PDF
...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110447.PDF
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../visconti.html
All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110018.PDF
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF
Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110207.PDF
At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110222.PDF
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf page 48.
At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports03.pdf page 49
Smoke(from fires) obscures most of the image, yet extensive damage is partially seen.
Grumpy
So the most devistating debri jumped over building #6 and strategically hit #7 precisely in the spots that would enable it to collapse symmetrically to the ground? You photo does not show the "massive damage" you promised. This makes you a liar.
You are the worst kind of liar, one who takes other's words and selectively edits them to mean something other than what they said.
You also lie when you compare the Madrid fire(of a concrete core structure) with the fires in 7(no concrete core). The steel framing in Madrid DID fail(the first collapse after only ~ 1 hour of the fire), it was the concrete core which resisted the fire, something 7 did not have. You also show only the last 7 seconds of the 24 it actually took for 7 to fall. Yes, I know the difference, it is you who continues to lie about it.
FEMA about WTC 7...
The structural elements most likely to have initiated the observed collapse are the transfer trusses between floors 5 to 7,located on lower floors under the east mechanical penthouse close to the fault/kink location. If the collapse initiated at these transfer trusses, this would explain why the building imploded, producing a limited debris field as the exterior walls were pulled downward. The collapse may have then spread to the west. The building at this point may have had extensive interior structural failures that then led to the collapse of the overall building. The cantilever transfer girders along the north elevation, the strong diaphragms at the 5th and 7th floors, and the seat connections between the beams and columns at the building perimeter may have become overloaded after the collapse of the transfer trusses and caused the interior collapse to propagate to the whole floor and to the exterior frame. The structural system between floors 5 and 7 appears to be critical to the structural performance of the entire building.
FEMA 5.6.2 paragraph 2-3
Expert testimony as to fires...
We walked over by number Seven World Trade Center as it was burning and saw this 40-plus story building with fire on nearly all floors. –FDNY Lieutenant Robert LaRocca
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110081.PDF
...Just when you thought it was over, you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. –FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynn
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110447.PDF
I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank [Cruthers]. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/9.../visconti.html
All morning I was watching 7 World Trade burn, which we couldn't do anything about because it was so much chaos looking for missing members. –Firefighter Marcel Klaes http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110018.PDF
When the building came down it was completely involved in fire, all forty-seven stories.
–FDNY Assistant Chief Harry Myers (Smith, Dennis, 2002. Report From Ground Zero: The Heroic Story of the Rescuers at the World Trade Center. New York: Penguin Putnam. p. 160)
The concern there again, it was later in the afternoon, 2, 2:30, like I said. The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. –Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110472.PDF
Then we had to move because the Duane Reade, they said, wasn't safe because building 7 was really roaring. –FDNY Chief Medical Officer Kerry Kelly.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110207.PDF
At this point Seven World Trade was going heavy, and they weren't letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. –Firefighter Vincent Massa
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110222.PDF
Building #7 was still actively burning and at that time we were advised by a NYFD Chief that building #7 was burning out of control and imminent collapse was probable. –PAPD P.O. Edward McQuade http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports02.pdf page 48.
At Vesey St. and West St., I could see that 7 WTC was ablaze and damaged, along with other buildings.
–M. DeFilippis, PAPD P.O. http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-...-reports03.pdf page 49
Smoke(from fires) obscures most of the image, yet extensive damage is partially seen.
Grumpy
So the most devistating debri jumped over building #6 and strategically hit #7 precisely in the spots that would enable it to collapse symmetrically to the ground? You photo does not show the "massive damage" you promised. This makes you a liar.
http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg
Look for yourself, very high res of fires with damage visible.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Corner damage as well.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Estimated damage of 7.
Damage further up the building, again obscurred by smoke from massive fires.
So, yes, those who say 7 was not damaged or didn't burn fiercly are simply liars ignoring or dismissing the EVIDENCE(damn that pesky stuff).
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 16 2007, 04:28 PM)
http://www.debunking911.com/wtcc.jpg
Look for yourself, very high res of fires with damage visible.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Corner damage as well.
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
Estimated damage of 7.
Damage further up the building, again obscurred by smoke from massive fires.
So, yes, those who say 7 was not damaged or didn't burn fiercly are simply liars ignoring or dismissing the EVIDENCE(damn that pesky stuff).
Grumpy
Cutting and pasting from your site does not explain these:
Let me guess Grumpy, buildings 1,2 + 7 were designed and built like pup tents and could not withstand gravity that day.
roves shill
Actually it fell over 6 and ENOUGH hit 7 to do the damage I have documented.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see, none so stupid as those who WILL NOT learn.
shagster
I do not claim to know the precise sequence of the fall of 7, but I point out that the seismic evidence indicates that much of what was occuring is not shown on the 7 second video of what was visible from the north side, making that video unrepresentative of the entire collapse. Also, the east penthouse could not have collapsed into the building as it did if the structure underneath it was still intact, indicating a progressive collapse prior to that . Firefighters say that parts of that building were dropping into the streets throughout the afternoon, suggesting a crumbling failure simular to(but not exactly like) the crumbling of the Murrah building after the truck bomb.
