Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Paranoia


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-10-2006, 06:34 AM   #121 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
So I take it there is no chance of you Will or you Host postulating that theory for me about what the motivation of the attack by the government was?
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 06:48 AM   #122 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
So I take it there is no chance of you Will or you Host postulating that theory for me about what the motivation of the attack by the government was?
Now mojo, we've already been into this. If you look on previous pages you will see that the postulation of the theory for governmental motivation behind 911 squarely falls in the realm of paranoia.

Plus we all know they did it for oil.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 07:18 AM   #123 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
no stevo, we have yet to cover building 7, when i get home tonight from work, i'll get right on debunking building 7.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:12 AM   #124 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
hey mods. have we had enough yet? We went on for 3 full pages discussing physics, fire temperatures, if it was possible that the fires brought down the WTC, to comparing engine photos. It seems to have moved beyond that. Obviously there are some people, who, no matter how much evidence is presented, are never going to believe 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia - whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward.
I've had enough...stevo! Enough of watching my own government "communicate" to us by posting blatant lies on a State Department web page titled <b>You Are In: USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation</b>, in reference to an issue as controversial and sensitive as whether the lease holder of WTC 7 gave the NYFD permission to almost instantaneously demolish a 49 story building.

The one positive is that our government has verified that Mr. Silverstein did indeed tell the NYFD to "pull it", with regard to the destruction of WTC 7, and that the U.S. government folks who posted Silverstein's "revision" of what he said, 30 months after his televised remarks, thought that the lame shit that was intended to "explain away" the "pull it" remarks, would end the debate about what happened to WTC 7.

You got to change with the times, stevo....great leader has a 31 percent approval rating now. It's not far from Nixon's 25 percent support...at the end.

Again...why are you so angry? How about contributing to this discussion?
host is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:23 AM   #125 (permalink)
Rail Baron
 
stevo's Avatar
 
Location: Tallyfla
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Again...why are you so angry? How about contributing to this discussion?
I'm not angry, I just think its disgusting. "contributing" only gives legitimacy to the paranoia.
__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser
stevo is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:46 AM   #126 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
I'm not angry, I just think its disgusting. "contributing" only gives legitimacy to the paranoia.
As 'they' say, "Hear, hear!"
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 09:08 AM   #127 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaver
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we must be respectful of those who wish to call it a dog.
On TFP, we should always respect others, yes. This is should not be a challenging concept.

As others have said: if you don't like the topic, move along. Also not a challenging concept.

I'm sure there is a name for the lousy metaphor type of argument you've used here. But it's a lousy metaphor and it doesn't apply.


I'm sorry I'm posting and not adding value to the topic at hand. Perhaps I should have said all this to a moderator. But since it seems to apply to many, I chose to post. Perhaps someone could give me guidance on the right way to have handled this...
thx
boatin is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 09:16 AM   #128 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
hey mods. have we had enough yet? We went on for 3 full pages discussing physics, fire temperatures, if it was possible that the fires brought down the WTC, to comparing engine photos. It seems to have moved beyond that. Obviously there are some people, who, no matter how much evidence is presented, are never going to believe 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia - whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward.
And if it grew to 10 pages of calm conversation, where is the harm? The category that this is in seem pretty trivial. Ultimately, why does it matter?

And how can it matter more than disrespect and snideness to another member of TFP?

What is obvious to you, and others, may not be obvious to everyone. Where's the harm?
boatin is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 09:21 AM   #129 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
As 'they' say, "Hear, hear!"
At the top of the page, I posted the curious spectacle of a web page on the U.S. State Department's website that purports to tell the public how to "identify misinformation". Why would "State" compose and post an elaborate anonymous rebuttal to points made in a book that explores the holes in the U.S. government's official 9-11 "story"? Did the book <b>911 Revealed</b>"hit a nerve" with the Bush administration? If not....why didn't the Bush State Dept. simply ignore the book instead of posting such a clumsy and unconvincing attempt to diminish the points made by the book's authors?

I've highlighted in bold the observation of the authors of "911 Revealed":
(Insert "Ustwo or "stevo" or "Mojo_PeiPei" in place of "The Bush Administration)__________ is unable to understand the difference between a book <b>(...or a thread)</b> which examines sceptic theories and a book which espouses such theories."

Why is a Politics forum thread that does the reverse of last years Popular Mechanics "examination" of points made by 9-11 official story sceptics; an article that was tainted by the contributions of a Popular Mechanics "senior researcher" who was the cousin of DHS head, Michael Cherthoff, "greeted" with such a visible and repetitive "chorus" of empty, protest posts?
Quote:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0511/S00127.htm
UQ Wire: 911 Revealed's 1st, A State Dept Critique
Wednesday, 9 November 2005, 1:54 pm
Press Release: www.UnansweredQuestions.org

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/ .

PRESS RELEASE
911 Revealed ACHIEVES NEW FIRST.

.....911 Revealed is published by Constable and Robinson in the UK and Carol and Graf in the USA and Canada. It examines a range of theories about the 911 attacks, which fall into three areas: the official story, a US government false flag operation based on the Pentagon's Operation Northwoods plan, or an Al Qaeda plan that was allowed to go ahead and embellished with events like the anthrax attacks.

Co-author Ian Henshall said today:

<b>"The Bush administration is unable to understand the difference between a book which examines sceptic theories and a book which espouses such theories.</b> We hope that the lies and distortions in this review are not having the effect of persuading TV studios to operate an embargo on an important book.

A more accurate description of 911 Revealed was expressed by terrorism writer Nick Fielding in the Sunday Times. He wrote that we "have subjected the official version of what happened to intense scrutiny and found huge gaps". Is this what the US administration finds objectionable?

No-one has signed the State Department's highly misleading review, no-one has asked us for a comment and of course no-one has given us the opportunity to make a rebuttal......
Quote:
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/rebuttal.html
<b>Rebuttal of US State Department's anonymous attack on 911 Revealed.</b>

by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, 27 October 2005

We are flattered that, of all the alleged misinformation around in the world today, the US State Department has selected our book as the top of its list. We have rushed out this rebuttal, subject to corrections. For their opinion see

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

with detailed criticisms of our book at

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...16-241966.html


There are errors of fact in the State Department's attack on our book, the primary one being that they ascribe to us positions that we do not hold.

The anonymous author starts off carefully by saying we "give credence to" unfounded rumors, but by the second paragraph the message has changed. We are now "claiming" that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. It's true that we examine the allegation that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, but that is not the same thing as accepting the allegation.

This leap of false logic is a recurrent pattern of the Bush administration: if you are not with us you are against us. If you examine theories we don't want you to examine, it must be that you believe them.

Perhaps our book has been singled out for the straw-man treatment because, as the Sunday Times has acknowledged, it is a powerful examination of the facts and does not jump to conclusions. It simply establishes that the official story cannot be true on key issues and that there has been a cover-up. It also examines a range of alternative theories to the official conspiracy theory.

There are three other fundamental themes of our book that the State Department ignores. These are the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) issue, the Al Qaeda issue and the process issue. We suspect that they ignore these issues either because they cannot refute the points we make, or because they know that these are the issues which most disturb mainstream America, or both. (see note)

To address the State Department’s arbitrarily selected points:.........

....Regarding the unprecedented WTC tower collapses, NIST's dismissal of explosives seems to have been conjured up at the last minute and does not suggest a thorough investigation of that aspect. It remains undeniable that the collapses were symmetrical although the damage was asymmetric, collapse was almost at free fall speed in apparent defiance of the conservation of energy principle as concrete was converted to rubble and dust. Furthermore, the FBI denied in February 2002 that any significant aircraft debris had been retrieved from the ruins, although significant pieces are on the evidential record. The collapse of WTC 7 remains unexplained and no steel debris was retained for examination.

On this web site we offer an argument by Ian Henshall that does not depend on the uncertain engineering arguments but on the unchallengeable principle of the conservation of energy and momentum: if the assumptions as to timing are correct, the Towers must have been brought down by a massive extra input of energy consistent with the hypothesis of explosives.

The State Department addresses owner Larry Silverstein's famous comment that he ordered WTC to be "pulled" with an unconvincing argument that in fact he meant the firefighters should be "pulled". This is the State Department’s interpretation, not Silverstein’s.

Silverstein’s office is quoted stating that Silverstein talked to NYFD chiefs about fire-fighters who were inside WTC 7. In contrast to this statement it's on the public record that the NYFD abandoned the fires in WTC 7 shortly after the twin towers collapsed:

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons." - New York Times (11/29/01)

FEMA agrees that NYFD did not fight the fires in WTC 7: "In addition, the fire-fighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires... the development of the fires was not significantly impeded by the fire-fighters because manual fire-fighting efforts were stopped fairly early in the day” - FEMA (05/02)

Silverstein’s explanation also contradicts the evidence of Deputy Fire Chief Peter Hayden (quoted in our book) who told Firehouse magazine in April 2002: "by about two o'clock in the afternoon we realised the thing was going to collapse". Is a contingent of fire-fighters really going to enter such a building three hours later?.......

