William Rodriguez Vindicated by Newly Released 9/11 Commission Notes

[Blake]

Quit being a douche. I am trying to approach this with an open mind not just accept whatever someone tells me. I have no definitive opinion on the matter and I definitely do not come with some preconceived notion or agenda. TBH I see this as a good thought exercise.

If you are truly looking for info, this isn't really the place.



As for the firefighters I do not know what they were directed to look for and quite frankly neither do you. You are hardly an authority on the matter nor do you have personal knowledge of the situation. Quit acting like you are or you do.

RG has posted numerous links to back whatver info he is claiming.

You have posted nothing except that you are smartier than everyone else in physics.

Quit being a douche.

[Galileo]

Your a sell out!

You believe anything they tell you. That picture was not even 24 hours old clean up didn't take place till weeks later. Like some fool is going to cut a steel beam at a 45 degree angle with a sharp re bar sticking in his ass?

You all can argue amongst yourselves from now on. I told you many times if your going to Bullshit me with a lie about this photo you lost all debate creds.

In a way I am Glad Chump and his salad tossing pals think this cut was done during a clean up? it really shows how desperate you all are.

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

I'm sorry, but there's enough proof that the WTC was a demolition, to not resort to bogus arguments.

What's your evidence this photo was taken within 24 hours?

Why would they need to put thermite that close to the ground?

[Blake]

I'm sorry, but there's enough proof that the WTC was a demolition, to not resort to bogus arguments.

you mean the earwitness testimony?

I thought we went over this, that "no, someone saying he heard an explosion is not considered proof"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still don't understand.

Explosives were not needed once the top of the building started falling.

There were no explosives.

There is no evidence of explosives whatsoever.

20 acres of office building can do it all by itself. Really. Go stand under 20 acres of office building, drop it and try to stop it. Let me know how it works out for you.


Every time you break a piece of structure, strain energy is consumed. The amount of strain energy built into a structure thus depends on how many times you break the parts. The amount of potential energy, PE, due to downward movement of the WTC 1 upper part mass was definitely too small to destroy the lower structure in 100 000's of pieces and dust. There is 1000 times more strain energy, SE, built into the structure below than any PE applied from above! Calculations are given below and here.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you are truly looking for info, this isn't really the place.




RG has posted numerous links to back whatver info he is claiming.

You have posted nothing except that you are smartier than everyone else in physics.

Quit being a douche.

I've never made any claim to my acumen in physics.

Also you obviously do not know the difference between looking for information and a thought exercise.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This has been thoroughly explained in the past, and they fell like they did because of how they were made. If you study the videos carefully, you see evidence of the inner core falling several seconds before the outside frame starts to come apart. These building had a huge footprint, and gravity pulls objects strait down. The joints between trusses was an insignificant length compared to the footprint to twist or bend the building any significant distance.

No I'm not. Sulfer residue was found? Is that why the thermate claim? Before it was thermite. The conspiracy theorists keep changing the story. With thermite, magnesium or and/or other elements would have been fused in the residue. With thermate, other elements yet. The residue was not consistant with either.

Buildings have steel and you can bet there was allot of aluminum there too. Enough rust from the burning fire, contact with aluminum, and the force of collapse was plenty to start a thermitic reaction. Not enough to cause any more damage because it would be trace amounts, but enough trace to register for someone looking for signs of thermite or thermate. They just didn't complete the analysis to see the other elements were missing.

ummmm.... Now keep in mind that this report is from FEMA:


FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion." Following are excerpts from Appendix C, Limited Metallurgical Examination.
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

Also if they were to design a building such that if part of it collapsed that the rest of it would collapse to in a precise manner that is pretty sad.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.ae911truth.org/:lol

Next you'll be showing the cardboard box demonstration.

[Blake]

I've never made any claim to my acumen in physics.


I know quite a bit of 'basic' science and quite a bit more than just that.

My apologies. Apparently you just know quite a bit more than just 'basic' science.


Also you obviously do not know the difference between looking for information and a thought exercise.

You obviously do not have enough correct information in order to play your thought exercise game.

[ChumpDumper]

Nevermind, I'll do it.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/Gagebox-full.jpg/Gagebox-full-full.jpg

[Blake]

:lol

Next you'll be showing the cardboard box demonstration.

It's part of his "thought exercise"

[Alex Jones]

I'm sorry, but there's enough proof that the WTC was a demolition, to not resort to bogus arguments.

Have you told that to ChumpDumper?


What's your evidence this photo was taken within 24 hours?

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091

Core column stubs at Ground Zero (source (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpg)) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for an acetylene hand torch to cut straight through. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871




Why would they need to put thermite that close to the ground?

I take it you never cut a tree down before. Just you asking this question proves you deserve any cyber ass raping Chump gives you.


9J8ojEWlkrs

[Galileo]

Have you told that to ChumpDumper?



http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091

Core column stubs at Ground Zero (source (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpg)) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for an acetylene hand torch to cut straight through. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871





I take it you never cut a tree down before. Just you asking this question proves you deserve any cyber ass raping Chump gives you.


9J8ojEWlkrs

your "souce" doesn't tell where the photo originally came from, nor more importantly, how you know that it was taken within 24 hours.

As for your "cutting down a tree" analogy, the WTC was a top down demolition. It wasn't cut down like a tree.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=5091

Core column stubs at Ground Zero (source (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/thermiteonwtccolumns.jpg)) Note the sharp 45 degree cut, with molten slag, on the massive steel column in the far background. Quite a glaring contradiction to the official theory that the Twin Towers simply collapsed spontaneously from fire and impact. This had to have been quite a talented cataclysm to make such a neat cut. Any steel worker or demolition expert will immediately recognize that such a cut in steel could only be made with some kind of torch or other method that can produce intense, sharply focused heat and energy, leaving the tell-tale slag. But this steel is way too thick for an acetylene hand torch to cut straight through. That leaves one other obvious suspect: a shaped cutter-charge.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8172271955308136871The self-written bio of the author of that piece:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/100_2349--large---small--20081019-251.jpg

Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect. I have also just come out with my first book, a combination of poetry, photography and essays entitled "Post Katrina Blues", my reflections on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans two years after Katrina struck.

I didn't see "Explosives Expert" or "Experienced Steel Structure Demolitionist" anywhere in there.

That explains how his hand torch argument is this easy to shit upon:

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

[Galileo]

The self-written bio of the author of that piece:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/100_2349--large---small--20081019-251.jpg

Student of history, religion, exoteric and esoteric, the Humanities in general and advocate for peace, justice and the unity of humankind, not through force, but through self-realization and mutual respect. I have also just come out with my first book, a combination of poetry, photography and essays entitled "Post Katrina Blues", my reflections on the Gulf Coast and New Orleans two years after Katrina struck.

I didn't see "Explosives Expert" or "Experienced Steel Structure Demolitionist" anywhere in there.

That explains how his hand torch argument is this easy to shit upon:

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

notice how Chumpdumper argues by character asassination, which has nothing to do with trying to determine when the photo in question was taken.

[ChumpDumper]

notice how Chumpdumper argues by character asassination, which has nothing to do with trying to determine when the photo in question was taken.The time really doesn't matter -- it's a hand torch used on a thick steel beam at the WTC site, which your hero:
http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/100_2349--large---small--20081019-251.jpg
says is impossible.

Notice how Galileo argues by completely failing to understand the point made and changing the subject.

[DarrinS]

Your a sell out!

You believe anything they tell you. That picture was not even 24 hours old clean up didn't take place till weeks later. Like some fool is going to cut a steel beam at a 45 degree angle with a sharp re bar sticking in his ass?

You all can argue amongst yourselves from now on. I told you many times if your going to Bullshit me with a lie about this photo you lost all debate creds.

In a way I am Glad Chump and his salad tossing pals think this cut was done during a clean up? it really shows how desperate you all are.

http://www.piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg



Infighting amongst twoofers? Thought I'd never see it.


Actually, that's what has destroyed some of these groups.


The no-planers, video fakery geeks, and energy beamers don't always see eye-to-eye with the controlled demolition w/ unnecessary hijacked planes crowd. I don't even know where the missle-hit-Pentagon people fit into the clique.

[RandomGuy]

Quit being a douche. I am trying to approach this with an open mind not just accept whatever someone tells me. I have no definitive opinion on the matter and I definitely do not come with some preconceived notion or agenda. TBH I see this as a good thought exercise.

As for the dating on the photos, where is your evidence to the time frame. At this point the entire issue sounds as a he said-she said scenario. Also usually you cut metal at 90 degree angles because its a shorter distance. It really comes down to when those pictures were taken.

And nice strawman. Noone claimed that it was 110 stories or any particular amount.

As for the firefighters I do not know what they were directed to look for and quite frankly neither do you. You are hardly an authority on the matter nor do you have personal knowledge of the situation. Quit acting like you are or you do.

1) I was deliberately trying not to be a douche. I don't know you yet. I was at all condescending, and, in case you didn't notice, I didn't insult you at all.

2) Since you have asked for a source for my claim of the dating of the photos, I will work to provide it. The debunking website I read that bit on, if memory serves, did provide sources for it. It is a common CT claim, and someone DID debunk it in that manner. Give me a bit to re-find it.

3) It isn't a strawman at all, most conspiracy theorists I have talked to insist that the entire building was wired "because there was no resistance". I merely referred to the most commonly held perception.

4) As for the firefighters, I do know what they saw because many of them have specifically addressed this in personal accounts. In the days following the attacks, it was supposed that there might have been additional bombs, and everybody at ground zero was, if I remember what I read correctly, on the lookout for such things.

I took a look into the CT claims and in the course of fact-checking them, came across enough damning material about how poorly put together the CT "claims" are to come to the conclusion that they are pretty much all full of shit, and not really worth putting any stock in on their face.

Since you have asked though, I will re-trace my steps and provide the source links required to support my conclusion. The distinguishing feature of debunking websites is that, unlike most "truth" websites, they tend to be very good about sourcing their material with outside, non-biased links.

[ChumpDumper]

Furthermore, no one ever said that every cut was made by a hand torch.

These twoofers think alike -- might have something to do with the foliage in the background of the author's picture.

[Galileo]

The time really doesn't matter -- it's a hand torch used on a thick steel beam at the WTC site, which your hero:
http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/100_2349--large---small--20081019-251.jpg
says is impossible.

Notice how Galileo argues by completely failing to understand the point made and changing the subject.

That doesn't explain when the photo was taken either.

[RandomGuy]

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html


A whole page of youtube debunking videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)

A whole page of decent debunking links and one of the best ones so far. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

I will start by selecting a link from this page.

[Galileo]

Infighting amongst twoofers? Thought I'd never see it.


Actually, that's what has destroyed some of these groups.


The no-planers, video fakery geeks, and energy beamers don't always see eye-to-eye with the controlled demolition w/ unnecessary hijacked planes crowd. I don't even know where the missle-hit-Pentagon people fit into the clique.

in-fighting between republicrats and social democrats runs pretty strong as well.

[DarrinS]

in-fighting between republicrats and social democrats runs pretty strong as well.


I actually see eye-to-eye with them on this dumbass issue.

[RandomGuy]

Well shit that took less than a minute.

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

I will add the material in an edit to this post.

http://www.debunking911.com/angcut.jpg

There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...


Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.


Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.

The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.

The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html

Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.\
http://www.debunking911.com/anglecut2.jpg
October

http://www.debunking911.com/fireman.jpg
December 15th 2001

So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.

Angle and yellow residue

Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we're talking about "Scholars" here.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/cut2.jpg

Once again, a close up of their column...
http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg

Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=13

The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=73

Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc


54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.

Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:


A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe


One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.


Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.

http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg

The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."

[DarrinS]

Furthermore, no one ever said that every cut was made by a hand torch.

These twoofers think alike -- might have something to do with the foliage in the background of the author's picture.


LMAO -- I didn't even notice that.

Was that photo taken in Mouse's back yard?

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't explain when the photo was taken either.It doesn't matter when the photo was taken. A hand torch is being used to cut a beam the author claims is too thick to be cut by a hand torch. Therefore, his claim that a hand torch could not have been used to cut the beams at the WTC site has been proven to be completely false.

If you can't understand that, you have no business making arguments in this thread.

[Galileo]

Well shit that took less than a minute.