I can wait on the NIST reports before worrying too much about the exact modes of failure and their causes, but that does not mean I have to be stupid enough to accept the wild and unsubstantiated claims of paranoid conspiracy idiots. There is more than enough EVIDENCE(again, that word) to preclude the use of explosives and indicate more mundane and simple explanations.
Grumpy
QUOTE
So the most devistating debri jumped over building #6 and strategically hit #7 precisely in the spots that would enable it to collapse symmetrically to the ground? You photo does not show the "massive damage" you promised. This makes you a liar.
Actually it fell over 6 and ENOUGH hit 7 to do the damage I have documented.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see, none so stupid as those who WILL NOT learn.
shagster
I do not claim to know the precise sequence of the fall of 7, but I point out that the seismic evidence indicates that much of what was occuring is not shown on the 7 second video of what was visible from the north side, making that video unrepresentative of the entire collapse. Also, the east penthouse could not have collapsed into the building as it did if the structure underneath it was still intact, indicating a progressive collapse prior to that . Firefighters say that parts of that building were dropping into the streets throughout the afternoon, suggesting a crumbling failure simular to(but not exactly like) the crumbling of the Murrah building after the truck bomb.
I can wait on the NIST reports before worrying too much about the exact modes of failure and their causes, but that does not mean I have to be stupid enough to accept the wild and unsubstantiated claims of paranoid conspiracy idiots. There is more than enough EVIDENCE(again, that word) to preclude the use of explosives and indicate more mundane and simple explanations.
Grumpy
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 16 2007, 04:38 PM)
Grumpy quote:
Actually it fell over 6 and ENOUGH hit 7 to do the damage I have documented.
How could it fall over #6. It was pancaking according to NIST.
QUOTE
Actually it fell over 6 and ENOUGH hit 7 to do the damage I have documented.
How could it fall over #6. It was pancaking according to NIST.
Murrah was also gravity driven. The bomb itself didn't do all of that damage. Murrah had a poorly designed layout in terms of security with a driveway that was right up against the building and critical columns. That's probably why McVeigh selected it.
QUOTE (roves shill+Mar 16 2007, 11:53 AM)
How could it fall over #6. It was pancaking according to NIST.
Only the floors, not the exterior columns.
Arthur
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1.
In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material (SFRM) to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material (SFRM) to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
With respect to the WTC buildings, people in the engineering community should start to acknowledge the potential problems with non-concrete metal frame buildings comprised of long span floors, lightweight trusses with sprayed-on insulation, weak column splices, and lack of moment-resisting floor-column and column-column connections. Buildings 1,2, and 7 shared those features.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 05:01 PM)
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
Most of the impact and fire regions of WTC2 weren't yet upgraded if I read all of that right. That may have had a bearing on why WTC2 failed sooner than WTC1, although there are many other factors as well.
There are also issues about how the original insulation was applied and what its adhesion would be after 30 years compared with newly applied insulation used in the NIST tests.
There is one photo of the north side of WTC1 that shows the truss insulation removed as a result of the impact.
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
Most of the impact and fire regions of WTC2 weren't yet upgraded if I read all of that right. That may have had a bearing on why WTC2 failed sooner than WTC1, although there are many other factors as well.
There are also issues about how the original insulation was applied and what its adhesion would be after 30 years compared with newly applied insulation used in the NIST tests.
There is one photo of the north side of WTC1 that shows the truss insulation removed as a result of the impact.
roves shill
Floors pancaked(or Bagelled), frames fell over like banana peels. At least make an attempt to keep up, won't you???
Grumpy
QUOTE
How could it fall over #6. It was pancaking according to NIST.
Floors pancaked(or Bagelled), frames fell over like banana peels. At least make an attempt to keep up, won't you???
Grumpy
roves shill --- The fires in WTC 7 were not controlled because there was no water pressure. The collapse of WTC 1 broke the mains.
On the question of molten steel in the WTC rubble pile at Ground Zero:
While this topic has been debated many times on this thread, nearly all of the arguments I have seen rely on visual sightings of “molten metal” in the rubble pile - information drawn from eyewitness accounts recalled by recovery workers, etc. This type of anecdotal evidence has rightly been strongly criticized for its lack of scientific credibility.
Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers.
I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.
Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”
1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)
2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)
3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.
4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).
The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.
So, to those who deny the formation of MOLTEN IRON during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 I say:
MOLTEN IRON WAS FORMED..... THE ONLY QUESTION IS, HOW!
NF
While this topic has been debated many times on this thread, nearly all of the arguments I have seen rely on visual sightings of “molten metal” in the rubble pile - information drawn from eyewitness accounts recalled by recovery workers, etc. This type of anecdotal evidence has rightly been strongly criticized for its lack of scientific credibility.
Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers.
I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.
Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”
1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)
2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)
3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.
4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).
The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.