Last edited by host; 05-10-2006 at 09:35 AM..
host is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 10:58 AM   #130 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: tartarus, oregon
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
hey mods. have we had enough yet? We went on for 3 full pages discussing physics, fire temperatures, if it was possible that the fires brought down the WTC, to comparing engine photos. It seems to have moved beyond that. Obviously there are some people, who, no matter how much evidence is presented, are never going to believe 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy. Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia - whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward.
ugh...
first of all, please stop trying to play nazi and have mods take this away from those who are, actually, contributing to the discussion and/or are enjoying reading through it.

secondly, if you wish to take part in discussion of politics, you must realize that there will always be differences of opinions and a variance in interpretations of facts.
just because people do not think as you do does not automatically render them wrong or their perspective useless (if you are evolved enough to listen to and digest other's views).
once again, if this convo were to stumble into the realm of speculation, then it might be more appropriate in the paranoia forum.
however, when discussing actual evidence of an actual event that has had a very real and very strong effect on, both, american and foriegn politics,... how can it not be included in the politics forum?

"Aside from what some rookie says, yes this is paranoia "

am i the "rookie" you speak of?
i joined this site because, from first appearance, it seemed to be a place where mature and enlightened people could come to, openly, exchange ideas on a variety of subjects. reading through this particular thread has been pretty disappointing.

i am at a total loss as to why you and ustwo, after repeatedly deeming this topic as undeserving of the politics thread or your time, would keep coming back, time and time again, just to put it down some more.
what is the point of that?
why does it bother you so much that you would plea for mods to remove or move it? why wouldn't you just go read through a thread that you do consider worthy? is there any explanation for these actions, at all?
red0blivia is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 11:27 AM   #131 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Aside from what some rookie says...
Stevo, you are a rookie comapred to me (I have something like 3,700 posts to date, dwarfing your 1,000), so does that mean that I am right and you are wrong? Of course not. TFP isn't here for freshman bashing, espically when this person has read the rules.

Stevo, what is your response to post #120? You are more than welcome to join in our conversation. Standing outside of our conversation hurling insults is unacceptable, and only makes you out to be stubborn and uneducated on the subject. Look at Dilbert, for example. This guy has gone head to head with me the whole time and has shown me nothing but respect. He disagrees with me, sure, but he somehow is able to treat me like a human being.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 11:28 AM   #132 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
hey mods. have we had enough yet? ... whats the difference from what this thread has become and the 911 threads in the paranoia forum? To keep this thread in the politics forum is a disgrace. I thought we were trying to clean up Politics. This is only a step backward.
...
I'm not angry, I just think its disgusting. "contributing" only gives legitimacy to the paranoia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ustwo
As 'they' say, "Hear, hear!"
Stevo, and ustwo - your opinions are noted. However, the thread stays for now.

I'm not saying this to exclude you, but I'll note that host and willravel (the primary motivaters of this thread) are still attempting to address issues of possible evidence and facts - which are being rationally and politely raised by Dilbert and The_Jazz. A discussion about evidence and whether the commonly assumed story is even possible are perfectly fine for this space. From what I can tell, your recent attempts to counter that possibly productive discussion by trying to tempt it into conspiracy theories, motivations and shadowy plots amount to attempted threadjacking. Repeated attempts to derail the discussion and discredit the posters by marginalizing them as paranoid or crazy have been noted and don't do anyone any good - because will and host have declined to go down that path. At this point, if you hate this discussion so much, please hit the back button.

I strongly disagree that this thread demeans our politics forum. That isn't related to my personal feelings about one side or the other - and that's part of why I'm mostly staying out of this. In fact, in some places this thread has been exemplary for the restraint and topical focus that people have shown. Perhaps you and I simply have different ideas about what this forum should be. If that is the case, please take this up over PM - the moderating and administrating team is open to input and will discuss your ideas.

I think this thread is fine here, and will probably end when people stop posting. There's no reason to lock it or move it, and considering how calm and rational the primary discussers are attempting to remain I don't think there will be. I'm waiting with interest for Dilbert's thoughts on tower 7, will's information from structural experts, and host's photographic documentation.

boatin said a few things very well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by boatin
And if it grew to 10 pages of calm conversation, where is the harm? The category that this is in seem pretty trivial. Ultimately, why does it matter?

And how can it matter more than disrespect and snideness to another member of TFP?

What is obvious to you, and others, may not be obvious to everyone. Where's the harm?
...
On TFP, we should always respect others, yes. This is should not be a challenging concept.

As others have said: if you don't like the topic, move along. Also not a challenging concept.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 11:40 AM   #133 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo
Aside from what some rookie says...
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Stevo, you are a rookie comapred to me (I have something like 3,700 posts to date, dwarfing your 1,000), so does that mean that I am right and you are wrong? Of course not. TFP isn't here for freshman bashing, espically when this person has read the rules.
Rookie posts are always welcome here, as long as they follow forum guidelines.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 11:55 AM   #134 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Just so everyone knows where I stand: I still don't know anything for sure. I am not convinced that there was enough damage by the planes, be the damage from fire or from the impact, to bring down the buildings....but I am not going to rule out the possibility. I've been wrong before. To know exactly when and if the steel frames of the strcture would have given, I'd need to get access to the exact type of steel (so I can determine at what temperature it would be movable), what exactly was in the buildings at the time of the crashes and fires, what specific damage was done from the collissions, what direction and speed the wind was, etc. Some of that information simply doesn't exist. I think that a solution is possible, though. Because I have not ruled out the possibility of a solution, I will not give up in discussing, experimenting, and investigating.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 12:26 PM   #135 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Uber an insane man is convinced of his own sanity and can try to explain why what he feels is sane in light of all evidence to the contrary.

That is what these discussions are pure and simple. Being civil has nothing to do with it, its insanity.

The closest analogy I can find to this argument is a holocaust denial debate. You have people who give you untrue, unproven, and unsound 'facts' to prove their point and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Pay no attention to the 1000's of eye witnesses or the piles of bodies, but instead rely on a minority of dissenters, and bad science. No matter how 'civil' the debate it has no place here and would have been moved in the past. You can have a civil debate about sex, it goes in the sexuality board, you can have a civil debate about your own paranoid government conspiracy delusions, and it goes in the paranoia forum where we can ignore it.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:17 PM   #136 (permalink)
Darth Papa
 
ratbastid's Avatar
 
Location: Yonder
I recommend you start ignoring it here, Ustwo. The mods have spoken. It's a perfectly valid and civil thread, and evidently it's staying.

YOU have been the one talking about conspiracies on this thread. will and host have refused to go there. They've studiously avoided any speculation about motives or agents. The question here is about physics. There's no conspiracy theory in physics.

One might wonder why you're so violently defending a position nobody's attacking. You protest too much.
ratbastid is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 01:27 PM   #137 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Ustwo, what's your response to post #120?
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 03:58 PM   #138 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Well ok it looks like this thread is getting off topic, so to get everything back on track here we go.

I’d like to open with popular mechanics thorough debunking; it goes through and tells the most up to date material.
Quote:
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
One big thing that is not mentioned is that the fireproofing that is sprayed onto some steel girders is easy to knock off with enough force; the impact of the planes would easily shake it off. This would also have happened in some places in wtc 7 from the impact caused by the debris from wt1. I know this for a fact because recently (about a year ago) we had an earthquake near where I live and it knocked off nearly half of the fire proofing in the mechanics garage where I work. It was only a 5.something and it was about 33 miles away. Fire proofing is designed to stand up to fire, not to impacts, its does break and fall off if enough force is applied.

Next I’d like to put to rest the controlled demolitions claim.

I’ll first start with the process of a controlled demolition. All the major support beams must be severed in order to get the building to collapsed, that means they beams must be exposed, cut part way to weaken them, and rigged with explosives. This explosive is usually a specialized explosive called RDX, encased in copper to make a chapped charge, which shoots a jet of hot copper to slice the beam. Then a secondary charge blows the beam a bit so it is no longer resting on the lower part but can fall. This whole setup needs to be applied to a lot of beams on many floors, that means they must cut through the walls to get to the beam, this just can’t be done secretly. It would take months to do, everyone in the building would have to be in on the plan, and it’s just crazy to think of all the logistics to destroying a building. Now I know you’re going to tell me if it only takes one girder to bring the tower down, why is it so hard to think it was a controlled explosion. The important girders were all on the lower floors, near the worst of the fire, next to the diesel, now how do you have explosives and fire in the same spot. Copper melts at 1084.62C, so were safe on temp for the metal, but RDX has an auto ignition point of 234°C, but that’s pure RDX, now they would probably use a plastic explosive, like C4 (which contains RDX) but C4 does not explode when its burned, it just burns, it burns very well. So there is another problem, if there were explosives set, they would need to be protected from the fires, so the workers would have to cut through the walls to plant the explosives, and then seal them back up and protect them from heat and fire. Back to the melting point of copper, copper melts at 1084 C so the fire would not necessarily gotten hot enough to melt the copper, but will a shaped charge work when very hot, no. when a shaped charge detonates, it forces the copper into a stream or jet that slices through the material, even though it has liquid properties, it is still not molten, but it is heated significantly, now it the copper was already heated, the extra heat from a fire and the charge would melt the copper rendering it ineffective. Next all the wiring would have to be shielded from heat, and any radio equipment for a remote detonation would also have to be dealt with in the same manner, to protect any remote equipment it would have to be incased in something, which would hamper any radio signal.

There were bad fires in tower 7, excessive damage from the collapse of the other towers, and thousands of gallons of diesel to fuel the fire. The fire fighters were called back because they were understaffed and could not cope with it, if WTC 7 was the only problem that day, it would still be standing, but the firefighters had been going since early that morning, and simply could not handle another fire to fight, not to mention the extreme instability of the building, they were right to not go into the building. Further more the building design was quite bad, allowing for a single column to bring the tower down, as stated in the NIST report.