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

I will add the material in an edit to this post.

This doesn't really explain when the photo was taken, it only points out that firemen were on the scene weeks after 9/11, which doesn't surprise me. Pretty weak debunking attempt.

If you need some help, please let me know.

[RandomGuy]

Finding the quote from the firefighter talking specifically about not seeing any remnants of demolition devices will have to wait.

I will find it and post it as time allows.

[RandomGuy]

Finding the quote from the firefighter talking specifically about not seeing any remnants of demolition devices will have to wait.

I will find it and post it as time allows.

Now that I think about it, the quote may have been from a demolition expert. Hmmm.

The hazards of relying on memory.

[RandomGuy]

This doesn't really explain when the photo was taken, it only points out that firemen were on the scene weeks after 9/11, which doesn't surprise me. Pretty weak debunking attempt.

If you need some help, please let me know.

Meh. It was the first relevant hit I found. I remember reading some website where they actually linked the picture to a date with some substantiation. I could be mistaken about this, but usually am not.

The whole CT argument about it though is just as weak. The problem for them is that they can't date the photograph either, so they can't really credibily make the claim that the photgraph represents what they say it does and not the specific action of a welder clearing the debris afterwards.

One can't claim that it was BEFORE the clean up if one doesn't have proof about the timing of the photo.

Have YOU ever seen an attempt to date/time that photograph?

If you really have an open mind about this and are doing a thought experiment on it, you have to consider that you can't make claims about such things EITHER way if you can't date it.

The reasonable explanation here is that the picture was taken after clean up had begun, given no contravening evidence.

Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpgHere's an article providing a likely explanation for the molten metal flow: lead from a huge bank of uninterruptible power supplies.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2008/03/nist-confirms-ups-on-81st-floor-of-wtc2.html

[The Power Hour.]

If you can't understand that, you have no business making arguments in this thread.


What do you see in this picture?

http://cougarconnect.com/images/dirty%20room.jpg

If your mouse,Galileo,or Alex Jones
you see a room that is very messy

If your RandomLie,Chump or Blake you see a room someone tried to clean up.

But in this photo where in the hell is someone going to stand in order to cut one beam when there is so much around that needs to be done?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/april2006/240406thermite1.jpg



Why would someone craw through all that mess to cut a beam that is not in the way of anything?

Anyone who thinks someone actually walked through that hot re-bar to cut that one beam deserves to be place in the same group with the Bigfoot watchers fan club.

here make your new hat your in the club.

http://www.chicagofoil.com/images/foil/foil-pop-up-sheets.jpg

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/testimonials/afdbtest.bbjjjb.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

But in this photo where in the heel is someone going to stand in order to cut one beam when there is so much around that needs to be done?

Why would someone craw through all that mess to cut a beam that is not in the way of anything?

Anyone who thinks someone actually walked through that hot re-bar to cut that one beam deserves to be place in the same group with the Bigfoot watchers fan club.Chances are the person who cut the beam was put into place with a cherry picker or other such mechanism.

Like so:
http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

Did you all just get together and decide collectively pretend this photo doesn't exist?

[The Power Hour.]

Chances are..........

I thought you only posted the facts? I may want to use that "Chances are" quote myself.

[ChumpDumper]

I thought you only posted the facts? I may want to use that "Chances are" quote myself.Chances are you'll do so in a really stupid way.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol

Next you'll be showing the cardboard box demonstration.

Nice strawman.

The sight i cited is run by a professional architect and the contributing information is from architects and engineers. Yeah what the fuck would they know.

The logic is actually sound. Its called the conservation of energy

The braces in the lower portions by the fact that the building is standing are designed to hold up '20 acres' of building. Essentially what you are saying is that when the upper portion fell it produced enough additional kinetic energy that it was able to break the next section and the next and the next etc. It was able to do this in such a manner that the breaking occurred in symmetry so as to not cause the whole thing to start to topple over.

Like Darrin I am ME and I do have an understanding how trusses work and how various forces applied to them effect them. How you can think that a section of steel girders that was heated unevenly would cause a breakage that was uniform and not provide any torque is quite frankly beyond me. The fact that it did not happen that way once but instead several times is even more hilarious.

What I find REALLY funny is that you buy the concept that a fire that burns at 425 degrees is going to superheat the gas which BTW is able to ventilate to over 1000 degrees to transfer and localize the heat to cause the steel to lose its rigidity at over 1000 degrees. It was the office furniture right?

You are starting to resort to strawmen and ad hominem attacks which is typically the first sign that you have no leg to stand on.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1) I was deliberately trying not to be a douche. I don't know you yet. I was at all condescending, and, in case you didn't notice, I didn't insult you at all.

2) Since you have asked for a source for my claim of the dating of the photos, I will work to provide it. The debunking website I read that bit on, if memory serves, did provide sources for it. It is a common CT claim, and someone DID debunk it in that manner. Give me a bit to re-find it.

3) It isn't a strawman at all, most conspiracy theorists I have talked to insist that the entire building was wired "because there was no resistance". I merely referred to the most commonly held perception.

4) As for the firefighters, I do know what they saw because many of them have specifically addressed this in personal accounts. In the days following the attacks, it was supposed that there might have been additional bombs, and everybody at ground zero was, if I remember what I read correctly, on the lookout for such things.

I took a look into the CT claims and in the course of fact-checking them, came across enough damning material about how poorly put together the CT "claims" are to come to the conclusion that they are pretty much all full of shit, and not really worth putting any stock in on their face.

Since you have asked though, I will re-trace my steps and provide the source links required to support my conclusion. The distinguishing feature of debunking websites is that, unlike most "truth" websites, they tend to be very good about sourcing their material with outside, non-biased links.

If you could sow the citations that would be cool.

[Galileo]

Meh. It was the first relevant hit I found. I remember reading some website where they actually linked the picture to a date with some substantiation. I could be mistaken about this, but usually am not.

The whole CT argument about it though is just as weak. The problem for them is that they can't date the photograph either, so they can't really credibily make the claim that the photgraph represents what they say it does and not the specific action of a welder clearing the debris afterwards.

One can't claim that it was BEFORE the clean up if one doesn't have proof about the timing of the photo.

Have YOU ever seen an attempt to date/time that photograph?

If you really have an open mind about this and are doing a thought experiment on it, you have to consider that you can't make claims about such things EITHER way if you can't date it.

The reasonable explanation here is that the picture was taken after clean up had begun, given no contravening evidence.

Remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I think Jim Hoffman debunked the photo. It was taken during cleanup.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice strawman.

The sight i cited is run by a professional architect and the contributing information is from architects and engineers. Yeah what the fuck would they know.

The logic is actually sound. Its called the conservation of energy

The braces in the lower portions by the fact that the building is standing are designed to hold up '20 acres' of building. Essentially what you are saying is that when the upper portion fell it produced enough additional kinetic energy that it was able to break the next section and the next and the next etc. It was able to do this in such a manner that the breaking occurred in symmetry so as to not cause the whole thing to start to topple over.The towers did topple initially, but that force that tipped it turned out not to be stronger than the force of gravity. Go figure.


Like Darrin I am ME and I do have an understanding how trusses work and how various forces applied to them effect them. How you can think that a section of steel girders that was heated unevenly would cause a breakage that was uniform and not provide any torque is quite frankly beyond me. The fact that it did not happen that way once but instead several times is even more hilarious.The breakage was not uniform initially, but once things got going it really did not matter. Gravity works in one direction.


What I find REALLY funny is that you buy the concept that a fire that burns at 425 degrees is going to superheat the gas which BTW is able to ventilate to over 1000 degrees to transfer and localize the heat to cause the steel to lose its rigidity at over 1000 degrees. It was the office furniture right?425 degrees is your strawman.


You are starting to resort to strawmen and ad hominem attacks which is typically the first sign that you have no leg to stand on.No, I pretty much insult everyone I think is an idiot. The fact you don't seem to know what gravity does tells me all I need to know.

I will hereby predict that when I ask you this question, you will become a pussy:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The towers did topple initially, but that force that tipped it turned out not to be stronger than the force of gravity. Go figure.

The breakage was not uniform initially, but once things got going it really did not matter. Gravity works in one direction.

425 degrees is your strawman.

No, I pretty much insult everyone I think is an idiot. The fact you don't seem to know what gravity does tells me all I need to know.

I will hereby predict that when I ask you this question, you will become a pussy:

What do you think really happened on 9/11?

I have no idea what happened but I do have serious questions about the official explanation. Thats not me being a pussy; it just me not willing to make shit up.

Oh and apparently you do not understand how gravity works. If you place torque on a ball which causes it rotate and then drop it its still going to rotate. You see it all the time in basketball. Its called backspin.

Actually in general you do not understand how forces work. I predict when you try and explain it this time you will become a dumbass.

425 degrees is the temperature that jet fuel burns at. I am noticing that you do not know the physical properties of that which you support.

[ChumpDumper]

Well you have certainly earned your pussy status.

And you are definitely an idiot for:

1) Comparing the wtc towers to basketballs.

2) Thinking jet fuel was the only thing that burned in those buildings.

Congratulations on your twofer.

[Galileo]

The Towering Inferno was fully engaged with fire.

The Towering Inferno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Towering_Inferno_(film)

How come it did not pancake down?

[Blake]

Like Darrin I am ME and I do have an understanding how trusses work and how various forces applied to them effect them. How you can think that a section of steel girders that was heated unevenly would cause a breakage that was uniform and not provide any torque is quite frankly beyond me. The fact that it did not happen that way once but instead several times is even more hilarious.



Keep up the good work Fuzz and you just might pass up Gal, Nbadan and Mouse and take the top spot on the 9/11 bunk charts.

How you can think you are smarter than the National Institute of Standards and Technology is beyond me. The fact that you have alluded to this not just once but several times is hilarious.



Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm



lol, twoofers

[mouse]

I hate to say this but the debate is 60/40 with the 9/11 truth seekers kicking ass. :tu


b_SDGb-TJcU

[Wild Cobra]

The Towering Inferno was fully engaged with fire.

The Towering Inferno
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Towering_Inferno_(film)

How come it did not pancake down?
Because it didn't have structural damage too.

[Galileo]

Because it didn't have structural damage too.

WTC 7 didn't have structural damage.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well you have certainly earned your pussy status.

And you are definitely an idiot for:

1) Comparing the wtc towers to basketballs.

2) Thinking jet fuel was the only thing that burned in those buildings.

Congratulations on your twofer.

You know what you can kiss my ass. As I said you would be the dumbass and hide behind bluster. All this is one big ad hominem.

1) It was an illustration to explain to you how once you apply torque to an object, applying a force through the axis is not going to alter the spin. Just becasue you do not understand it does not make it true. In fact its true for any shape be it a ball a disc or a section of a building. Its called inertia perhaps you should look it up.

2) I never said it was the only thing that burned in there but it was certainly the hottest. Thats the point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Keep up the good work Fuzz and you just might pass up Gal, Nbadan and Mouse and take the top spot on the 9/11 bunk charts.

How you can think you are smarter than the National Institute of Standards and Technology is beyond me. The fact that you have alluded to this not just once but several times is hilarious.





lol, twoofers

Its pretty sad that you guys are resorting to this shit. Make an argument other than its true because these guys said so.

Do you know what the NIST is or who runs it or who wrote the report or what analysis they used to come to the conclusions they didor are you just accepting it becasue youre too intellectually lazy to verify it yourself?

You know in all the videos all that smoke and shit coming out of the buildings? Well that is a whole shit ton of heat escaping. You do understand that the whole damn thing heats up so its not the fire that has to reach 1000 degrees but instead all of the steel and concrete etc and I am sorry but I just do not buy that.

I also do not buy that when the damage to the supports etc occurred more on one side yet the whole thing breaks apart simultaneously.

[Blake]

I hate to say this but the debate is 60/40 with the 9/11 truth seekers kicking ass. :tu


b_SDGb-TJcU

so you are saying Bush knew about all of this?

why did he want WTC 7 to come down?

[Re-Animator]

You know what you can kiss my ass. As I said you would be the dumbass

Can we trade this guy to the dark side? he is not helping our cause.

[ChumpDumper]

You know what you can kiss my ass. As I said you would be the dumbass and hide behind bluster. All this is one big ad hominem.Absolutely not.