So, to those who deny the formation of MOLTEN IRON during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 I say:
MOLTEN IRON WAS FORMED..... THE ONLY QUESTION IS, HOW!
NF
NEU-FONZE
Given the eroded steel found in 7, it is not a suprise that microscopic traces of iron were found in some dust. The sulfidization of the steel from sulfur in the diesel fuel seems a likely source. I would be interested in the metalurgic composition of the iron/steel sphericals, I would expect to find elevated levels of sulfur.
Grumpy
PS It is not the melting of steel per se that is not borne out, it is the claims of running streams and puddles of steel for which no evidence was found.
Given the eroded steel found in 7, it is not a suprise that microscopic traces of iron were found in some dust. The sulfidization of the steel from sulfur in the diesel fuel seems a likely source. I would be interested in the metalurgic composition of the iron/steel sphericals, I would expect to find elevated levels of sulfur.
Grumpy
PS It is not the melting of steel per se that is not borne out, it is the claims of running streams and puddles of steel for which no evidence was found.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 12:01 PM)
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
BULL.
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Arthur
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
BULL.
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 01:21 PM)
On the question of molten steel in the WTC rubble pile at Ground Zero:
Come on Neu, not all of us have access to these documents.
What is the friggin percent makeup in the WTC dust of these iron particles?
Arthur
Come on Neu, not all of us have access to these documents.
What is the friggin percent makeup in the WTC dust of these iron particles?
Arthur
Arthur --- Earlier NEU-FONZE estimated about 800 tonnes of iron powder...
Ok Neu, I've tracked down one of these reports:
The one RJ Lee did on the Liberty Trust building (right next to the WTC 2 tower)
Well what do you know, the signature for the dust doesn't even include Iron.
See http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...304.1646.mp.pdf
See page 10 Figure 1
Arthur
The one RJ Lee did on the Liberty Trust building (right next to the WTC 2 tower)
Well what do you know, the signature for the dust doesn't even include Iron.
See http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...304.1646.mp.pdf
See page 10 Figure 1
Arthur
Neu-Fonze might be referring to the next page where we find:
QUOTE
The identity, concentration and characteristics of the particles and the
chemical composition of the WTC Dust constitute a complex, recognizable
pattern or “signature” that is based on a profile comprised of WTC Dust
Markers that include:
chemical composition of the WTC Dust constitute a complex, recognizable
pattern or “signature” that is based on a profile comprised of WTC Dust
Markers that include:
- Chrysotile asbestos occurring as long, thin bundles and fibrils (Figure 2 A)
- Gypsum occurring as fine particles (Figure 2 A and B)
- Mineral wool occurring as short and fractured fibers (Figure 2 C)
- Vesicular carbonaceous particles that result from the partial burning of
- Spherical iron and spherical or vesicular silicate particles that result from exposure to high temperature (Figure 2 E and Figure 2 F)
Its friggin amazing that Arthur always goes off the deep end at the mention of the words "molten iron", or "molten steel".
It was there Arthur!
Get over it!
How was it produced?
Here's how professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 sees it:
"In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground."
http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399
NF
It was there Arthur!
Get over it!
How was it produced?
Here's how professional engineer, Dr. John Durkee, writing in Controlled Environments Magazine in December 2003 sees it:
"In eleven seconds, the fall of each tower generated crushing mechanical forces and extreme heat .... Molten aluminum, iron and other molten metals expelled into the air by the force of the collapse formed into spherical balls as they cooled and fell back to the ground."
http://www.cemag.us/articles.asp?pid=399
NF
Here's a micrograph of one of the spherical iron particles. That particular one appears to be about 5 microns. Whether that formed from gases bubbling out of molten pools of steel is debatable.
There was probably a steel mesh in the concrete floors that got scraped up and pulverized into some small filings. It's possible that micron size particles could form a more spherical shape at elevated temperature or undergo corrosion and form a more spherical shape. Fine fibers of materials containing iron might be able to break and transform into spherical paricles at elevated temperature or during chemical reactions.
The sub-micron metal particles probably came from chemical reactions taking place on the surface of steel columns and other metal components in the pit at elevated temperature but lower than the melting point of steel.
I'm not an expert on the metal dust research. Those are just some ideas.
There was probably a steel mesh in the concrete floors that got scraped up and pulverized into some small filings. It's possible that micron size particles could form a more spherical shape at elevated temperature or undergo corrosion and form a more spherical shape. Fine fibers of materials containing iron might be able to break and transform into spherical paricles at elevated temperature or during chemical reactions.
The sub-micron metal particles probably came from chemical reactions taking place on the surface of steel columns and other metal components in the pit at elevated temperature but lower than the melting point of steel.
I'm not an expert on the metal dust research. Those are just some ideas.
I wonder if frictional heating during the pulverization of concrete and metal screen could heat the iron up to the melting point and form small spheres. Small shreds of iron or steel could temporarily get stripped clean of the oxide during scraping and then oxidize again and give off heat. Maybe that happened many times to each shred until it heated up enough to reach the melting point. It would be along the lines of small glowing shreds coming off a grinding wheel.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.