Another thing I’ve been hearing a lot of is that no steel building has collapse before or after. Stating this as a reason that the towers should not have collapse is just stupid, its like saying no blimp before or after the Hindenburg has burst into flames due to static electricity, does this mean the helium lobby secretly planted charges inside of the Hindenburg to make it look like it was unsafe to suit there own agendas? No. It’s just that we have had very few experiences with these large steel buildings and never once before 9/11 has one been struck by a large plane. Never one has a moderately sized building had a huge building fall right next to it and then caught fire, and then have its fire suppression fail, and then have a bunch of diesel in the basement to boot.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y


so how we doing willtravel?
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 07:15 PM   #139 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Well ok it looks like this thread is getting off topic, so to get everything back on track here we go.
Much appreciated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
I’d like to open with popular mechanics thorough debunking; it goes through and tells the most up to date material.
Sure thing. I love Pop Mech, and I've been a subscriber since I was in 8th grade. I've read and gone through a lot of the article elsewhere, but for the sake of discussion, I'd be glad to revisit it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
While I don't want to say it was controled demolition (I'm not here to speculate), I do think that the videos of the collapse don't look like they resulted from fire. I'll like the video so everyone can see it.

If the .gif vid doesn't work, let me know and I'll find another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
While I don't particularly like the title of conspiracy theorist (conjures up pictures of X-Files and such), I'll say for the sake of arument that group includes me. Yes, the FEMA report is incredibly vague about the collapse of the WTC7 building, basically admitting that they really don't knoww how or why it collapsed, and asking for further investigation. The second investigation was done by the NIST, or the National Institue of Standards and Technology. In the NIST report, the claim is that a large area of the South face of WTC7 was severly damaged by falling debris, presumabally from the South Tower. This theory does not support symetrical collapse.


This picture is an estimation of the damage to the 7th WTC building. If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing. For example, major portions of WTC 5 remained standing on 9/11 despite very significant impact damage and severe fires. Had the building fallen in a non symetrical manner, i wouldn't have given it a second thought. The problem is that only one part of one side of the building was damaged, and the fires were going out, and the building collapsed in 6 seconds. Forgive me, but the Pop Mech article doesn't touch on these points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popular Mechanics
"There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says.
Sunder lied. One of the main supporting claims for the collapse theorists is that firefighters and first response personel inside the building described a lot of damage inside the building. The infamous "Pull it" statement by WTC7 owner Larry Silverstein indicated that he wanted to pull all of the firefighting personel out of the building as he thought it was a lost cause. The following is a quote from Larry Silverstein's spokesperson, McQuillan:
Quote:
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
So there was firefighting going on at WTC7 on 9/11 after the collissions and before the collapse.


Dilbert, I hope you don't mind if I turn this into a two part response. I have to go out for a job interview in a bit. I'll read and respond to your post later this evening or tomorrow.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-10-2006, 08:24 PM   #140 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
This theory does not support symetrical collapse.
Where you see a symmetrical collapse, I see the middle and or rear going first, watch the video again, better yet watch this one, it’s a bit clearer

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse2.mpg

Just before it starts, watch in the top right part of the building, how the extra parts drop faster then the rest, this is showing that it was not symmetrical; the center fell first, most likely because of the diesel fire in the basement causing weakness in the structure, coupled with the impact from wtc 1. Secondly you can see the building twist, the left side comes forward a bit and the right goes back a bit. This is because the center lost its integrity first, and the outside had to support the additional weight of the building, it could not so it to failed, causing the twist. Charges would not cause the building to twist like that. Moreover if there were charges on several levels, those levels would have collapsed first, instead of just the bottom, we would see the windows break on the level that the explosives are on, not because of the explosives, but because the floor that the explosives are on would collapse first, causing the floor to drop and the windows to rupture, we don’t see this, we only see the tower disappear from sight, hence the bottom gave first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
If one or a few columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of the building standing.
Well look at it this way, the damage was not terrible, it knocked out a few of the beams, but not enough to bring it down, but it did increase the load on the rest of the beams, almost to there failure point, then the fire heated the beams weakening them enough to cause a full collapse, now in several interviews people site hearing explosions, this could be mistaken for the sound of the building collapsing, or it could be the tanks of diesel rupturing, if some of the tanks survived the initial fire, they could have heated, vaporized, ruptured and cause a massive explosion in the basement, causing the final collapse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Sunder lied.

And although I’m not fully sure, I think with the firefighting, there were firefighters there for a bit, but gave up after finding it either hopeless or not worth risking there lives for an empty building, after seeing two others collapse. I think the first response people are not considered a firefighting effort, I don’t think he was lying, but I do see how you may, think of it this way, there were firefighters there, but they were not fighting the fire in full force, they were assessing the fire and the building if they would fight or not.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-26-2006, 07:37 PM   #141 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
(bump)

So is everyone satisfied with this now, everyone ok with the explanations for what happened. Any more questions willravel
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-26-2006, 08:32 PM   #142 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
(bump)

So is everyone satisfied with this now, everyone ok with the explanations for what happened. Any more questions willravel
I'm in contact with several people who are experts in fields of physics, engineering, and forensics, but I'm haveing trouble bringing up the nature of my questions. How does one politely ask, "Do you see something fishy about the greatest tragety on American soil in the past 50 years, something that effected most of us to our core?" I tried being up front with several people and was scoffed at (I didn't know people still scoffed). I know it's their right to refuse my request, and I respect that, but it's frustrating. It feels like I'm hitting a wall on this.

I am not satisfied with the explainations of the collapse of WTC 1, 2 or 7. I don't understand how moderate damage and fires could topple WTC 1 and 2 so quickly. Had they fallen after 15-20 hours, and had the fires grown instead of died down, then I might understand their collapse. Also, I do not see an asymetrical collapse in WTC 7. I saw how quickly the top right fell, but it was lss than a fraction of a second that it was ahead of the rest of the building. After reading about high rise fires in other cases not connected with 9/11, I can see plainly that the steel frames of buildings are never effected by the fire at all. While the interrior of the building sees damage, the steel frame survives unscathed (sp?).

It bears repeating that I appreciate the efforts of those who have made this thread a refuge of reason and respect. You have my thanks.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-26-2006, 09:09 PM   #143 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
What floor of WTC7 was damaged? (as the picture above indicates)

If the first 5 floors colapsed, would the weight of the building cause it to come straight down? Or would there be a momentary pause, as the steel structure got bent and concrete broke apart? There just doesn't seem to be any resistance as it is falling down.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 07:09 AM   #144 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
What floor of WTC7 was damaged? (as the picture above indicates)

If the first 5 floors colapsed, would the weight of the building cause it to come straight down? Or would there be a momentary pause, as the steel structure got bent and concrete broke apart? There just doesn't seem to be any resistance as it is falling down.
And that is very confusing. Had the building slowly collapsed, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. It collapsed at free fall speed, which is impossible for a steel framed building (except when the steel supports lose all strength at once, whihc is not supported by claims that the building fell due to fire and minor damage from debris).
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 09:27 AM   #145 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Please read The Fire, The Collapse from:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html

Here is a highly technical article about the physics of the collapse
http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/

Here is a less technical article
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

And one new thing I learned today, WTC was one of the first building to be built with the aid of computers, before that time, steel buildings were built with wide margins for error, usually doubling the capacity for the load needed. If the floor had to support 100 tons, it would be built to hold 200 tons. WTC was the first with the aid of computers to be precise and not have to be over built, if a floor had to hold 40 tons, it could only hold 40 tons, there was not margin for error because none was needed. We must also remember that the building was contracted with tubular steel, extremely strong when static, but easy to bend with enough force, and once bent, loses most of its structural integrity. Think of a soda can, even when I weighed 300lb I could carefully stand on an empty can of soda, but if I malformed it slightly, even a pin hole, it would collapse as soon as I stood on it, it lost all structural integrity when it is damage, the steel tubing is not quite this severe, but the plane smashing through the supports would have removed a great deal o there integrity.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 10:20 AM   #146 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
http://www.clemusart.com/exhibcef/mu...ng,%201998.jpg

From this picture, let's say that the botom 4 floors were destroyed by the bomb. The fifth floor would have no support under it, so it would colapse. The sixth floor is connected it that one, so it would follow. Then when the fifth floor hits the ground with the weight of all of the floors above it, would there be a pause, resistance, or slowing down. Or would it be like dropping a bowling ball onto a pop can? Wouldn't the top most floors have some large pieces of them left?

What caused the Oklahoma Fed building to stay up? Is it because the fire wasn't there? Here is the video of the implosion. You can hear the explosives, but I bet there are quiet explosives that just get very hot...
http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/reporters/.../implosion.mov
There isn't much resistance in the parts that had explosive charges, and the places that didn't get blasted, were slower to topple over.

It looks like it took twice as long for the OK Fed building to come down than from the animated gif movie above. I'm not sure if that is because the buildings were constructed differently or what.