1) It was an illustration to explain to you how once you apply torque to an object, applying a force through the axis is not going to alter the spin. Just becasue you do not understand it does not make it true. In fact its true for any shape be it a ball a disc or a section of a building. Its called inertia perhaps you should look it up.If you put a hand under a falling ball that has back spin, it stops spinning. That's why your analogy is stupid.


2) I never said it was the only thing that burned in there but it was certainly the hottest. Thats the point.You personally know everything in each building, its burning point and how much heat it could transfer? Please show your work.


Its pretty sad that you guys are resorting to this shit. Make an argument other than its true because these guys said so.

Do you know what the NIST is or who runs it or who wrote the report or what analysis they used to come to the conclusions they didor are you just accepting it becasue youre too intellectually lazy to verify it yourself?I know exactly who runs the NIST and who wrote the reports. It's quite easy to see.

What have you personally done to verify or disprove their conclusions? Please be specific.


You know in all the videos all that smoke and shit coming out of the buildings? Well that is a whole shit ton of heat escaping. You do understand that the whole damn thing heats up so its not the fire that has to reach 1000 degrees but instead all of the steel and concrete etc and I am sorry but I just do not buy that.Again, twoofers have no sense of scale. There was still a shit ton of heat inside the building.


I also do not buy that when the damage to the supports etc occurred more on one side yet the whole thing breaks apart simultaneously.You should look at the closeup videos of the collapse, but I know you won't.

[Re-Animator]

so you are saying Bush knew about all of this?

why did he want WTC 7 to come down?


Bush didn't want anything to come down, he just wanted an excuse to go to Iraq and he got it. I don't even think Bush and the others thought so many people would die. They figured they would all evacuate in time.

It was a good idea at the time and it went wrong. The only reason people like Galileo and myself want the truth is because the Bush administration tried to cover things up, they fucked up hiding shit, WTF there where over 80 cameras at the Pentagon and we get 5 still frames?

All that guilty behavior made them look suspicious, You all should be wanting to know the question you ask for your own personal reasons. Don't make us do all your dirty work.

[Blake]

Its pretty sad that you guys are resorting to this shit. Make an argument other than its true because these guys said so.

so it's not true because YOU say so?

who are you again?

Oh that's right.......you referred to yourself as "ME" and you know more than 'basic' science..........which must trump the NIST idiots in your world.


Do you know what the NIST is or who runs it or who wrote the report or what analysis they used to come to the conclusions they didor are you just accepting it becasue youre too intellectually lazy to verify it yourself?

the NIST reports are sound enough for me, but if you have ideas or evidence of what really happened that can disprove the NIST's findings, please feel free to elaborate on your "thought exercise".


You know in all the videos all that smoke and shit coming out of the buildings? Well that is a whole shit ton of heat escaping. You do understand that the whole damn thing heats up so its not the fire that has to reach 1000 degrees but instead all of the steel and concrete etc and I am sorry but I just do not buy that.

I also do not buy that when the damage to the supports etc occurred more on one side yet the whole thing breaks apart simultaneously.

If it was controlled demolitions, then where is the physical evidence, who was behind it and why? Why did they also want WTC 7 to come down?

Thought Exercise.

[Blake]

Bush didn't want anything to come down, he just wanted an excuse to go to Iraq and he got it.

so he didn't think a couple of planes would take down some buildings?

and if he didn't want anything to come down, then why was there a controlled demolition according to the truth gang?


I don't even think Bush and the others thought so many people would die. They figured they would all evacuate in time.

right, because logically, death is never involved in plane crashes.



It was a good idea at the time and it went wrong.

what exactly was a "good idea"?


The only reason people like Galileo and myself want the truth is because the Bush administration tried to cover things up, they fucked up hiding shit, WTF there where over 80 cameras at the Pentagon and we get 5 still frames?

What exactly has Bush covered up?


All that guilty behavior made them look suspicious, You all should be wanting to know the question you ask for your own personal reasons. Don't make us do all your dirty work.

what guilty behavior? what question?

You twoofers are the ones that keep starting these threads and claim conspiracy but instead of showing hard proof, you want someone like me to disprove your conspiracies.

Stop making me do all your dirty work.

[Wild Cobra]

WTC 7 didn't have structural damage.
It had all kinds of damage. What ever you're smoking, I'd sure like some so I can forget the current government we have.

[ChumpDumper]

It had all kinds of damage. What ever you're smoking, I'd sure like some so I can forget the current government we have.Talk to this guy:

http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/100_2349--large---small--20081019-251.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

WTC 7 didn't have structural damage.

Think of the force it takes to throw debris from WTC 1 as far as it went, to the other side of Bldg 7:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Wtc7onfire-edit.jpg

Look at the proximity of the buildings and note the named items:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Complexview-edit.jpg

Now look at this picture taken before Bldg 7 fell:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/promenadeandbridge-edit.jpg

There is no clear picture I've seen, but NIST forensic reports have WTC 7 taking major structural damage to the front from WTC 1. There is a good view of damage to the front side from the 18th floor down. Extensive damage cannot be ruled out to the front:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/untitled-1.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Absolutely not.

If you put a hand under a falling ball that has back spin, it stops spinning. That's why your analogy is stupid.

You claimed that gravity stopped any torque I just gave you a simple example of how that was false. I never claimed a similarity between the behavior of the building and a ball.

I anything the behavior would be similar to dropping a plate like a free weight when you do that and it hits one edge that edge recoils and you get a clattering effect. If you were to drop said plate onto a comprssible column of equal diameter the only way that you could get its to compress stright down would be to drop it neraly perfectly horizontal. If you were to spin it or drop it at an angle it would compress one side first and then slide off.


You personally know everything in each building, its burning point and how much heat it could transfer? Please show your work.

You don't need to. Really what you can do is determine that amount of concrete and steel that is in the building and using specific heat determine how much energy would be required to heat all of it to 1000 degrees.

Someones already done that leg work and if you really want I can post it here. It doesn't add up.


I know exactly who runs the NIST and who wrote the reports. It's quite easy to see.

and......


What have you personally done to verify or disprove their conclusions? Please be specific.

Thats immaterial. Quite frankly a lot of it is prima facia. Nice red herring though.


Again, twoofers have no sense of scale. There was still a shit ton of heat inside the building.

What is easier to heat up: your house or your car? I mean really since you want to talk about scale and how its important you should consider this question. I think if you think really hard you can figure out the significance.


You should look at the closeup videos of the collapse, but I know you won't.

I actually have and more than just that. What really concerns me is that there is no evidence of what I would expect from having one floor fail to fall and hit the next floor causing it to fail and so forth which would result in a stuttering acceleration. The motion is fluid.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can we trade this guy to the dark side? he is not helping our cause.

You're right man it wasn't cool. I didn't appreciate having my intelligence insulted so I responded in kind. It was obviously the response he was hoping for, but sorry for that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so it's not true because YOU say so?

who are you again?

Oh that's right.......you referred to yourself as "ME" and you know more than 'basic' science..........which must trump the NIST idiots in your world.

I didn't just say so. I went through and gave logical reaoning concerning the heat generated by fuel the nature of the collapse etc. Its pretty evident that you just want to get into a pissing contest.

Its actually cute the tiff that you are having over my use of the terms 'thought exercise' and 'science.' Hey you keep going with your bad self.


the NIST reports are sound enough for me, but if you have ideas or evidence of what really happened that can disprove the NIST's findings, please feel free to elaborate on your "thought exercise".

It actually contradicts a lot of what was in the FEMA report. It has internal contradictions concerning what fires were occuring at what times and at what intervals. Its models do not match with the actual data etc.


If it was controlled demolitions, then where is the physical evidence, who was behind it and why? Why did they also want WTC 7 to come down?

Thought Exercise.

Who cares of the why? and there is evidence of explosives in the FEMA report when they talk about the melting of the steel and the elements including sulfur that were found tehrein. It could not be accounted for by the contents of the building and certainly not in the amounts that it was found.

[ChumpDumper]

You claimed that gravity stopped any torque I just gave you a simple example of how that was false. I never claimed a similarity between the behavior of the building and a ball.I claimed that no force that was causing the top of the building to tilt was stronger than the force of gravity. Are you seriously arguing that it was stronger than gravity?


I anything the behavior would be similar to dropping a plate like a free weight when you do that and it hits one edge that edge recoils and you get a clattering effect. If you were to drop said plate onto a comprssible column of equal diameter the only way that you could get its to compress stright down would be to drop it neraly perfectly horizontal. If you were to spin it or drop it at an angle it would compress one side first and then slide off.So now you are saying the twin towers were solid objects. I disagree.


You don't need to. Really what you can do is determine that amount of concrete and steel that is in the building and using specific heat determine how much energy would be required to heat all of it to 1000 degrees. Now you are saying the entire building would have to be heated to 1000 degrees. I disagree.


Someones already done that leg work and if you really want I can post it here. It doesn't add up.Somebody has already been a dumbass here.


Thats immaterial. Quite frankly a lot of it is prima facia. Nice red herring though.So you have personally done nothing to verify or disprove their conclusions. Lazy.


What is easier to heat up: your house or your car? I mean really since you want to talk about scale and how its important you should consider this question. I think if you think really hard you can figure out the significance You analogies significantly suck.


I actually have and more than just that. What really concerns me is that there is no evidence of what I would expect from having one floor fail to fall and hit the next floor causing it to fail and so forth which would result in a stuttering acceleration. The motion is fluid.So arguing from incredulity is your strategy. Fine.

[mouse]

so he didn't think a couple of planes would take down some buildings?


Like I really have to explain Bush to you?
He didn't care if any building fell or not. He just wanted America to be attacked like Pearl Harbor. Bush doesn't really look at all the details, your talking about a man who asked ORHA to come up with a plan to rebuild Iraq and gave them only 60 days notice.




and if he didn't want anything to come down, then why was there a controlled demolition according to the truth gang?

I said Bush didn't care either way what fell down and what didn't. The owner of the WTC towers was going to have to spend Billions removing the asbestos maybe he wanted them down why not ask Chump he is the man with all the answers.





right, because logically, death is never involved in plane crashes.

Bush knew people would die, I don't think he knew it would be around 3,000





what exactly was a "good idea"?

One word ........................


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/abc_halliburton_sign5_071203_ssh.jpg

Vice president Dick Cheney was an Ex CEO you do the math.






What exactly has Bush covered up?

Your really serious?




what guilty behavior? what question?

Not going alone to answer questions about 9/11 why did he have to go with Dick?


You twoofers are the ones that keep starting these threads and claim conspiracy but instead of showing hard proof, you want someone like me to disprove your conspiracies.

Seems like 90% of Americans feel they was lied to so we are not alone.


Stop making me do all your dirty work.

If you call wanting the truth dirty? then you can stay with your white lies.

[mouse]

You're right man it wasn't cool. I didn't appreciate having my intelligence insulted so I responded in kind. It was obviously the response he was hoping for, but sorry for that.

We need Fuzzy! He may have a short fuse but he makes it up with his passion and fresh info he brings to the topic! We need him to rid this site of the thick headed Bush lovers. :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I claimed that no force that was causing the top of the building to tilt was stronger than the force of gravity. Are you seriously arguing that it was stronger than gravity?

/sigh the two forces do not work in opposition thats been my entire point. One moves horizontally and the other vertically. Whats obvious is that you do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of how to add vectors in more than one dimension.


So now you are saying the twin towers were solid objects. I disagree.

Nice strawman. I never said that it was a solid object. It called using a simpler model for the sake of discussion. Instead I would call it a layering of steel mesh. It still breaks and compresses or the tower would have never come down.


Now you are saying the entire building would have to be heated to 1000 degrees. I disagree.

With what? the 1000 degrees or the entire building? If your saying the entire building then I would agree with you. You would still need to determine the concrete and steel in the section of the building. If youre arguing the 1000 degrees then I do not knwo what to say considering thats what NIST contends. You don't even understand vectors so.....


Somebody has already been a dumbass here.

So you have personally done nothing to verify or disprove their conclusions. Lazy.

You analogies significantly suck.

Its amazing how much of your argument relies on ad himinem. Your the one that mentioned scale.

There was 'a lot of heat' in there you said. Well no shit, thanks. The issue of scale thats important though is that in larger spaces or '20 acres' as your so fond of saying requires more energy. In this sense, the bigger the scale, the more energy is required to raise the temperature.

Youre making the claim that we don't understand scale when its evident that your the one lacking in perspective.


So arguing from incredulity is your strategy. Fine.

No its called deduction. The NIST report for example reports the time it took for the WTC7 to collapse to be 5.5 seconds. I invite you to time the time it takes for building to collapse. There are plenty of videos out there and look at the time stamps and subtract them. Tell me what you come up with.

[Alex Jones]

FuzzyLumpkins (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=2456) is kicking ass tonight! :tu

[The Power Hour.]

Think of the force it takes to throw debris from WTC 1 as far as it went, to the other side of Bldg 7:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Wtc7onfire-edit.jpg

Look at the proximity of the buildings and note the named items:



Now look at this picture taken before Bldg 7 fell:



There is no clear picture I've seen, but NIST forensic reports have WTC 7 taking major structural damage to the front from WTC 1. There is a good view of damage to the front side from the 18th floor down. Extensive damage cannot be ruled out to the front:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/untitled-1.jpg



Debunked!

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/ddd.jpg


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/dd-1.jpg

[The Power Hour.]

If wild Cobra had his way he would blame WTC7 on Godzilla.





http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/chump.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

/sigh the two forces do not work in opposition thats been my entire point. One moves horizontally and the other vertically. Whats obvious is that you do not have even a rudimentary knowledge of how to add vectors in more than one dimension.So if a ball with backspin is pulled out of the air, it stops spinning and goes down. There you go.



Nice strawman. I never said that it was a solid object.You tried to make an analogy with two solid objects.
It called using a simpler model for the sake of discussion. Instead I would call it a layering of steel mesh. It still breaks and compresses or the tower would have never come down.Why don't you call them cardboard boxes so I can post the picture of your hero again.


With what? the 1000 degrees or the entire building? If your saying the entire building then I would agree with you.:lmao
You would still need to determine the concrete and steel in the section of the building.So now you are agreeing with my disagreeing with you. :tu


Its amazing how much of your argument relies on ad himinem. Your the one that mentioned scale.Right, because you and your ilk simply cannot grasp how big these building actually were. You try to make them solid plates or cardboard boxes or basketballs and think you got it figured out.


There was 'a lot of heat' in there you said. Well no shit, thanks.You're welcome.


The issue of scale thats important though is that in larger spaces or '20 acres' as your so fond of saying requires more energy. In this sense, the bigger the scale, the more energy is required to raise the temperature.Yep, and there was enough to clearly deform the building before it collapsed.


Youre making the claim that we don't understand scale when its evident that your the one lacking in perspective.Right, it's more like a basketball backspinning onto a weight plate. Perfect.



No its called deduction. The NIST report for example reports the time it took for the WTC7 to collapse to be 5.5 seconds. I invite you to time the time it takes for building to collapse. There are plenty of videos out there and look at the time stamps and subtract them. Tell me what you come up with.Closer to 15 seconds from the actual beginning of the collapse that twoofers cut out of all their videos. Now you are cherry picking from edited YouTubes. Congratulations, you have destroyed your credibility.

[Laker Lanny]

Chump is standing firm and holding his ground! :tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So if a ball with backspin is pulled out of the air, it stops spinning and goes down. There you go.


Pulled by what? Youre talking about applying some unnamed amorphous external fantasy force. Its not only vectors you are clueless about its also on how to model phenomenon.


You tried to make an analogy with two solid objects.Why don't you call them cardboard boxes so I can post the picture of your hero again.

Youre the one that likes to talk about laziness. Dear lord youre bad. I woould ask you to explain why the model is ineffective but seeing how you lack the ability to interpret force vectors I know youre incapable of doing that.

If you hit a steel mesh on the side its going to tilt.


:lmaoSo now you are agreeing with my disagreeing with you. :tu

It was still a strawman and the point still stands an office fire + jet fuel != 1000 degrees.


Right, because you and your ilk simply cannot grasp how big these building actually were. You try to make them solid plates or cardboard boxes or basketballs and think you got it figured out.

:rolleyes

What you fail to understand is that unless the scale is approaching 90% of the speed of light or goes down about the size of a planck length that Newton's Laws apply. Scale doesn't mean shit.

This is a really nice spin though. You were talking scale in terms of the temperature becasue that was what you quoted and it proceeded right after you commenting on how much heat there was.

But you see thats whats funny. I do know how to work with force vectors and I do understand radiant and specific heats. You on the other hand seem to say, 'gee golly, that skyscraper sure is big, those guys at NIST must be right.'


Right, it's more like a basketball backspinning onto a weight plate. Perfect.

See its funny how you use this tactic to try and cover up how you really do not understand something. I never said that and its pretty sad how you do this.


Closer to 15 seconds from the actual beginning of the collapse that twoofers cut out of all their videos. Now you are cherry picking from edited YouTubes. Congratulations, you have destroyed your credibility.

Really provide some evidence showing that the videos that deomnstrate a but under 4 seconds were doctored. I made a cursory look found nothing. You claimed I was lazy if I couldn't back up what I said so lets see how much of a hypocrite you are.

[Stacie]

Fuzzy 9

Chump 9

this shit is tight!

[911]

J0Qu6eyyr4c

[ChumpDumper]

Pulled by what?Gra

vi

ty.


Youre talking about applying some unnamed amorphous external fantasy force. Its not only vectors you are clueless about its also on how to model phenomenon.If you want to argue against the existence of gravity, that is completely your business. I insist it exists.



Youre the one that likes to talk about laziness. Dear lord youre bad. I woould ask you to explain why the model is ineffective but seeing how you lack the ability to interpret force vectors I know youre incapable of doing that.The towers were not solid.


If you hit a steel mesh on the side its going to tilt.And if it falls down at the same time?



It was still a strawman and the point still stands an office fire + jet fuel != 1000 degrees.Why not. Which tests have you conducted to disprove this?



What you fail to understand is that unless the scale is approaching 90% of the speed of light or goes down about the size of a planck length that Newton's Laws apply. Scale doesn't mean shit.:rollin

Scale means nothing! It's a basketball falling on a weight plate!


This is a really nice spin though. You were talking scale in terms of the temperature becasue that was what you quoted and it proceeded right after you commenting on how much heat there was.

But you see thats whats funny. I do know how to work with force vectors and I do understand radiant and specific heats. You on the other hand seem to say, 'gee golly, that skyscraper sure is big, those guys at NIST must be right.'So tell us all what was in each tower and their burning temperatures and their heat transfer to the building.

Show us all your work.



See its funny how you use this tactic to try and cover up how you really do not understand something. I never said that and its pretty sad how you do this.Oh, I'm sorry. First you said it was a spinning basketball, then you said it was two solid weight plates. Let's just say it was a weight plate with backspin falling on another weight plate.



Really provide some evidence showing that the videos that deomnstrate a but under 4 seconds were doctored. I made a cursory look found nothing. You claimed I was lazy if I couldn't back up what I said so lets see how much of a hypocrite you are.:lmao You can't find a video of the entire collapse?

You're an idiot.

Or lazy.

Or a liar.

CLHwvwJCmgk

[ChumpDumper]

As for the temperature argument, what is your evidence that office fires don't get that hot?

All one has to do is look at the temperatures recorded in simulated office fires for tests like the Building Research Establishment Test in the UK done three years before 9/11.

I'll let you see if you can find that one on your own. Good luck!

[Professor Lilloman]

What I don't get is why a so called "collapsed" building would have huge clouds of crystallized cement many blocks away. What would cause cement to turn to powder and cause millions of paper to shred into 1 inch pieces? Wouldn't a collapsed building have many floors with trapped office furniture?

[DarrinS]

What I don't get is why a so called "collapsed" building would have huge clouds of crystallized cement many blocks away. What would cause cement to turn to powder and cause millions of paper to shred into 1 inch pieces? Wouldn't a collapsed building have many floors with trapped office furniture?



Ah, the internet is full of armchair structural engineers, demolition experts, and forensic scientists.


What's really at the heart of the "twoof" movement is ignorance, plain and simple.


But what's really sad is that most of you are completely devoid of common sense.

[Blake]

You're right man it wasn't cool. I didn't appreciate having my intelligence insulted so I responded in kind. It was obviously the response he was hoping for, but sorry for that.

Then stop insulting your intelligence

[Blake]

I didn't just say so. I went through and gave logical reaoning concerning the heat generated by fuel the nature of the collapse etc. Its pretty evident that you just want to get into a pissing contest.


Logical to who? you?

Who are you again that you are a better source of 9/11 information than NIST?

It's pretty evident that you think you are smarter than the NIST.


Its actually cute the tiff that you are having over my use of the terms 'thought exercise' and 'science.' Hey you keep going with your bad self.

Obviously you don't know the difference between 'tiff' and 'thought exercise'.

Hey, you keep going with your bad posts.


It actually contradicts a lot of what was in the FEMA report. It has internal contradictions concerning what fires were occuring at what times and at what intervals. Its models do not match with the actual data etc.

Be specific.

What exactly is the contradiction and what is your source?


Who cares of the why? and there is evidence of explosives in the FEMA report when they talk about the melting of the steel and the elements including sulfur that were found tehrein. It could not be accounted for by the contents of the building and certainly not in the amounts that it was found.

there is no evidence of explosives.

You keep going with your bad posts.

[Blake]

Like I really have to explain Bush to you?
He didn't care if any building fell or not. He just wanted America to be attacked like Pearl Harbor. Bush doesn't really look at all the details, your talking about a man who asked ORHA to come up with a plan to rebuild Iraq and gave them only 60 days notice.

great mouse. Since Bush didn't care if the buildings came down, who wired the buildings for demolition?



I said Bush didn't care either way what fell down and what didn't. The owner of the WTC towers was going to have to spend Billions removing the asbestos maybe he wanted them down why not ask Chump he is the man with all the answers.

so Bush filled Silverstein in on the information and Silverstein decided to take advantage of it so he could save money on asbestos removal.

Why would Bush care about Silverstein's buildings?

I'm asking you because you are the one claiming conspiracy.


Bush knew people would die, I don't think he knew it would be around 3,000

how many people did Bush think would die?



One word ........................


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Blotter/abc_halliburton_sign5_071203_ssh.jpg

Vice president Dick Cheney was an Ex CEO you do the math.


so why did they go the whole WMD route?

9/11 was a waste of time for them then.


Your really serious?

obviously you and Alex and Stacie and Professor Lilloman and 911 aren't.


Not going alone to answer questions about 9/11 why did he have to go with Dick?

If you can't answer the questions then why do you think there is a conspiracy?


Seems like 90% of Americans feel they was lied to so we are not alone.

How many Americans feel that Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks?

I think you are closer to being alone than you think.


If you call wanting the truth dirty? then you can stay with your white lies.

I want the truth too. You just don't have any truth that you can prove. You can stay under your black lies.

[Blake]

We need Fuzzy! He may have a short fuse but he makes it up with his passion and fresh info he brings to the topic! We need him to rid this site of the thick headed Bush lovers. :tu

I definitely like having fuzzy around because he brings fresh ignorance to the topic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then stop insulting your intelligence

You certainly are acting like you have an inferiority complex.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Gra

vi

ty.

If you want to argue against the existence of gravity, that is completely your business. I insist it exists.


The towers were not solid.

And if it falls down at the same time?


Why not. Which tests have you conducted to disprove this?


:rollin

Scale means nothing! It's a basketball falling on a weight plate!

So tell us all what was in each tower and their burning temperatures and their heat transfer to the building.

Show us all your work.


Oh, I'm sorry. First you said it was a spinning basketball, then you said it was two solid weight plates. Let's just say it was a weight plate with backspin falling on another weight plate.


:lmao You can't find a video of the entire collapse?

You're an idiot.

Or lazy.

Or a liar.

CLHwvwJCmgk

I used the basketball as an example of how gravity will not impact spin. I chose a basket ball because the type of forum that this is. According to you when gravity is acting on an object them it will impact its spin. I used the basketball as a simple example of how that is just not true. You cannot argue that so you genuflect with strawmen. I suppose ignorance is bliss.

I never said it was a basketball but apparently when you do not understand something you make stupid comments like this. You never adequately argue that gravity does not effect spin you just make remarks like the one above hoping that other people are just as ignorant as you are.