Last edited by ASU2003; 05-27-2006 at 10:34 AM..
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 10:59 AM   #147 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
http://www.clemusart.com/exhibcef/mu...ng,%201998.jpg

From this picture, let's say that the botom 4 floors were destroyed by the bomb. The fifth floor would have no support under it, so it would colapse. The sixth floor is connected it that one, so it would follow. Then when the fifth floor hits the ground with the weight of all of the floors above it, would there be a pause, resistance, or slowing down. Or would it be like dropping a bowling ball onto a pop can? Wouldn't the top most floors have some large pieces of them left?

What caused the Oklahoma Fed building to stay up? Is it because the fire wasn't there? Here is the video of the implosion. You can hear the explosives, but I bet there are quiet explosives that just get very hot...
http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/reporters/.../implosion.mov
There isn't much resistance in the parts that had explosive charges, and the places that didn't get blasted, were slower to topple over.

It looks like it took twice as long for the OK Fed building to come down than from the animated gif movie above. I'm not sure if that is because the buildings were constructed differently or what.
I’m not sure why were dealing with the federal building right now, it has nothing to do with the WTC, but here we go.

First the picture, the main difference in the 2 is that WTC7 did not lose any part of the top, just damage to the bottom, where as the federal building, it did collapse, just not all of it, the entire front section collapsed. The bomb hit the front side of the building, not the rear, the rear was still structurally viable, that is why it remained standing, the fires were there, but not through out the building, mainly just in the front where the bomb hit. This is not the case in WTC7 the fire was in the basement where the diesel was stored, this weekend the main supports, causing the asymmetrical collapse, center first, then the rest a half second later. The building design is very different of the 2 buildings, so they are not comparable.

And that picture you show of the federal building, is not accurate at all
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ty_bombing.jpg


http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefme...9/T059167A.jpg
In this pic, looks how the supports are covered in concrete unlike the WTC, which was tubular steel, that is why it still stood, any fire would be protected from the steel, and it could survive longer until the fire suppression got to the scene, unlike in the WTC, where the fire was able to reach the steel directly.

As for silent explosives… um, no, there is no such thing as a silent explosive, it is physically impossible to make a silent explosive. As for cutting metal silently, it’s still not easy, last week at work I had the privilege to destroy some hard drives with a cutting torch, it was loud, noisy, slow and messy. On several occasions, the liquid metal popped, and put out the torch, and I was only cutting aluminum. The setup to use a cutting torch to cut the structure would be next to impossible. As for thermite, thermite can not be used to cut laterally, only vertically, the flow cannot be directed other than by gravity; again not suitable for cutting supports. The only way is to set shaped charges to slice the supports, and then secondary charges to blow the beam out of alignment so that it can fall, other wise it will just stay in the same place. But there is no evidence of explosives in the building, and the setup to do so is too much to accomplish.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 11:58 AM   #148 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
(bump)

So is everyone satisfied with this now, everyone ok with the explanations for what happened. Any more questions willravel
I'll be satisfied when the U.S. government starts telling the truth. BS, like an incomplete, $20 million "sham" investigation, that contains statements like the following two, are not helping to convince me of anything:
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm
Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

The analysis focused on the WTC 1 and WTC 2. <b>Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7,</b> a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire
Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
The final report “Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower” (NCSTAR 1) and the 42 companion reports. NIST NCSTAR 1: Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster: Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Tower

This is the final report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers, conducted under the National Construction Safety Team Act.

...........<b>Extensive details are found in the 42 companion reports. (The final report on the collapse of WTC 7 will appear in a separate report.) Also in this report is a description of how NIST reached its conclusions.</b>
I'm still waiting.....can anybody come up with a link to a "final" NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7?
host is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 04:06 PM   #149 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
The only reason I brought up the federal building is because it was damaged and imploded.

Would this be the final report on WTC 7 from NIST?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

It looks like there were some flaws in the design of the building, and they did a good job explaining the collapse.

From other sources, there are sounds 9 seconds ahead of WTC 7 collapse, if they are explosions or collapsing material, I don't know. I think there are ways to take out a building quietly, but it might take a while and go into the paranoia column.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 06:07 PM   #150 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Well, host I think that’s the nail in the coffin; that is the final report on WTC 7. as for your the quote from http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm, you take it out of context, in the case of the study of WTC 1 and 2, no steel from 7 was recovered. This says that when they did the investigation of the 2 towers, they did not bother with the tower next to it, this is not an omission, its just common since, the study you quote is not about WTC 7 so why would they collect evidence from it.

Thanks ASU2003, I did not see that report yet, it does a great job, I did not know that the worst fires were on the 5th floor where the diesel was stored, and that is where the structural collapse started.

As for the sounds 9 seconds before hand, it could be one of the tanks finally blowing up, could be any matter of things, if you heat a fire extinguisher, eventually it will explode. It does not just have to be a bomb.


willravel, how are you doing with those articles I posted for you?
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 07:54 PM   #151 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Please read The Fire, The Collapse from:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...agar-0112.html
I'm responding as I read...
So they agree that the crash damage was not significant in that "the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure." I'm glad we got this one out of the way. The outside was moderately damaged, and the inside was probably not damaged at all. This means that the focus of the blame for the collapse falls almost singularly on the fire.

I have read many observations of molten steel, or steel that has become so hot that it has melted completlty and is in liquid form, in the basements of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. One Dr. Keith Eaton, a renound structural engineer, toured the hrounds after the collapses. He wrote in an article:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith Eaton
They showed us many fascinating slides’ [Eaton] continued, ‘ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster’. (Structural Engineer, September 3, 2002, p. 6)
While it is possible for a fire that was aided by jet fuel and office furniture and such could theoretically cause steel to lose it's strength, we've already established that it cannot melt the steel. Please watch this video (in wmv format).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narrator
This is six weeks later...and as we get closer to the center of this it gets hotter and hotter. It's probably 1500 degrees.
These descriptions are not consistent with the fires that would have resulted from the collision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Here is a highly technical article about the physics of the collapse
http://www.tam.uiuc.edu/news/200109wtc/
I'm in Appendix II, I'll answer this when I can.
Willravel is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 08:44 PM   #152 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Well, host I think that’s the nail in the coffin; that is the final report on WTC 7. as for your the quote from http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-3index.htm, you take it out of context, in the case of the study of WTC 1 and 2, no steel from 7 was recovered. This says that when they did the investigation of the 2 towers, they did not bother with the tower next to it, this is not an omission, its just common since, the study you quote is not about WTC 7 so why would they collect evidence from it.

Thanks ASU2003, I did not see that report yet, it does a great job, I did not know that the worst fires were on the 5th floor where the diesel was stored, and that is where the structural collapse started.

As for the sounds 9 seconds before hand, it could be one of the tanks finally blowing up, could be any matter of things, if you heat a fire extinguisher, eventually it will explode. It does not just have to be a bomb.


willravel, how are you doing with those articles I posted for you?
Dilbert1234567...you did not see a NIST "final report" on WTC 7, because one does not exist.....it won't be released by NIST until at least, "late 2006".

I cannot grok your "take" on what NISTS's "no steel" from WTC 7, really means. Consider that, WTC 7 was part of ther NIST investigation and evidence gathering until spring 2005. Your unusual opinion prompted me to read skim the entire June 2004, NIST "Appendix F Interim Report on Inventory and Identification of Steels Recovered from the WTC Buildings"

It's as if NIST didn't give a shit about steel forensics testing of any buildings other than WTC 1 & 2.
As recently as June 2004, long after site clearing was complered, NIST failed to obtain and identify structural steel samples from WTC 7, a 47 story building that collapsed into it's own, unique, seperate footprint.

Dilbert1234567, "no WTC 7 steel" means just what it says. NIST has no structural steel samples identified from WTC 7 to test. Seems like evidence of criminal negligence or intentional obstruction of the fire investigation!
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixf.pdf

From page 39 of 68:

At present, there are seven samples from WTC 5, all in the GZ-series (see Attachment 1.2.9). These are
coupons that were removed at the WTC site and held by GMS, LLP. They were subsequently sent to
NIST once the Investigation officially began.
<b>No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7.</b> However, the columns were fabricated from conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steel that complied with ASTM specifications.
F.5 STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS OF SPECIAL IMPORTANCE
Of the 41 exterior column panels and 12 core columns positively identified, many were considered
especially important to this Investigation. Two major categories of steel are considered to be of special
value:
• Samples located in or around the floors impacted by the airplane
• Samples that can represent 1 of 14 grades of steel specified for the exterior columns, 1 of 4
grades of steel specified for the core columns, and 1 of the 2 grades of steel for the floor
trusses

from page 42 of 68:

F.6 SUMMARY
<b>NIST has 236 samples from the WTC buildings, the majority belonging to WTC 1 and WTC 2.</b> These
samples represent roughly 0.25 percent to 0.5 percent of the 200,000 tons of structural steel used in the
construction of the two towers. NIST believes the collection of steel from the WTC towers is sufficient
for the Investigation. This assertion is drawn from the following two statements. First, recovery of
material from locations in or near the impact and fire damaged regions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 was
remarkably good, including four exterior panels directly hit by the airplane and three core columns
located within these areas. Second, sufficient representative samples exist for all 14 grades of exterior
panel material, 2 grades of the core column material (which represents 99 percent, by total number, of
columns), and both grades for the floor truss material.
This report identifies the structural steel elements recovered from the WTC towers. Later reports will
determine the physical and mechanical properties of the steels and weld metal and the characteristics of
the metal, weldments, and connections from WTC buildings. Additionally, a damage assessment/failures
mode examination of the recovered structural steel elements will be performed. This information will be
utilized in an effort to determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impact
of the aircraft.
See the following post:

Last edited by host; 05-27-2006 at 09:36 PM..
host is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 08:50 PM   #153 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
The only reason I brought up the federal building is because it was damaged and imploded.

Would this be the final report on WTC 7 from NIST?
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%...se%20Final.pdf

It looks like there were some flaws in the design of the building, and they did a good job explaining the collapse.

From other sources, there are sounds 9 seconds ahead of WTC 7 collapse, if they are explosions or collapsing material, I don't know. I think there are ways to take out a building quietly, but it might take a while and go into the paranoia column.
Whoah....Dilbert1234567.....whoah....what's your hurry ???? The "fun" is just starting....let me answer ASU2003's question....please !!!

ASU2003, NIST has never issued it's "delayed" WTC 7 "final report". The html version of the link that you provided, tells why, on Page 4, the delay happened, and when the "final report", would be released. Now....new reports show that NIST will delay release of it's WTC 7 "final report", for at least afull year longer than the initial, "fall 2005" delayed release date:
Quote:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:...s&ct=clnk&cd=1

WTC 7 report will be issued as a supplement to the main report: draft planned for October
2005; final for December 2005.

Decoupling of WTC 7 report necessary to accommodate overlapping staffing demands for work
on WTC towers.

This change affects mainly the collapse analysis; other WTC 7 work will be reported with the
ther Investigation reports.
The following is from google's <a href="http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:VqvTaCDtfGIJ:wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1">cache</a> of:
Quote:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs.htm

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster

What is NIST?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is an agency of the Commerce Department’s Technology Administration. NIST develops and promotes measurement, standards, and technology to enhance productivity, facilitate trade, and improve the quality of life.

What are the goals of NIST’s investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?
The goals are to investigate the building construction, the materials used, and the technical conditions that contributed to the outcome of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster. The investigation will serve as the basis for:

* improvements in the way buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used;
* improved tools and guidance for industry and safety officials;
* revisions to building and fire codes, standards, and practices; and
* improved public safety.

What are the main objectives of the investigation?
The primary objectives of the NIST-led technical investigation of the World Trade Center disaster are to determine:

<b>* why and how the World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 collapsed after the initial impact of the aircraft;</b>
* why the injuries and fatalities were so low or high depending on location (by studying all technical aspects of fire protection, evacuation,
and occupant behavior and emergency response);
* the procedures and practices that were used in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the World Trade Center Buildings; and
* which building and fire codes, standards, and practices warrant revision and are still in use....
<b>Since WTC 7 was not impacted by any aircraft, and sice NIST "broke out" the WTC 7 final report, and...after delaying it's release to "late 2005", and now again, to "late 2006", is it unreasonable to suggest that NIST's web page is misleading as to it's first listed, "primary objective", and that with the delays in finalizing and releasing it's WTC 7 "final report", especially given the lame initial reasons for issuing an incomplete WTC "final report", that NIST has failed it's own, first listed "main objective[]s of the investigation" ?</b>

WTF does that mean ???? I dunno...but it can't be a good thing.....in fact, it smells!
Quote:
http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/po..._citystate.php
Hey Buddy: What Brought WTC7 Down?

By Jarrett Murphy | January 25, 2006 10:47 PM

http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/po...ves/002374.php

Hey Buddy: What Brought WTC7 Down?

By Jarrett Murphy | January 25, 2006
Of the many mysteries surrounding 9-11, few have been of as much interest to as broad a range of people as the fate of World Trade Center 7, the 47-story office building that was the last to fall and appears to have been the first steel-framed skyscraper to collapse due solely to fire. <b>The National Institute of Standards and Technology, which this fall issued its final report on what happened to the Twin Towers, was supposed to report on WTC 7 at the same time. But that got pushed to December, then to this spring, and lately to the end of 2006. Now, NIST is soliciting a contractor to try to come up with the best explanation for why the building came down.</b>

NIST announced the move in a draft solicitation earlier this month. A formal bid is being prepared. Michael Newman, NIST spokesman, says the contractor will "determine the most likely scenario for the initiating event of the WTC 7 collapse and provide the global analysis of the collapse (i.e. the response of the whole building to the initiating event)."

The draft solicitation says NIST will consider the "possibility of any other events that may have occurred that day." This is a red flag to people who harbor alternative theories of what 9-11 was all about. WTC7, which housed offices for the CIA and the Office of Emergency Management, is central to the notion that the buildings at Ground Zero were brought down by planned demolitions, partly because film of the collapse shows a sudden, implosion-like demise.

The Voice asked NIST what it meant by "other scenarios." Its answer:

The contractor will look at up to 20 possible scenarios for the initiating event of the WTC 7 collapse. In collaboration with the NIST WTC 7 team, the contractor will reduce this number to no more than 5 scenarios deemed most likely to be correct and then focus its modeling on these five to eventually determine the single most likely scenario.

Posted in Citystate
Quote:
http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index5.html
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York’s most terrible day.

* By Mark Jacobson
March 27, 2006 issue of New York Magazine
Quote:
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymag/toc/20060327/
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll

C’mon: Do you really think nineteen guys with box cutters were behind 9/11? Then why, when no steel-frame building had ever collapsed from fire, did three fall down that day? (One, 7 WTC, wasn’t even hit.) How could a terrorist’s passport emerge in perfect condition? Why was it so important to clear debris before all the bodies were recovered? Did the U.S. secretly plan the whole thing? The 9/11 conspiracy theorists have it all figured out.
.........“That’s him, the NIST guy,” William said, indicating Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, head of the institute’s Trade Center report.

An elegantly attired man in his fifties, Dr. Sunder, holder of degrees from the Indian Institute of Technology in Delhi and MIT, took his seat beside Carl Galioto, a partner at Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, architects of the new $700 million replacement for 7 WTC. Behind them was a slide of “the new downtown skyline,” dominated by another Skidmore project, the Freedom Tower, which, at an iconic 1,776 feet, is next in line to be the world’s tallest building. Like the new 7 WTC, which Galioto said featured a “two-foot-thick vertical core encasing the elevators, utility infrastructure, and exit stairs,” the Freedom Tower will be “among the safest buildings ever built.” This was important, the architect said, because “constantly building and rebuilding” was what New York was all about.

After Dr. Sunder’s presentation (planes and fire did it), a woman from N.Y. 9/11 Truth stood up and said she hadn’t been able “to sleep at night” since her best friend had died at the WTC. She had hoped NIST would clear up doubts, but this was not the case. “I have here a report which contradicts much of what you say.”

The woman put a paper by Steven E. Jones, a physics professor from Brigham Young University, in front of Dr. Sunder. Jones makes the case for controlled demolition, claiming the persistence of “molten metal” at ground zero indicates the likely presence of “high-temperature cutter-charges . . . routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.”

“I hope you read this; perhaps it will enable you to see things a different way,” the woman said.

“Actually, I have read it,” Dr. Sunder said with a sigh.

Later, asked if such outbursts were common, Dr. Sunder said, “Yes. I am sympathetic. But our report . . . it is extensive. We consulted 80 public-sector experts and 125 private-sector experts. It is a Who’s Who of experts. People look for other solutions. As scientists, we can’t worry about that. Facts are facts.”

http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index6.html
<b>I asked Dr. Sunder about 7 WTC. Why was the fate of the building barely mentioned in the final report?

This was a matter of staffing and budget, Sunder said. He hoped to release something on 7 WTC by the end of the year.

NIST did have some “preliminary hypotheses” on 7 WTC, Dr. Sunder said. “We are studying the horizontal movement east to west, internal to the structure, on the fifth to seventh floors.”

Then Dr. Sunder paused. “But truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble getting a handle on building No. 7.”</b>
MS NBC's Tucker Carlson interviewed scholarsfor911truth.org 's Steven E. Jones, on Nov 16, 2005 but he seemed hostile towards Jones, and would not even roll the video that showed the collapse of WTC 7, that Jones had sent to MSNBC as part of his interview presentation. <b>Would an unbiased and openminded media treat Steven E. Jones with the same courtesy and lack of prejudice that it seems to extend to NIST? Where is the MSM reporting of NIST's failure to release a final WTC report that includes WTC 7? Why did the 9/11 Commission fail to mention the collapse of 47 story WTC 7, at all?</b>
Isn't five years enough effing time for our government to issue a report as to why the only fire damaged, steel framed skyscraper in history, that was not hit by an airliner, or bombed as in the case of the Murrow building in Oklahoma, collapsed after burning for no more than 7 hours and 20 minutes, suddenly and completely, at a "free fall rate" into it's own footprint?

Why isn't the media joining Jone in his questions about how molten metal could exist at ground zero for six weeks, and asking why NIST issued a "final" WTC report that wasn't "final"?
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10053445/
Questioning what happened on 9/11
Professor believes planes didn't cause all the damage around the WTC

TRANSCRIPT
MSNBC
Updated: 12:10 a.m. CT Nov 16, 2005

.....CARLSON: Can you sum up very quickly the argument for us? You believe there were explosives in the buildings planted by someone, detonated?

JONES: Well, yes.

CARLSON: Is that correct?

JONES: ... There are two hypotheses here. One is fire and damage caused all three buildings to collapse.

CARLSON: OK.