Quite frankly, the majority of what you try and pass for an argument are smilies and ad hominem. You're focus is more trying ot get a reaction out of someone rather than provide anything substantive.

As for the heat argument, I am talking about whats actually in the NIST report. Where they claimed the firses were for how long they were buring what they were burning and most specifically how the heat transfer would occur to the surrounding nonflammable materials. You cannot understand how even 2D vectors work so I am not going to waste my time explaining this.

as for the time argument I am talking about the part in the NIST report where they admit to constant acceleration for the vast majority of the fall.

How about you tell su about scale again, Chump and how well you understand it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ah, the internet is full of armchair structural engineers, demolition experts, and forensic scientists.


What's really at the heart of the "twoof" movement is ignorance, plain and simple.


But what's really sad is that most of you are completely devoid of common sense.

This coming from the guy who used his ME as a reference of authority on the subject.

Hypocrite much?

Oh and when was the last time you did a load analysis of a building? Or when was the last time you evaluated the crystallization of elements of under extreme temperature and pressure?

[Galileo]

It had all kinds of damage. What ever you're smoking, I'd sure like some so I can forget the current government we have.

it had some broken windows. No core columns were severed.

[ChumpDumper]

I used the basketball as an example of how gravity will not impact spin. I chose a basket ball because the type of forum that this is. According to you when gravity is acting on an object them it will impact its spin. I used the basketball as a simple example of how that is just not true. You cannot argue that so you genuflect with strawmen. I suppose ignorance is bliss.

I never said it was a basketball but apparently when you do not understand something you make stupid comments like this. You never adequately argue that gravity does not effect spin you just make remarks like the one above hoping that other people are just as ignorant as you are.The top of the building was not spinning freely in the air like a basketball. It was in constant contact with the rest of the building. So your analogy failed. Get over it.


Quite frankly, the majority of what you try and pass for an argument are smilies and ad hominem. You're focus is more trying ot get a reaction out of someone rather than provide anything substantive.Quite frankly, the majority of what you try to pass for an argument is personal incredulity. Your focus is more on trying to make crappy sports analogies rather than provide anything of substance.


As for the heat argument, I am talking about whats actually in the NIST report. Where they claimed the firses were for how long they were buring what they were burning and most specifically how the heat transfer would occur to the surrounding nonflammable materials. You cannot understand how even 2D vectors work so I am not going to waste my time explaining this.So you will continue to not provide anything of substance. Fair enough.


as for the time argument I am talking about the part in the NIST report where they admit to constant acceleration for the vast majority of the fall.You can edit it any way you want, it doesn't change anything. WTC 7 took about close to 15 seconds to collapse. Call it a basketball, call it a weight plate, call it a cardboard box. Nothing changes.


How about you tell su about scale again, Chump and how well you understand it.It's bigger than a basketball and a weight plate and a cardboard box.

Put together.

[DarrinS]

This coming from the guy who used his ME as a reference of authority on the subject.

Hypocrite much?

Oh and when was the last time you did a load analysis of a building? Or when was the last time you evaluated the crystallization of elements of under extreme temperature and pressure?



Yes, I am a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas. Therefore, I'm not an "armchair" engineer.

Can you name me ONE professional society, e.g. ASME, ASCE, AIST, NAFE, SFPE, etc. etc. etc. that espouses this conspiracy theory of controlled demolition?

<crickets>

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, I am a licensed mechanical engineer in the state of Texas. Therefore, I'm not an "armchair" engineer.

Can you name me ONE professional society, e.g. ASME, ASCE, AIST, NAFE, SFPE, etc. etc. etc. that espouses this conspiracy theory of controlled demolition?

<crickets>

I am working on my senior design project and preparing for the FE. 6 hours to go baby!!

Do any of them have an official stance one way or another?

[DarrinS]

I am working on my senior design project and preparing for the FE. 6 hours to go baby!!

Do any of them have an official stance one way or another?


Yes, that fire compromised the structural integrity which led to their collapse.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, the ME who is not actually an ME started out saying this:


Considering that the majority of the fire was on a particular side of the building it stands to reason that side would collapse first causing a force at least partially horizontal to the vertical axis.

Then he was told that there was indeed movement partially horizontal to the vertical axis and that it is easy to see in videos of the collapse from the proper angle. This shows that he hasn't really researched this at all.

So then he picked up his goalposts and moved them, arguing that the horizontal force must have been strong enough to do what? Make the top of the building spin like a basketball? Fly over to Battery Park.

The horizontal force of which you were completely ignorant was there. What is your argument now? That it should have had more backspin?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The top of the building was not spinning freely in the air like a basketball. It was in constant contact with the rest of the building. So your analogy failed. Get over it.

Now you are switching tactics. You were saying that gravity would impact the spin now you're saying that its the other contacts in the building itself. Nice going waffler.

Now is there a difference between an impact of a flat object if its lilted or if its straight?


Quite frankly, the majority of what you try to pass for an argument is personal incredulity. Your focus is more on trying to make crappy sports analogies rather than provide anything of substance.

nice strawman. Way to tell us what our arguments are. :nope

Its called deductive reasoning. That is where you exclude possibilities until you come up with the truth.


So you will continue to not provide anything of substance. Fair enough.

blah blah blah. I did give specific issues. You are just trying to go reductionist. If I show how much energy was required to heat up that much steel and concrete you would just say something else was not there. You still would not understand a lick of it.


You can edit it any way you want, it doesn't change anything. WTC 7 took about close to 15 seconds to collapse. Call it a basketball, call it a weight plate, call it a cardboard box. Nothing changes.

It's bigger than a basketball and a weight plate and a cardboard box.

Put together.

What you want to talk about is scale when what you should be talking about are proportions. Of course it weighs more than that but the issue is that so is the bottom section of the building that the rest fell onto. You keep talkin g about scale when the real issue is continuos and differentially smooth acceleration. You keep talking about scale though its quite entertaining.

There sure was a lot of heat up there wasn't there. :rolleyes

Anyway I have class. I will be back later.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/site1049.jpg

You better pay more attention in class if you never saw horizontal forces in this picture.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes, that fire compromised the structural integrity which led to their collapse.

I am going to call you on this. The ASME has no official stance and if anything does not want to take a stance.

Which society has come out and made that declaration?

[DarrinS]

I am going to call you on this. The ASME has no official stance and if anything does not want to take a stance.

Which society has come out and made that declaration?


The Stuctural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers along with FEMA produced the World Trade Center Building Performance Study.

[ChumpDumper]

Now you are switching tactics. You were saying that gravity would impact the spin now you're saying that its the other contacts in the building itself. Nice going waffler.There was a lot going on -- more complicated than backspin and weight plates.


nice strawman. Way to tell us what our arguments are. :nopeThat's what you tried to do with me. Why are you whining about having the whip reversed?


Its called deductive reasoning. That is where you exclude possibilities until you come up with the truth.Your only tool is personal incredulity. If that's all you use in deductive reasoning, it's not really reasoning at all.


blah blah blah. I did give specific issues. You are just trying to go reductionist. If I show how much energy was required to heat up that much steel and concrete you would just say something else was not there. You still would not understand a lick of it.So you are saying you can't do the work. I believe that since you are, in fact, not a mechanical engineer.

Stay in school.


What you want to talk about is scale when what you should be talking about are proportions. Of course it weighs more than that but the issue is that so is the bottom section of the building that the rest fell onto. You keep talkin g about scale when the real issue is continuos and differentially smooth acceleration. You keep talking about scale though its quite entertaining.It only looks smooth because it was so big. Fact is you can't get your mind around it. Calling it a basketball or a weight plate makes you feel like you can, but it's a really horrible oversimplification.


There sure was a lot of heat up there wasn't there. :rolleyesAre you saying there was not?

Show your work. The fire test I cited already did. Are you just afraid to look at them?


Anyway I have class. I will be back later.You should change your major. DarrinS would never hire you after you proved you didn't know there were any horizontal forces present in the collapses.

[Blake]

You certainly are acting like you have an inferiority complex.

you don't know what inferioity complex means.

Stop insulting your intelligence.

[Blake]

I am working on my senior design project and preparing for the FE. 6 hours to go baby!!

Do any of them have an official stance one way or another?

you've already passed the dumbass tinfoil hat test in this forum. Congrats.

[Brian Adams]

Fuzzy has four posters against him and is holding his ground! he deserves a medal! :tu

[Blake]

Fuzzy has four posters against him and is holding his ground! he deserves a medal! :tu

he has about 50 posters with him thanks to you

[DarrinS]

Fuzzy has four posters against him and is holding his own! he deserves a medal! :tu


You're right


http://www.daveanddarren.com/trophy.gif

[Blue Jew]

he has about 50 posters with him thanks to you

:lmao

[FuzzyLumpkins]

you don't know what inferioity complex means.

Stop insulting your intelligence.


you've already passed the dumbass tinfoil hat test in this forum. Congrats.

See you can deny it all you want bur it really is plain to see. You want oh so much for me to be stupid. Its absolutely adorable, pumpkin.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're right


http://www.daveanddarren.com/trophy.gif

Darrin, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you give me a ton of confidence in passing the FE and ultimately being able to obrtain my license. After all, if you're lazy half assed approach is any indication of what it takes to succeed in the workforce then I am just fine.

[DarrinS]

Darrin, and I mean this from the bottom of my heart, you give me a ton of confidence in passing the FE and ultimately being able to obrtain my license. After all, if you're lazy half assed approach is any indication of what it takes to succeed in the workforce then I am just fine.



Just a word of advice:


Don't tell any potential employer, especially if it's an engineering firm, that you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It would seriously undermine your credibility.

[Blake]

See you can deny it all you want bur it really is plain to see. You want oh so much for me to be stupid. Its absolutely adorable, pumpkin.

Why would I want you to be stupid? I applaud Chump and Darrin helping you try to avoid stupidity by explaining how the towers came down.

Of course, your use of the words 'cute', 'adorable' and 'pumpkin' are stupid on a different level and I'm not sure anyone can help you there.

And you still have no idea what an inferiority complex is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There was a lot going on -- more complicated than backspin and weight plates.

Nice bait and switch. You are showing an incredible lack of an ability to actually address what I say. Now, I know that a lot of that is because you are incapable of understanding simple vectors.


That's what you tried to do with me. Why are you whining about having the whip reversed?

Strawman and ad hominem and it only took you two sentences. Bravo. The only assumption that I am making about your stanec is that you take the NIST report at face value. So now youre lying about me to try and discredit to me. Not very compelling, twinkles.

And then you accuse me of whining. That truly is peachy. If anything my tone is derisive.


Your only tool is personal incredulity. If that's all you use in deductive reasoning, it's not really reasoning at all.

/yawn more strawmen and characterization.


So you are saying you can't do the work. I believe that since you are, in fact, not a mechanical engineer.

Stay in school.


Lovely more ad hominem. Are you actually capable of making an argument besides trying to insult me? Becasue quite frankly that is all you have. I mean you talk of credulity as not being the basis for an argument well here's a hint. twinkles. this is much worse.


It only looks smooth because it was so big. Fact is you can't get your mind around it. Calling it a basketball or a weight plate makes you feel like you can, but it's a really horrible oversimplification.

It wasn't a rock falling through tissue paper. The support columns were over 20 feet think and designed to support all of that. There are massive slabs of concrete etc. You talk of scale but it obvious that you have no idea that in order for it to be stable there have to be equal and opposite forces throughout the structure equivalent to the ones above at the very least. IT didn't look smooth because of how big it was it looked smooth because it was smooth.


Are you saying there was not?

You know very well I am not saying that. Your bluster is cute though. Using scale as an argument in terms of the heat involved was incredibly stupid. You've done the bait and switch to try and make it seem as if you were talking about something else but we know the score, twinkles.


Show your work. The fire test I cited already did. Are you just afraid to look at them?


I cited what i was talking about yesterday but this latest tactic is cute because before you were talking about personal work and how important it was. You are quite the hypocrite, twinkles.


You should change your major. DarrinS would never hire you after you proved you didn't know there were any horizontal forces present in the collapses.

You cannot keep up that is cute. My point was about what would have caused the swing as well as what happened to it. You kept saying gravity prevented it and I showed that gravity doesn't do that. Now once again you try the bait and switch. I really wonder if you're stupid or if this is bluster. I also wonder which is worse.

I already have a job lined up. You should look at the labor market for engineers sometime but nice attempt at ad hominem. Oh, and quite frankly if he would not hire me becasue of a disagreement about something like this then I wouldn't want to work for him anyway. I mean really. twinkles, the primary school insults lack real creativity and/or conviction.

You seem more like a petulant child than someone able to express them self with intelligence. I know you are better than that.

Really though I am going to allow you the last word. You can hid ebehind your bluster and for all extents and purposes lie about what I really am saying so you can give Darrin and Blake high 5s as if you actually proved anyhting other than you lack the ability to come up with clever insults.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why would I want you to be stupid? I applaud Chump and Darrin helping you try to avoid stupidity by explaining how the towers came down.

Of course, your use of the words 'cute', 'adorable' and 'pumpkin' are stupid on a different level and I'm not sure anyone can help you there.

And you still have no idea what an inferiority complex is.

Like I said you can try and deny it all you want. You have been trying to degrade my intelligence ever since I said I was good at science. Its really all you have done. I have known your kind ofr a long time, pumpkin, and its really transparent.

Unfortunately for you even if I was an idiot it wouldn't help your sad state of affairs.

[ChumpDumper]

Nice bait and switch. You are showing an incredible lack of an ability to actually address what I say. Now, I know that a lot of that is because you are incapable of understanding simple vectors.drop a can a half inch onto the floor a few degrees shy of vertical. More than likely, it will right itself once it hits the ground. this is the kind of example you should be giving.


Strawman and ad hominem and it only took you two sentences. Bravo.You don't really know what those terms mean, do you?


The only assumption that I am making about your stanec is that you take the NIST report at face value. So now youre lying about me to try and discredit to me. Not very compelling, twinkles.And your only argument against the NIST report is personal incredulity. Not very compelling, especially after you lied about being an engineer.


And then you accuse me of whining. That truly is peachy. If anything my tone is derisive.No, you started whining when i did what you did. It was cute.


/yawn more strawmen and characterization.Ok, you really don't know what those words mean.


Lovely more ad hominem. Are you actually capable of making an argument besides trying to insult me? Becasue quite frankly that is all you have. I mean you talk of credulity as not being the basis for an argument well here's a hint. twinkles. this is much worse.Look, if you did anything but argue from personal incredulity, I would criticize that too. You're a one trick pony though -- that isn't my fault or my problem.



It wasn't a rock falling through tissue paper. The support columns were over 20 feet think and designed to support all of that.No the building was not designed to catch a 30 story building. I would like you to draw up some plans for a 70 story building that can catch and 30 story building. Should be simple for you.


There are massive slabs of concrete etc. You talk of scale but it obvious that you have no idea that in order for it to be stable there have to be equal and opposite forces throughout the structure equivalent to the ones above at the very least. IT didn't look smooth because of how big it was it looked smooth because it was smooth.No, it was quite rough and chaotic. You are just used to watching it on you computer monitor. It's bigger than that.


You know very well I am not saying that. Your bluster is cute though. Using scale as an argument in terms of the heat involved was incredibly stupid. You've done the bait and switch to try and make it seem as if you were talking about something else but we know the score, twinkles.You are saying there was not enough heat -- and again your only support for that argument is "because I can't believe there was that much heat." Personal incredulity. Again, if you want me to stop beating you up with that, you need to stop doing it.


I cited what i was talking about yesterday but this latest tactic is cute because before you were talking about personal work and how important it was. You are quite the hypocrite, twinkles.So your argument against the collected fire temperature data is that it's someone else's work? :lmao

Well, since you have done no work whatsoever regarding any of this, any argument you make can be dismissed out of hand.

Those guys did the work and measured sustained temperatures around 1000C for substantial amounts of time in a simulated office fire -- but your guess trumps all that, right?


You cannot keep up that is cute. My point was about what would have caused the swing as well as what happened to it. You kept saying gravity prevented it and I showed that gravity doesn't do that. Now once again you try the bait and switch. I really wonder if you're stupid or if this is bluster. I also wonder which is worse.Are you kidding me? Your quote proves you were completely ignorant of the horizontal forces. They are your words -- not mine. You started from a position of ignorance ("why wasn't there any horizontal force") and worked your way up to personal incredulity once that ignorance was exposed ("well, it should keep spinning because nothing else could possibly affect that motion"). You're getting whipped by a layman and you are embarrassed, so I understand why you are trying out the name calling now after pretending to be above it.


I already have a job lined up. You should look at the labor market for engineers sometime but nice attempt at ad hominem. Oh, and quite frankly if he would not hire me becasue of a disagreement about something like this then I wouldn't want to work for him anyway. I mean really. twinkles, the primary school insults lack real creativity and/or conviction.You are calling someone "twinkles" dipshit.


You seem more like a petulant child than someone able to express them self with intelligence. I know you are better than that.You seem really defensive now that your ignorance on this subject has been exposed. It's ok -- we just spent more time on it that you did.


Really though I am going to allow you the last word. You can hid ebehind your bluster and for all extents and purposes lie about what I really am saying so you can give Darrin and Blake high 5s as if you actually proved anyhting other than you lack the ability to come up with clever insults.I really expected more from a person who lied about being an engineer. Maybe if you could actually back up your arguments with more than uneducated guesses and shitty analogies, you could make a coherent point.

"It couldn't have happened that way because I don't think it could have happened that way" is a fail.

[Blake]

Like I said you can try and deny it all you want. You have been trying to degrade my intelligence ever since I said I was good at science. Its really all you have done. I have known your kind ofr a long time, pumpkin, and its really transparent.

you still don't know what inferiority complex means.

I haven't degraded your intelligence. You're doing that all on your own.
Just keep bragging about how your coursework makes you smarter than not just the people in this thread, but the NIST itself.

I've seen longwinded dumbasses that have taken a few science courses like you come in and out of 9/11 conspiracy threads. They post nothing but their own expertise on the subject and make themselves look that much dumber with every post.

Did one of you professors mention something about how he feels that 9/11 might be a cover up? Counting down until a Steven E. Jones reference is mentioned by fuzzy.


Unfortunately for you even if I was an idiot it wouldn't help your sad state of affairs.

Unfortunately for you, being an idiot doesn't help your sad state of affairs.

[Re-Animator]

Just a word of advice:


Don't tell any potential employer, especially if it's an engineering firm, that you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories. It would seriously undermine your credibility.


Darren would make for a great debater if he wasn't so bias, hard headed and rude.


iS2rlAoKiy4

[911]

D3kBn1usddI

[Galileo]

D3kBn1usddI

pretty good video, contains some new stuff I have not seen before.

[MavTalker]

This Fuzzy person is taking on 3-4 other posters at the same time, that is very rare these days! :tu

[DarrinS]

Darren would make for a great debater if he wasn't so bias, hard headed and rude.


iS2rlAoKiy4



Well, the "no plane" hit the Pentagon myth has been thoroughly debunked.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp


Seriously, can you guys give me something more compelling than poorly made videos and a picture of a column that was cut by a steel worker?

[DarrinS]

D3kBn1usddI


Can someone give me an example of ONE THING in this video that makes a case for conspiracy?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This Fuzzy person is taking on 3-4 other posters at the same time, that is very rare these days! :tu

Thanks mouse, I was but Chump and Darrin are pretty much only ad hominem anymore and Blake is obsessed with me saying I know more than basic science. Oh and its not because he took it personally.:rolleyes

At the end of the day its pointless and I get tired of having to repeat myself over and over again over the background of 'you're an idiot' and 'you're an idiot.'

They just make it entirely to personal. Whatever.

As an aside that video was very interesting.

[DarrinS]

Thanks mouse, I was but Chump and Darrin are pretty much only ad hominem anymore and Blake is obsessed with me saying I know more than basic science. Oh and its not because he took it personally.:rolleyes

At the end of the day its pointless and I get tired of having to repeat myself over and over again over the background of 'you're an idiot' and 'you're an idiot.'

They just make it entirely to personal. Whatever.

As an aside that video was very interesting.



Just provide me with ONE good analysis from a reputable organization that supports your theory and I'll be open minded about it.

By a reputable organization, I mean one that is well regarded in fields of structural engineering, fire science, controlled demolition, etc. It can't be by a film school dropout, a video game programmer, a radio talk show host, etc. And it can't be by an organization whose sole purpose is "911 Truth". It should be one whose purpose is investigating accidents, fires, structural failures, in general.

[Blake]

Thanks mouse, I was but Chump and Darrin are pretty much only ad hominem anymore and Blake is obsessed with me saying I know more than basic science. Oh and its not because he took it personally.:rolleyes

You said you know more than basic science and have not disproven the NIST reports on any level.

At first you said you are an ME and now you admit that you are still a student.

You don't know what inferiorty complex means.

You don't know what ad hominem means.

You don't know what obssessed means.

You don't know what taking things personally means.

You are a liar.

You are an idiot.


At the end of the day its pointless and I get tired of having to repeat myself over and over again over the background of 'you're an idiot' and 'you're an idiot.'

Then stop being an idiot and you won't have to hear "you're an idiot" and "you're an idiot" over and over again.


They just make it entirely to personal. Whatever.

You don't know what making it personal means.

lol, "pumpkin" smack


As an aside that video was very interesting.

:lol

I figured this was the first time you've ever stepped foot into a 9/11 conspiracy thread........this pretty much confirms it.

[Blake]

Just provide me with ONE good analysis from a reputable organization that supports your theory and I'll be open minded about it.

By a reputable organization, I mean one that is well regarded in fields of structural engineering, fire science, controlled demolition, etc. It can't be by a film school dropout, a video game programmer, a radio talk show host, etc. And it can't be by an organization whose sole purpose is "911 Truth". It should be one whose purpose is investigating accidents, fires, structural failures, in general.

stop taking it so personally.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You said you know more than basic science and have not disproven the NIST reports on any level.

At first you said you are an ME and now you admit that you are still a student.

You don't know what inferiorty complex means.

You don't know what ad hominem means.

You don't know what obssessed means.

You don't know what taking things personally means.

You are a liar.

You are an idiot.



Then stop being an idiot and you won't have to hear "you're an idiot" and "you're an idiot" over and over again.



You don't know what making it personal means.

lol, "pumpkin" smack



:lol

I figured this was the first time you've ever stepped foot into a 9/11 conspiracy thread........this pretty much confirms it.

:sleep Keep throwing your fit, pumpkin.

Im kinda confused where you get that I am lying about something from thoguh. I said i was IN mechanical engineering not A mechanical engineer and then in a matter of hours was atlking about my senior design project. If I gave the wrong impression I apologize but I ceratinly was not tryig to mislead anyone.

And an ad hominem is when you attack the person making an argument instead of what the argument is. See in throwing your fit you take everything chump says as gospel; and do not even try and think for yourself.

An inferiority complex is usually very easily displayed when somene repeatedly attempts to insult someone's intelligence or other traits when they are presented as being good. When I say that I am good at science and you spend the next several hours trying to say that I am stupid, that s a sign of an inferiority complex.

You see it in women when they are insecure about their looks and they take umbrage when another women is complimented on their looks.

I know exactly what an inferiority complex and being a self admitted pedant I get it all the time. As I said you can try and deny it all you wnat but its there right in the open.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Just provide me with ONE good analysis from a reputable organization that supports your theory and I'll be open minded about it.

By a reputable organization, I mean one that is well regarded in fields of structural engineering, fire science, controlled demolition, etc. It can't be by a film school dropout, a video game programmer, a radio talk show host, etc. And it can't be by an organization whose sole purpose is "911 Truth". It should be one whose purpose is investigating accidents, fires, structural failures, in general.

Hey I respect that and if you read my first post in the thread I stated that it is good to look under the carpet and around the corner but its not good to accept something as true just becasue it cannot be disproven.

Despite what you guys have been trying to characterize me as I do not have the tin foil hat on and I am not stockpiling guns for the apocalypse. I came into the thread with an open mind and was trying to look at things with an open mind. Prima facia at the very least their are some compelling arguments against the NIST report. For example, there is quite a bit of evidence that they force fed the paramenters into the model that were not there.