JONES: The other is that explosives in the buildings may have caused the collapse. And so, then we analyze and see which fits the data better, and I've done that in my 25-page paper.

CARLSON: I want to read you a quote from the 'Deseret Morning News,' a paper in Utah, from you. I'm quoting now.

"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes, which are actually a diversion tactic. Muslims are probably not to blame for bringing down the World Trade Center buildings after all."

That's, I would think, pretty offensive to a lot of the people listening. Do you have any evidence for that?

JONES: Well, not-not to the Muslims, I might say.

CARLSON: Well, that's good.

JONES: I have a lot of e-mails.

CARLSON: I'm sure your writings greeted with just glee in Islamabad, and Peshawar and places like that. But for Americans.

JONES: Well, I haven't received notes from there, but just good people. I have Muslim friends. Let me read, for example, but I'm not going to let you off the hook. I really want to do this experiment with you.

CARLSON: We don't have a lot of time for experiments, Professor. But if you could just ... give us one thing to hold onto. How-you make these claims, or appear to make these claims ...

JONES: Tucker, sure, sure. Let's start with the collapse of Building seven. Can you roll the video clip that I sent to you?

CARLSON: OK. I am not sure if we can, but that is the World Trade Center. It's smaller than the other two it was not hit by a plane.

JONES: Let's try.

CARLSON: Of course, it collapsed.

JONES: Right. It's 47 stories.

CARLSON: That's right.

JONES: Twenty-four steel columns in the center.

CARLSON: Right.

JONES: Trusses, asymmetrically supported. Now, I can't see what you're seeing. Are we rolling that?

CARLSON: No. We just see the building. And just so our viewers know, the explanation that I think is conventional is that there was a large tank of diesel fuel stored in the lower level of that, which caught fire, and the resulting fire collapsed the building.

JONES: Well, that's basically it, yes, but as we read in the FEMA report, it says here, and I put this in my paper, of course. "The best hypothesis, which is the only one they looked at, fire, has only a low probability of occurrence. Further investigation analyses are needed to resolve this issue, and I agree with that."

CARLSON: OK.

JONES: But they admit there's only a low probability, and if you look at the collapse, you see what I have studied is the fall time, the symmetry, the fact that it first dips in the middle. That's called the kink. Which is very characteristic, of course, of controlled demolition.

CARLSON: Professor, I am sorry that we are out of time ...

JONES: Whoa, one other thing I want to mention.

CARLSON: Ok. If you can hit it - hit it quickly.

JONES: OK. All right. Here we go. Molten metal in the basements of all three buildings.

CARLSON: Right.

JONES: And yet all scientists now reasonably agree that the fires were not sufficiently hot to melt the steel, so what is this molten metal? It's direct evidence for the use of high-temperature explosives, such as thermite, which produces molten iron as an end product.

CARLSON: OK.

JONES: It's very short time, but people will read the paper, then I talk about the molten metal, the symmetry of the collapse, and the weaknesses and inadequacies of the fire hypothesis.

CARLSON: Professor, we are going to have to leave it to our viewers who are interested enough to follow up to do just that. We appreciate you coming on, even if I don't understand your theories, we appreciate you trying to explain them. Thanks.
Quote:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Quote:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/C...05May2006.html

Comments regarding Prof. Jones’ "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" (More comments will be added as there is time. Not all of this will be fan-mail…)
<b>Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?</b>

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

ABSTRACT

In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-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.

Introduction

We start with the fact that large quantities of molten metal were observed in basement areas under rubble piles of all three buildings: the Twin Towers and WTC7........
As Steven E. Jones references in the following linked example found in his "paper" cited above......there is ample scientific, anecdotal, picture, and news reporting "evidence" that there was "molten metal" under the WTC wreckage for at least six weeks after the buildings collapsed. No one from NIST, or for that matter, any scientists that I have come across, can offer an explanation as to how temperatures hot enough to liquify steel were reached...and then persisted after the two airliners flew into the WTC towers 1 and 2, and then exploded:
Quote:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html
An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr.

A section of an A36 wide flange beam retrieved from the collapsed World Trade Center Building 7 was examined to determine changes in the steel microstructure as a result of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. This building was not one of the original buildings attacked but it indirectly suffered severe damage and eventually collapsed. While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway.
ANALYSIS

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000şC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.
willravel.....in looking into this, I was surprised to find that NIST recovered "no steel" from WTC 7, that NIST's "WTC final report" did not contain a "WTC 7 final report", the lame excuses NIST gave for the delay.....the "new" WTC 7 "final report" dealy of an additional year....and the lack of any explanation as to the melting of steel and "molten metal" that persisted at ground zero after the WTC buildings collapsed.....not possible as a result of shortlived fires from jet fuel, diesel fuel, office paper, appliances, furniture fueled fires in WTC 1,2 and 7, since NIST and other scientists seem to agree that fire temperatures were never elevated to levels that could melt, or liquify iron or steel.
host is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 09:08 PM   #154 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel

While it is possible for a fire that was aided by jet fuel and office furniture and such could theoretically cause steel to lose it's strength, we've already established that it cannot melt the steel. Please watch this video (in wmv format).

These descriptions are not consistent with the fires that would have resulted from the collision.
well no the fire did not get the temperatures that hot, but you forget about the collapse, we are talking about a 500,000 ton structure falling 400 meters my calculus is rusty, so if some one can check it for me great, potential energy is weight * height * gravity

I get the integral between 0 and 400 of (400-x)*(500000 tons) * (400-x)/400*9.8m/s^2

this gives me 2.37 x10^14 joules of potential energy, this has to go somewhere, some went into sound, and moving air out of the way, but most of it went into deformation and heat (both cause each other) this is why it was so hot inside. Besides that the pile of rubble would also insolate the heat as well keeping it hot weeks after. Further more, great heat can be generated with deformational forces, take a coat hanger and bend it in the same place allot and feel how it heats up. It does not take much to bend a coat hanger, but for objects that do take allot to bend, much more heat is generated; this is the source of the extreme heat in the rubble, besides the fire.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 09:54 PM   #155 (permalink)
Banned
 
Dilbert....you're serious, aren't you?

Wouldn't it be cheaper for foundries to use your "gravitational energy equals heat theory" to achieve casting and smelting temperatures, than to pay the electric bills to run their furnaces from dead cold to melt? The NYFD poured huge volumes of water on the debris piles for at least a month after the collpases. Why was molten metal only found underground? Wouldn't metal wreckage from upper floors, already partially heated from the "destructive" fires, have a head start in creating similar molten metal conditions near or at the surface of the debris piles. NIST's own inventory report stated that investigators expected to find WTC 1 & 2 airliner impacted material at or near initial debris recovery areas (wreckage from upper floors on top of debris piles.)

How about providing one reputable scientific source who supports your theory of high temperatures resulting from gravitational effects from a building collapse. Or....any examples from controlled demolition via implosion of a tall building. Wouldn't the heat from the collapse of a smaller building be enough, if you are correct, to ignite lower temperature, post collapse, fires?

I want to alert you that I just update my post #154 to document that NIST admitted in June, 2004, that "No structural elements have been positively identified from WTC 7".
host is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 10:06 PM   #156 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
a better more detailed report on the sulfur: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...rman-0112.html
can be found here:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf


As for a possible source for the sulfur all the UPS's (uninterruptible power supplies) we have at my work are powered by sulfuric acid, when they burn out, they boil and spread sulfuric acid all over the place in a cloud, this would be replicated if burned in a fire, if there were any UPS's in the area, it would be a likely source of the sulfur.

Here is a nice article about the reason behind the molten steel in the basement, a much clearer explanation than my last attempt.
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-27-2006, 11:45 PM   #157 (permalink)
Devils Cabana Boy
 
Dilbert1234567's Avatar
 
Location: Central Coast CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Dilbert....you're serious, aren't you?

Wouldn't it be cheaper for foundries to use your "gravitational energy equals heat theory" to achieve casting and smelting temperatures, than to pay the electric bills to run their furnaces from dead cold to melt? The NYFD poured huge volumes of water on the debris piles for at least a month after the collpases. Why was molten metal only found underground? Wouldn't metal wreckage from upper floors, already partially heated from the "destructive" fires, have a head start in creating similar molten metal conditions near or at the surface of the debris piles. NIST's own inventory report stated that investigators expected to find WTC 1 & 2 airliner impacted material at or near initial debris recovery areas (wreckage from upper floors on top of debris piles.)
See here is our problem; you have a lack of knowledge about physics, conservation of energy and many other things in the realm of science, and your rude comments show it. There is a great deal of energy stored when you lift an object, roughly equal to the energy spent lifting it, it’s a bit more to overcome any resistance of lifting it (air resistance as an example)

To get you caught up to speed, please read these 2 articles on gravitational potential energy.
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...rgy/u5l1b.html
http://id.mind.net/~zona/mstm/physic...ialEnergy.html

And please check your understanding with this:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...gy/u5l2bc.html


now that you have an elementary understanding of potential energy, you can understand why your response is so ludicrous, to get that potential energy you have to expend more energy to store it, and since burning fuels is a far more effective way to transfer this energy to melt the steel, than it is to drop it, the foundries have chosen to use fire rather than the ‘dropping method’. Although dropping the metal will heat it, it would be more cost effective to just use a furnace.