Does that mean that the CIA and military planted hundreds of explosives into the WTC? Of course not. Unfortunately I let you guys paint me with that brush. I got offended from being called an idiot over and over again and started arguing for the sake of arguing. Whatever.

OTOH its not like I do not give a lot of credence to what you guys are saying. Deespite what you may think. When you say that ASSE helped write the report that is very meaningful and I know that there is a lot of bullshit being spread around. There is a shit ton of sulfur in gypsum for example.

At the end of the day I do not believe that when the NIST report states that the fires around the central support columns raged for longer than an hour at 1000 degrees. Does that mean that I think that the crash did not cause the fall? Of course not. It just means that I do not buy that part of the report.

[Blake]

:sleep Keep throwing your fit, pumpkin.

you don't know what throwing a fit means.

lol, "pumpkin" smack


You know what you can kiss my ass.

^ this is taking it personal and throwing a fit.

lol, "pumpkin" smack


Im kinda confused where you get that I am lying about something from thoguh. I said i was IN mechanical engineering not A mechanical engineer and then in a matter of hours was atlking about my senior design project. If I gave the wrong impression I apologize but I ceratinly was not tryig to mislead anyone.

No, you clearly said you were ME like Darrin.

In a matter of hours you were getting beat down enough to finally have to admit you were still a student.

I will accept your apology for being a flat out liar:



Like Darrin I am ME and I do have an understanding how trusses work and how various forces applied to them effect them.



And an ad hominem is when you attack the person making an argument instead of what the argument is. See in throwing your fit you take everything chump says as gospel; and do not even try and think for yourself.

Again, if you think what Chump is doing is ad hominem, you still don't know what ad hominem means. Either that or you can't comprehend what he is saying. Probably a little of both.

I'm also not taking Chump's word as gospel. I'm taking the NIST's report as truth.

You have done nothing to "debunk" their report except brag about your smarts and come up with some funky basketball analogy that makes no sense in regards to a building collapsing.

You are stupid "because you have not provided any definitive proof of anything".


An inferiority complex is usually very easily displayed when somene repeatedly attempts to insult someone's intelligence or other traits when they are presented as being good. When I say that I am good at science and you spend the next several hours trying to say that I am stupid, that s a sign of an inferiority complex.

Wrong.

You still don't know what inferiority complex means. In no way do I feel inferior to you. I'm not saying you are stupid for the sake of it.
You are stupid for not providing anything legit to back up what you are saying other than "I know lots about science and like Darrin, I am ME."

SHOW YOUR WORK, STUPID.


You see it in women when they are insecure about their looks and they take umbrage when another women is complimented on their looks.

I know exactly what an inferiority complex and being a self admitted pedant I get it all the time. As I said you can try and deny it all you wnat but its there right in the open.

Next time you admit yourself, ask the doc exactly what it means so that you don't look any more stupid.

lol, "pumpkin" smack

[Blake]

Hey I respect that and if you read my first post in the thread I stated that it is good to look under the carpet and around the corner but its not good to accept something as true just becasue it cannot be disproven.

no, but you have done nothing to disprove the NIST reports.


Despite what you guys have been trying to characterize me as I do not have the tin foil hat on and I am not stockpiling guns for the apocalypse. I came into the thread with an open mind and was trying to look at things with an open mind. Prima facia at the very least their are some compelling arguments against the NIST report. For example, there is quite a bit of evidence that they force fed the paramenters into the model that were not there.

If you think mouse's 9/11 youtube videos are fun to watch, then you have a tin foil hat on, even if you don't feel it on your head.

Please provide the "quite a bit of evidence", STUPID.


Does that mean that the CIA and military planted hundreds of explosives into the WTC? Of course not. Unfortunately I let you guys paint me with that brush. I got offended from being called an idiot over and over again and started arguing for the sake of arguing. Whatever.

you claimed controlled demolition.

Who planted the bombs?


OTOH its not like I do not give a lot of credence to what you guys are saying. Deespite what you may think. When you say that ASSE helped write the report that is very meaningful and I know that there is a lot of bullshit being spread around. There is a shit ton of sulfur in gypsum for example.

It's not like you give a lot of credence to the NIST reports either.

You're helping spread the bullsh1t around.


At the end of the day I do not believe that when the NIST report states that the fires around the central support columns raged for longer than an hour at 1000 degrees. Does that mean that I think that the crash did not cause the fall? Of course not. It just means that I do not buy that part of the report.

great. You don't buy it. Nobody's calling you stupid for not buying the report.

I'm calling you stupid for thinking you know more on your own than the NIST.

lol, "pumpkin" smack

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yup I got you pegged. Like I said you keep going with your bad self. This whole rant of yours claiming that I say I knnow mroe than the people in NIST is just absolutley delicious. Youre literally the shining example of hypercritical.

But hey lets play a game? What do you think ad hominem means?

Anyway I have to go for a few hours I will await expectantly to see your latest hissy fit.

[RandomGuy]

Since this shit has been done before, and the NIST has actually put a FAQ up, perhaps it is worth it to see what the NIST actually says and not rely on truther distortions to form our opinions of what the NIST said.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

As stated in Section 5.3.2 of NIST NCSTAR 1, a document from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) indicated that the impact of a [single, not multiple] Boeing 707 aircraft was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, NIST investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and, therefore, were unable to verify the assertion that “… such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building.…”

The capability to conduct rigorous simulations of the aircraft impact, the growth and spread of the ensuing fires, and the effects of fires on the structure is a recent development. Since the approach to structural modeling was developed for the NIST WTC investigation, the technical capability available to the PANYNJ and its consultants and contactors to perform such analyses in the 1960s would have been quite limited in comparison to the capabilities brought to bear in the NIST investigation.

The damage from the impact of a Boeing 767 aircraft (which is about 20 percent bigger than a Boeing 707) into each tower is well documented in NCSTAR 1-2. The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors. The results of the NIST impact analyses matched well with observations (from photos and videos and analysis of recovered WTC steel) of exterior damage and of the amount and location of debris exiting from the buildings. This agreement supports the premise that the structural damage to the towers was due to the aircraft impact and not to any alternative forces.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006_clip_image002.jpg
Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?

The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?

Both the NIST calculations and interviews with survivors and firefighters indicated that the aircraft impacts severed the water pipes that carried the water to the sprinkler systems. The sprinklers were not operating on the principal fire floors.

However, there were ample sources of the water in the stairwells. The water pipes ran vertically within the stairwells. Moreover, there would have been copious water from the broken restroom supply lines and from the water tanks that supplied the initial water for the sprinklers. Thus, it is not surprising that evacuating occupants encountered a lot of water.

Even if the automatic sprinklers had been operational, the sprinkler systems—which were installed in accordance with the prevailing fire safety code—were designed to suppress a fire that covered as much as 1,500 square feet on a given floor. This amount of coverage is capable of controlling almost all fires that are likely to occur in an office building. On Sept. 11, 2001, the jet-fuel ignited fires quickly spread over most of the 40,000 square feet on several floors in each tower. This created infernos that could not have been suppressed even by an undamaged sprinkler system, much less one that had been appreciably degraded.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?

NIST believes that the persons seen were away from any strong heat source and most likely in an area that at the time was a point where the air for combustion was being drawn into the building to support the fires. Note that people were observed only in the openings in WTC 1.

According to the International Standard ISO/TS 13571, people will be in severe pain within seconds if they are near the radiant heat level generated by a large fire. Thus, it is not surprising that none of the photographs show a person standing in those gaps where there also was a sizable fire.

The fire behavior following the aircraft impacts is described in NIST NCSTAR 1-5A. In general, there was little sustained fire near the area where the aircraft hit the towers. Immediately upon impact of the aircraft, large fireballs from the atomized jet fuel consumed all the local oxygen. (This in itself would have made those locations rapidly unlivable.) The fireballs receded quickly and were followed by fires that grew inside the tower where there was a combination of combustible material, air and an ignition source. Little combustible material remained near the aircraft entry gashes since the aircraft "bulldozed" much of it toward the interior of the building. Also, some of the contents fell through the breaks in the floor to the stories below.

Therefore, the people observed in these openings must have survived the aircraft impact and moved—once the fireballs had dissipated—to the openings where the temperatures were cooler and the air was clearer than in the building interior.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Since this shit has been done before, and the NIST has actually put a FAQ up, perhaps it is worth it to see what the NIST actually says and not rely on truther distortions to form our opinions of what the NIST said.

I read it yesterday.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?

NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid. This flow lasted approximately four seconds before subsiding. Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower. There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1.

Photographs, and NIST simulations of the aircraft impact, show large piles of debris in the 80th and 81st floors of WTC 2 near the site where the glowing liquid eventually appeared. Much of this debris came from the aircraft itself and from the office furnishings that the aircraft pushed forward as it tunneled to this far end of the building. Large fires developed on these piles shortly after the aircraft impact and continued to burn in the area until the tower collapsed.

NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

------------------------------

This does contradict the bit that Chump posted about lead from battery back-ups. This merely points out the difficulty in identifying the material at all. CTers say it is molten steel, and the truth is, we will never conclusively know for sure.

What we can say is that the appearance of molten metal here does NOT in any way conclusively contradict the NIST theory about the building collapse.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

THis is the one that had me scratching my head. The response boils down to yup the smoke showed that the fires were not that hot. The answer they gave literally supports the questions premise.

[RandomGuy]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

[RandomGuy]

13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

[RandomGuy]

THis is the one that had me scratching my head. The response boils down to yup the smoke showed that the fires were not that hot. The answer they gave literally supports the questions premise.

No, it doesn't.

[RandomGuy]

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

....
the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions
--------------------------------------

You simply can't infer that the fires themselves were that hot simply because of the soot color, because the soot would move outside the hot zones and not have both the heat and/or oxygen to completely burn off.

[RandomGuy]

I read [the NIST FAQ] yesterday.

Well don't stop there. There is a whole world of skeptics who have genuinely looked into the "evil conspiracy used controlled demolition" theory, among others, and found little evidence to support those theories.

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

Very little of what gets posted on "truth" websites actually stands up to scrutiny, and a large part of it proves to be vapid pseudo-science.

No small part of it turns out to be outright deceptive manipulation of facts, or factually incorrect.

I gave it a fair shot when the websites first started popping up. My bullshit detector started going off, and after I found how the people saying they were for the "truth" were for anything but that, it really made me pissed that I was lied to like that.

[Blake]

Yup I got you pegged. Like I said you keep going with your bad self. This whole rant of yours claiming that I say I knnow mroe than the people in NIST is just absolutley delicious.

You don't know what delicious means.

You keep going with your bad posts.


Youre literally the shining example of hypercritical.

I don't think you know what hypercritical means either. :lol

But it's the truth in this thread. I am definitely being hypercritical of your posts which amount to nothing more than crap.


But hey lets play a game? What do you think ad hominem means?


[ad hom-uh-nuhm ‑nem, ahd-]
–adjective 1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason.
2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.


you've been claiming definition #2.

Chump has very clearly answered and owned all of your "arguments".

Game over.


Anyway I have to go for a few hours I will await expectantly to see your latest hissy fit.

I will be waiting for the latest attempt of a proven lying student to attempt to debunk more of the NIST reports and for more "pumpkin", "adorable" or "delicious" smack.

You are an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.

http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTCONE1023.jpg

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

[Dude]

Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.

http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTCONE1023.jpg

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html


But how are the columns on the other side? And I don't really care if fire brought down that building my concern is why it came down so fast with no resistance?

And who come after 9/11 not one fireman has used the words "pull it" ?

[ChumpDumper]

But how are the columns on the other side?There are pictures of those too. Good to know you never bothered to look :tu


And I don't really care if fire brought down that building my concern is why it came down so fast with no resistance?There was resistance, just not enough to stop 30 acres of office building.


And who come after 9/11 not one fireman has used the words "pull it" ?No building was pulled on 9/11.

[Alex Jones]

There was resistance, just not enough to stop 30 acres of office building.


Who says anything about stopping a collapsing building we will settle for at least a 5 to 10 second delay.

[ChumpDumper]

Who says anything about stopping a collapsing building.I did as an answer to your question.
we will settle for at least a 5 to 10 second delay.How does one go about settling for something like that?

If you can show me just how buildings are designed to slow down a 30 acres of building falling on them, we'll go some way towards "settling" this particular issue.