As for why the inside of the rubble was hotter then the outside, that is due to the insulating effect that the outer layers provide to the inner layers, most of the material in the tower is a poor conductor of heat, so the heat stayed trapped inside. As for the lack of molten metal on the out side, again it would not be insulated and thus cool quickly. Not to mention most of the heat was generated by the pressures created by the upper rubble on the lower rubble, again placing the hottest parts deeper.


Quote:
Originally Posted by host
How about providing one reputable scientific source who supports your theory of high temperatures resulting from gravitational effects from a building collapse. Or....any examples from controlled demolition via implosion of a tall building.
Here is the backing:
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
and another
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Further more, to my knowledge there has been no metallurgical analysis of the molten metal; for all we know it could be something other than steel with a lower melting point, I see the beam glowing red, and then something dripping off of it, but there is nothing to say that the dripping is not another metal that the beam was sitting in a pool of. Furthermore the only record of anyone saying there was molten steel in the wreckage was second hand, and denied by the person who allegedly spoke it. As seen here:
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot...-wtc-site.html



Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Wouldn't the heat from the collapse of a smaller building be enough, if you are correct, to ignite lower temperature, post collapse, fires?
Again the lack of scientific knowledge on the subject. The smaller the building the smaller the amount of energy, as the height increases, the energy increases exponentially, as the height shrinks, it decreases exponentially, so no a smaller building would not have this problem to this degree, if at all.


And if you are still unsure about the ‘pull it’ comment regarding the 7th tower please read the following, it’s quite comprehensive.
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html


please take some of your free time, and enroll in a physics class at your local community college, you may also want to enroll in a calculus class as well, as physics and calculus go hand in hand.
__________________
Donate Blood!

"Love is not finding the perfect person, but learning to see an imperfect person perfectly." -Sam Keen
Dilbert1234567 is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 03:17 AM   #158 (permalink)
Banned
 
Dilbert1234567, I have no history of intentionally acting rudely towards you. I was sincerely flabbergasted by your argument. It seemed an unsubstantiated stab at a theory that would explain away all of the dubious and questionable federal government directed and deliberately non-directed, (willfully incomplete) actions to keep conspiracy theories "alive and kickin", when all it would take is competent and credible evidence gathering and investigation, and the timely issuance....of "final reports" as previously promised. A spirit of reluctance to lead or cooperate in investigating and disclosing "what really happened" on 9/11, resonated from Bush and Cheney from the very beginning. The surviving family members of 9/11 victims had to shame Bush into agreeing to form the 9/11 Commission, or there would not have been one. Little good it's report actually did to quell suspiscion. First came the cynical, Bush appointment of herr Kissinger to head the commission, which was shouted down, and then came the appointment of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission#Criticisms">former Saudi business associate</a>, Tom Kean, (not the sharpest move, after you've told us that 15 of 19...9/11 "hijackers", were Saudis...) to replace Kissinger as 9/11 Commission chairman..... My point is that the "conspiracy theories" are the result of official government ineptness, duplicity, insincerity, and or, criminality....not...in spite of them. They aroused suspicions, because their "handling" of the investigation....smells.

I enjoy trying to meet the challenge that you've put out to us, and I've admitted, on this thread....specifically to you....when I was mistaken. I had hoped that would garner your trust....and I hope that we can get past this. Accept that I did not intend to incite you....now....hopefully I am providing some of what you challenged me to give you:
Quote:
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...AB0894DA404482
A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse
Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards
New York Times, The (NY)
February 2, 2002
Author: JAMES GLANZ and ERIC LIPTON

....... Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires -- no one knows from where -- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures.............
Quote:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformati...ing/steel.html
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes...........
The problem with your theory, IMIO (in my ignorant opinion....) is that you have no way to measure how much of the energy that was generated from the fall of heavy debris from the upper reaches of the tall WTC 1 & 2 towers, was dissipated upon impact with the near ground surfaces, i.e., low buildings, multiple concrete decks and sub-surface structural levels that surrounded the towers' one acre footprints. Energy was also absorbed from upper floor debris, due to "pancaking" of floor upon floor....with floors undamaged by fire or impact from either "attacking airliner", offering the most energy absorbing resistance, since they were studier....harder to pancake.

WTC 7 was less than half the height of the twin towers and was comprised of much lighter core steel support members. It is documented that there were hot fires burning in it's contained, seperate debris field, for some weeks after 9/11. It is documented that competent, credible witnesses observed "vaporization" of structural steel from that building. It is documented that WTC 7 is the only steel framed building in history to collapse from fire damage and heavy but localized structural damage. The combined circumstances of the WTC 7 collapse, coupled with the persistent, post collapse, hot fires in it's footprint, and throughout the 16 acre WTC site, the reports of glowing and molten steel encountered in the debris, are enough to arose suspicion in an allegedly ignorant individual, such as I appear to be.
Quote:
From 5,000 Feet Up, Mapping Terrain for Ground Zero Workers
New York Times, The (NY)
September 23, 2001
Author: KENNETH CHANG

.........The Federal Aviation Administration granted EarthData permission to make daily flights in the

tightly controlled airspace over the site. Each day since Sept. 15, EarthData's plane has passed

over Lower Manhattan, shooting 15,000 laser pulses a second. EarthData then produces a grid of

more than 100,000 points of topographic elevations, spaced about five feet apart, over the trade

center area. The information is then analyzed by the researchers at Hunter College.

Other instruments on the EarthData plane are taking photographs and measuring thermal radiation

emanating from the surface to track the underground fires. The fires, which warm the surface 30

degrees above surrounding areas, are still burning <b>beneath the rumble of the two towers and 7

World Trade Center.</b> The hot spots can flare up as debris is removed, endangering people at the

site.

The fires spread outward on the first couple of days, but have since started to recede. "But

they're still extensive," Mr. Logan said.............
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE
At the Site, Little Hope Of Uncovering Survivors
New York Times, The (NY)
September 19, 2001
Author: SUSAN SACHS

....Two buildings, 5 and 6 World Trade Center, have essentially been gutted by fire, said Peter

J. Davoren, a senior vice president of Turner Construction Company. <b>The rubble that once was 7

World Trade Center, a building believed to have been evacuated before it was hit by debris from

the collapse, is still burning.</b> By late yesterday, crews working from baskets suspended by

cranes over 7 World Trade Center were cutting lengths of twisted steel to be removed.....
Quote:
AT GROUND ZERO, A CLEANUP OF EPIC SCOPE
BILLION-DOLLAR JOB FRAUGHT WITH PERIL
The Record (New Jersey)
November 6, 2001
Author: BRIAN KLADKO, Staff Writer; The Record

....... The site is suffused by a smoky haze, produced by the smoldering fires underneath the

debris. <b>The temperatures down there reach 1,500 degrees,</b> hot enough to fry a robot that had been

sent down with a video camera. Some of the columns pulled from the wreckage glow red.

"Even when it's been hosed down, it still steams for a long time," Ashlin said.

City officials have been tracking the fires using airplanes equipped with cameras and thermal

sensors. In the days after the attack, half of ground zero was burning; by late last month, the

fires had been confined to a few scattered spots.........
When you add the clumsy BS on the U.S. State Dept. <a href="http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html">web page</a>...intended to rehabilitate WTC leaseholder Silverstein's video documented and unambiguous <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2059787&highlight=silverstein+pull#post2059787">statement of three years earlier....</a>

Is ignorance a prerequisite for an individual to perceive deliberate deception on the part of unknown persons in a federal government that runs the type of "cover op" intended to diminish the controversy of Silverman's 2002 statement, three years after he was videotaped, making it? Show me another example where a federal agencies web page is "turned over" to an a private individual so that his spokesperson can post a propaganda piece that coincides with the "official line" of the current executive regime. I've never seen anything like it, if you have....direct me to it!

Is it just "business as usual"..."nothing to see here", when the lead investigative federal agency responsible for investigating and determining the effects of fire damage on the 3 collapsed WTC "skyscrapers"....fails to achieve it's own first stated goal.....by one third if you consider that it issued a "final report" that only made determinations about the collapses of two out of three WTC towers, and admitted that it had no structural steel samples to test to evaluate the collapse of that third building....and then quietly seperate and postpones the final report on that building'd collapse, and then delayed the final report release for another full year....with no official announcement that it was doing so? I don't think that it is....especially when many architects and engineers consider the collapse of the third building after a fire....to be unprecedented.....and historic.

Call me ignorant...but something is going on that smacks of an official attempt to conceal the truth...the facts...about the WTC 7 collapse, from the American people.

Here are descriptions of the heat and the aftermath of energy absorbing impact of falling WTC debris: (Note the date....9 weeks after 9/11)
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE
Below Rubble, a Tour of a Still-Burning Hell
New York Times, The (NY)
November 15, 2001

Abstract: Tour of basement floors under World Trade Center site reveal some places with only superficial damage but hold eerie images of past; acrid air and fires that continue to burn deep in debris add to hellish reality;

A descent beneath the World Trade Center is a passage into a grotesque landscape of stalagmites formed by dripping metal, entire office floors compressed into a space of six inches, and train cars smashed all the way down to the tracks by collapsed concrete ceilings.

The trade center's basement was once a six-level shopping center, parking ramp and underground train terminal spreading over more than two million square feet. Now it has become a place where the horror of the aboveground devastation is amplified by the gloom of the debris-strewn, claustrophobic space -- a hazy darkness pierced only by flashlights and an occasional crater that lets dim sunlight filter through from above.
Yesterday, a rare journey to the bottom of the trade center's basement revealed a few places with only superficial damage, like the Commuter's Cafe, five levels below the trade center's plaza, where dust-encrusted bottles of liquor still sit on the shelves.

But most of the basement has become an underground quagmire where muddy pools of water, cinder blocks, travertine facing from collapsed walls and half-melted ventilation ducts spread crazily over floors that end suddenly, at sheer drops into the darkness.

The confined air is acrid because of the fine dust that is everywhere and the fires that continue to burn deep in the debris.

"It's still cooking," said Thomas O'Connor, who manages the construction and engineering work at the site for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the buildings and arranged for the tour through the basement.

<b>In the days after the collapse of the towers two months ago, the tangled steel was still so hot that it glowed like charcoal briquets in the unlighted basement, Mr. O'Connor said, adding, "For seven weeks it was surreal down here."</b>

Now, it has become the unreal city of T. S. Eliot's "Waste Land," a place where dread lurks in the shadows and terrible things emerge by gleam of light. Even so, it is a city that construction crews removing the debris have come to understand, and as they continue clearing the site -- for now, using grapplers, cranes and wrecking balls aboveground -- they believe the site is structurally stable as the work continues.

In particular, the submerged wall, nicknamed the bathtub, that holds back the waters of the Hudson River seems to be sound.

The trip -- which felt more like spelunking through caves or archaeological ruins than touring an urban structure -- began at the opening of a downward-sloping truck ramp on Barclay Street, one block north of the trade center site, where all freight was once delivered to the trade center. Beginning at the site's northern boundary -- at the western edge of the L-shaped 5 World Trade Center, which burned but did not collapse -- the trip was constrained by several elements of the smashed topography created by the collapse of the twin towers.

<b>To the west, a giant hole punched through the middle of the United States Custom House by falling debris from the north tower continues to the bottom of the basement. Steel beams dangle from the edges of the hole like ragged tapestry and form a wildly chaotic pile in the center. To the southwest is packed debris from the north tower itself, and to the south, many basement floors have been crushed by debris hurled from the south tower.</b>

As solemn as it is, the passage below is not just a study in destruction. As respirators dangled from the necks of everyone else in the small group, John O'Connell, a rescue worker with the Fire Department, smoked a big cigar.

"It's my respirator, it's my oxygen indicator and it's my explosion indicator," Mr. O'Connell said. "The only problem, the explosion indicator, it works only once."

After a walk southward down the truck ramps and a dogleg right, to the west, the dancing flashlights illuminate the edge of the debris that fell nearly straight down through the north tower and collected down here. At first the mind simply refuses to accept what the eyes see -- the recognizable traces of 20 floors, much like geologic strata, over a 10-foot vertical span.

In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protrude like tattered wallpaper, almost touching where they are bent downward at the edge. "You're looking at roughly 60 feet of the building, smashed into about 3 feet," Mr. O'Connell said.

<b>A three-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower.</b>

The column, two feet across, has a sort of compound fracture -- the top has been pushed a foot south of the piece it is resting on.

Down two more floors to the mezzanine, and the Commuter's Cafe seems to wait for customers next to dozens of turnstiles and a partly smashed bank of escalators leading down to the PATH station.

"Hey, Eddie, why don't you go sit on your regular stool?" someone yells in the darkness.

A few feet south of the cafe, the floor abruptly ends, as if something has bitten it off, but a stairway near the escalators leads down to the train station, at the bottom of the basement.

Among the sodden chaos of fallen steel and cracked walls, the ceiling slopes downward on the south end of the platform at about a 20-degree angle and ultimately meets the train tracks.

Half a train car emerges from the nothingness between floor and ceiling and connects to a string of four more cars to the north.

No one was killed here. But signs of a hasty evacuation are all around. An unopened eight-ounce can of Arizona Iced Tea sits upright on a bench at the center of the platform a few feet from the crushed car.

Near a tear where the steel-reinforced guts are spilling out of the slumping ceiling, Ed Smith, a Port Authority policeman, says mournfully: "I poured that concrete out of high school."

On the way back up, the mottled and apparently charred wall of the bathtub appears in a few places. Construction crews are working to preserve the wall so that it can encircle any new buildings that rise at the site, as it did the trade towers, keeping out the waters of the Hudson.

"From the fire and whatever else happened, it's been through hell," said Frank Lombardi, chief engineer at the Port Authority, pointing to part of the bathtub wall.

But so far, he says, the wall is entirely stable.

Like miners, the group emerges into the light at the freight entrance. Mr. O'Connell is still smoking his cigar.
Caption:
Photos: Port Authority workers, right, walk through a parking garage beneath the site of the World Trade Center. The basement was once a six-level shopping center and train station as well. Now, in some places, remnants of 20 floors are compressed into 10 vertical feet. (Pool photo by John O'Boyle)(pg. B10); Parking level B3, beneath the trade center site. "For seven weeks it was surreal down here," said Thomas O'Connor, who manages work at the site for the Port Authority. (Pool photo by John O'Boyle)(pg. B1)
Chart/Diagram "Under the Rubble" shows ground zero and some of the damages caused to the surrounding area and underneath the site. (pg. B10)
<b>Three "molten metal" references:</b>
Quote:

http://www.nypost.com/movies/19574.htm
UNFLINCHING LOOK AMONG THE RUINS

By LOU LUMENICK
March 3, 2004

....... The program, running for two weeks at the Film Forum, opens with a half-hour short

called "The First 24 Hours," a verité collage of indelible images Sauret collected in and around

Ground Zero, beginning moments after the planes hit the World Trade Center.

Though brutal, those images pale beside the grisly reminiscences of firemen at the scene in

Sauret's one-hour companion piece, "Collateral Damages."

These candidly shaken macho guys recall scenes still haunting their nightmares two years after

9/11 - a 4-foot-high pile of bodies hurled from the towers, finding faces that were ripped from

heads by the violence of the collapse, and heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel. ........

D-Day: NY Sanitation Workers' Challenge of a Lifetime
... NYDS played a major role in debris removal — everything from molten steel beams to human remains — running trucks back and forth between Ground Zero and ...
www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_dday_ny_sanitation/ - 79k - May 26, 2006 -


http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
Page 3

As of 21 days after the attack, the
fires were still burning and molten
steel was still running.....
<b>....and reports by engineers of "evaporated" WTC structural steel:</b>
Quote:
A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE
Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel
New York Times, The (NY)
November 29, 2001
Author: JAMES GLANZ

.....A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to

bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the

debris pile that appear to have been <b>partly evaporated</b> in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr.

Barnett said.....
Quote:
Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies
New York Times, The (NY)
October 2, 2001
Author: KENNETH CHANG

....Two Wednesdays ago, on his first night in the city to collect scientific data on the

collapsed World Trade Center buildings, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl looked out the window of his

room at the Tribeca Grand Hotel and saw a flatbed truck parked outside.

By chance, trucks hauling steel from the trade center site paused there for an hour or two

before proceeding to the docks, where the steel was loaded onto barges.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at the University of California at

Berkeley, changed out of his nightclothes and went downstairs for a closer look. Over the next

few nights, he cataloged 30 to 40 of the mighty beams and columns as trucks stopped in front of

the hotel.

"I've found quite a number of interesting items," he said......

...Dr. Astaneh-Asl's project is one of eight financed by the National Science Foundation to study

the World Trade Center disaster. He is also a member of a team assembled by the American Society

of Civil Engineers to investigate the trade center site, and the society is dispatching a team

to examine damage to the Pentagon.

<b>One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a

47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named

because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures.

Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.</b>

Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of

burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse,

which would provide a more telling clue.

The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had

buckled outward.

"This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column," not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl

said, adding, "It had burned first, then buckled."........
Quote:
WRECKAGE YIELDS CLUES FOR THE FUTURE OF HIGH-RISES ENGINEERS EXAMINE TWISTED STEEL DEBRIS

FROM THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, SEARCHING FOR ANSWERS TO SAFETY AND CONSTRUCTION QUESTIONS TO GUIDE

PLANS FOR FUTURE BUILDINGS.
San Jose Mercury News (CA)
October 9, 2001
Author: GLENNDA CHUI, Mercury News

....The evidence was on the brink of being destroyed -- cut up for scrap and melted down to make

cars, appliances and the skeletons of more high-rises -- when he and others intervened last week

to save at least some of it......


''This is the first high-rise building I'm aware of, other than the towers themselves, that

collapsed as a result of fire,'' said Ronald Hamburger, a structural engineer with ABS

Consulting in Oakland who is on the team.

One of the support beams from Building 7 had been heated to such high temperatures that some of

the steel vaporized, said Astaneh-Asl. ''My interest, believe it or not, is higher for Building

7 than for the towers,'' he said, because it was a much more common design, used in perhaps a

dozen buildings in San Francisco and 200 nationwide. So any lessons that come out of its

collapse should be widely applicable......

Last edited by host; 05-28-2006 at 03:20 AM..
host is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 03:19 AM   #159 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
Dilbert....you're serious, aren't you?
If he wasn't serious he wouldn't be posting his opinion as such.

Please keep the tone away from mocking one's opinion.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 05-28-2006, 05:18 AM   #160 (permalink)
The Griffin
 
Hanxter's Avatar
 
like i'm gonna read all that...
Hanxter is offline  
 

Tags
attacks, questions, surrounding, terrorist, unanswered


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:39 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360