[man on wire]

I did as an answer to your question.How does one go about settling for something like that?

If you can show me just how buildings are designed to slow down a 30 acres of building falling on them, we'll go some way towards "settling" this particular issue.


Its the difference from rolling a ball down a ramp and rolling a ball down the stairs, you should notice small delays.
You would think at least one section of the building would remain standing, or one side coming down faster than the other side. But for every floor to systematically cave in on cue is suspicious at best.
Why can/t you question any part of 9/11? you make it sound like you work for FEMA with your one sided views.

[DarrinS]

Its the difference from rolling a ball down a ramp and rolling a ball down the stairs, you should notice small delays.
You would think at least one section of the building would remain standing, or one side coming down faster than the other side. But for every floor to systematically cave in on cue is suspicious at best.
Why can/t you question any part of 9/11? you make it sound like you work for FEMA with your one sided views.



How fast should it come down?


I'll wait for your analysis.

[Blake]

How fast should it come down?


I'll wait for your analysis.

I wouldn't wait around too long if I were you.

[DarrinS]

I wouldn't wait around too long if I were you.


It's probably just Mouse posting under another name. That one is classy. I like his use of the "falling man" avatar.


EDIT> My bad. Might be a guy walking a tightrope.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've spent such a huge percentage of your sad life on this board talking out of your ass, and I shouldn't even bother knocking down what you keep setting up, but you're in rare form today.

Are really so stupid that you can't comprehend that big hollow tubes running from the top of a building to the bottom will a)carry oxygen up to feed a giant explosion or b) act as a release valve to carry the rapidly expanding gasses out? You know as much about physics as you do about guitars, which is basically zero.

You're a fool. You've always been a fool, and you've certainly never been man enough to admit when you're wrong, though I'm sure you recognize that you often are.

Are you so stupid that you cannot comprehend that engineers of skyscrapers intentionally do not design stairwells to act as a flue? Its prettu common sense that you do not do that particularly for that reason.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well don't stop there. There is a whole world of skeptics who have genuinely looked into the "evil conspiracy used controlled demolition" theory, among others, and found little evidence to support those theories.

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

Very little of what gets posted on "truth" websites actually stands up to scrutiny, and a large part of it proves to be vapid pseudo-science.

No small part of it turns out to be outright deceptive manipulation of facts, or factually incorrect.

I gave it a fair shot when the websites first started popping up. My bullshit detector started going off, and after I found how the people saying they were for the "truth" were for anything but that, it really made me pissed that I was lied to like that.

Who says I haven't? And like I said, I try to view both sides with a healthy dose of skepticism. I know a lot of the conspiracy theorists are disingenuous and manipulative.

[Blake]

Who says I haven't? And like I said, I try to view both sides with a healthy dose of skepticism.

what makes you skeptic of the NIST?


I know a lot of the conspiracy theorists are disingenuous and manipulative.

:lol I don't think you do.

You think mouse posts great youtube documentaries on the subject.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.

http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTCONE1023.jpg

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html

NIST doesn't think thats what caused the bowing. They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns. It does make sense given the observable phenomenon.

Now essentially what NIST does is they admit that the fires themselves were not hot enough tbut what they did was heat up the surrounding gas to 1000 degrees and the gas itself acted as the heat transfer device to the steel beams. Now I have a couple of issues with this explanation.

1) The NIST models themselves took longer that the hour that it took for the towers to fall given this explanation.

2) We know that people from the floors above were able to go down that stairwell up to 15 minutes after the crashes first took place. Now if the area was being inundated with 1000 degree gas that softens steel then there is no way that they would have been able to pass through that area several minutes after the crash occurred.

Now the obvious answer to that is that it took time for the fires to get going. The only problem with that is the fact that jet fuel makes a wonderful igniter and if this is true then it gives even less time for the heat transfer to take place than the time the models already said the fires did not have.

Does this mean that George Bush and the CIA planted bombs throughout? No but what it does mean is that official explanation falls short. Quite frankly its not really that surprising. They had a huge amount of data to sift through and they really only had the ability to see what was going on in the exterior of the building.

They really only have theories as to whats going on inside. They have to make a hypothesis and test it. The first model they came up with they had to reject. It didn't match.

The second model was being tinkered with up to the final month. Imagine the amount of pressure they must have been under politically. They had been commissioned to do the study in 2002. 6 years later and they still hadn't come up with a definitive report. The 9/11 commission had convened 4 years early.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

what makes you skeptic of the NIST?



:lol I don't think you do.

You think mouse posts great youtube documentaries on the subject.

Dude why do you feel it necessary to respond to posts that I am talking to someone else. You say stupid shit all the time. I said that it was interesting. The Nobel laureate for example was in literature and there were other issues.

Quite frankly, your attempts to try and insult me and characterize me are pretty sad. You don't know me. Stop fixating on me. I am flattered but I am really not interested.

[ChumpDumper]

NIST doesn't think thats what caused the bowing. They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns. It does make sense given the observable phenomenon.This statement shows the level of ignorance we are dealing with here. How can you criticize the NIST when you don't even know what their theory is?

I mean, come on -- you don't even have to crack open the report to find it:


the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the NIST theory. Please don't waste any more of our time before you educate yourself on the basics.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This statement shows the level of ignorance we are dealing with here. How can you criticize the NIST when you don't even know what their theory is?

I mean, come on -- you don't even have to crack open the report to find it:



http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the NIST theory. Please don't waste any more of our time before you educate yourself on the basics.

From the 'fact' sheet:


NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

Now seriously dude, can you stop with the asshole routine? I am not stupid and I have read all of that. I am very aware of what NIST claims and I have seen the visuals of the computer model that they gave at their demonstration. No I am not talking about the NOVA one.

But really man every time someone says something that doesn't treat NIST and the 'official' explanation as gospel you always respond with your ignorant, stupid or the like. I really am trying to have a discussion here and hey if I do say something you may think is erroneous it is not the end of the world. I am more than willing to listen to your take and it is possible to have a respectful discussion.

It just seems more and more like you have no intention of even trying. Last time I responded in anger and I am done with that. But c'mon man enough is enough already.

[Blake]

Dude why do you feel it necessary to respond to posts that I am talking to someone else. You say stupid shit all the time. I said that it was interesting. The Nobel laureate for example was in literature and there were other issues.

You are posting on a message board. If you want to talk to someone else in private, then use the appropriate forum features, dumbass.

Yes, I do say stupid sh1t all the time. You have said nothing but stupid sh1t in this thread.


Quite frankly, your attempts to try and insult me and characterize me are pretty sad. You don't know me. Stop fixating on me. I am flattered but I am really not interested.

You don't know what fixating means.

You are an idiot.

[Blake]

Now seriously dude, can you stop with the asshole routine? I am not stupid and I have read all of that. I am very aware of what NIST claims and I have seen the visuals of the computer model that they gave at their demonstration. No I am not talking about the NOVA one.

But really man every time someone says that doesn't treat NIST and the 'official' explanation as gospel you always respond with your ignorant, stupid or the like. I really am trying to have a discussion here and hey if I do say something you may think is erroneous it is not the end of the world. I am more than willing to listen to your take and it is possible to have a respectful discussion.

It just seems more and more like you have no intention of even trying. Last time I responded in anger and I am done with that. But c'mon man enough is enough already.

If you think the NIST isn't truthful, then by all means let's see your computer simulations.

Yes, you are stupid. You are one big f-ing idiot

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You are posting on a message board. If you want to talk to someone else in private, then use the appropriate forum features, dumbass.

Yes, I do say stupid sh1t all the time. You have said nothing but stupid sh1t in this thread.



You don't know what fixating means.

You are an idiot.


Dictionary: fix·a·tion (fĭk-sā'shən) pronunciation


1. The act or process of fixing or fixating.
2. An obsessive preoccupation.
3. Psychology. A strong attachment to a person or thing, especially such an attachment formed in childhood or infancy and manifested in immature or neurotic behavior that persists throughout life.

Now look man I have been trying to ignore you for the past day so I have not addressed you once until a bit ago to ask you to please stop. Despite me never once addressing you, every time a Ipost you respond to it literally within a matter of minutes. You do not post in this thread unless its to reply to a post I make. You're like an irritating lhasa apsa.

Fine you think I do not understand physics and its very important that you remind me of that over and over again and that you think I am a moron. I get it. Youre not fixated on me and your self esteem is a okay. Whatever.

I normally do not put people on ignore. I really do think its a cop out but dear lord this is bordering on psychotic. Please stop.

[ChumpDumper]

Now seriously dude, can you stop with the asshole routine? I am not stupid and I have read all of that. I am very aware of what NIST claimsIf you read all that, you don't understand it.
NIST doesn't think thats what caused the bowing. They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns.Making not one mention of the floors.

Then I posted this
the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.No mention of sagging columms.

Then, you attempted to make your initial wrong post right by basically repeating what I posted.
the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

But again, no sagging columns.

Sagging floors.

No sagging columns.

I am repeating myself in the hope that you will get it.

I approve of your disproving your own posts -- I just think you should be aware that you actually did it.

[ChumpDumper]

I am more than willing to listen to your take and it is possible to have a respectful discussion.

It just seems more and more like you have no intention of even trying. Last time I responded in anger and I am done with that. But c'mon man enough is enough already.That was by far my most respectful post. You can't begin to imagine all the names I refrained from calling you when you posted that you thought the NIST said that sagging central columns caused the perimeter columns to bow.

[911]

How fast should it come down?



Ask the demolition crew.


CwjmqkjwnvQ

[Blake]

Now look man I have been trying to ignore you for the past day so I have not addressed you once until a bit ago to ask you to please stop. Despite me never once addressing you, every time a Ipost you respond to it literally within a matter of minutes. You do not post in this thread unless its to reply to a post I make. You're like an irritating lhasa apsa.

Great, you found a definition of "fixation". If you think I'm fixated on you then you still don't understand what it means. Just because you think I'm picking on you doesn't mean that I'm fixated on you.


Fine you think I do not understand physics and its very important that you remind me of that over and over again and that you think I am a moron. I get it. Youre not fixated on me and your self esteem is a okay. Whatever.

Correct, You do not understand physics, I'm not fixated on you and my self esteem is great.


I normally do not put people on ignore. I really do think its a cop out but dear lord this is bordering on stupidity. Please stop.

You're contemplating putting me on ignore?

:lol

Obviously you are fixated on me instead of my responses regarding the subject. I have already asked you what makes you skeptical of the NIST and to provide your own simluation of what really happened.

Your self-esteem is definitely low if you run away from what I am asking you to provide.

If you are confident enough in yourself, then goddam, post your "EVIDENCE" instead of trying to talk smack.

Either that or just go ahead and put your head in the sand and put me on ignore.

You are an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

Ask the demolition crew.No, we're asking you.

[Blake]

Ask the demolition crew.


who hired the demolition crew for WTC7 and why?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you read all that, you don't understand it.Making not one mention of the floors.

Then I posted thisNo mention of sagging columms.

Then, you attempted to make your initial wrong post right by basically repeating what I posted.
the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.


But again, no sagging columns.

Sagging floors.

No sagging columns.

I am repeating myself in the hope that you will get it.

I approve of your disproving your own posts -- I just think you should be aware that you actually did it.

Like I thought, you are incapable of having a respectful discussion. You gave the latter portion of the chronology. It specifically says:


weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged

then the floor sagged pulling in the perimeter columns. In other words the cause of the floors sagging was the weakening of the flors and columns. Its called a chronology of events and all event are caused by the previous events. In other words the floors sagging was dependent in the weakening of the columns. Are you trying to say that they listed the columns weakening in their description on the cause for fun?

[Blake]

I think he actually did put me on ignore.

awesome. :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Like I thought, you are incapable of having a respectful discussion. You gave the latter portion of the chronology. It specifically says:Hold the phone.

Here is what YOU specifically said:
NIST doesn't think thats what caused the bowing. They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns.You made no mention of floors at all.

You said the central columns sagged.

Not floors.


In other words the cause of the floors sagging was the weakening of the flors and columns.Not at all.

The floors and columns were weakened.

The weakened floors sagged.

You said the weakened central columns sagged and made no mention of the floors whatsoever.


In other words the floors sagging was dependent in the weakening of the columns.Why is that necessary if the floors are weakened by the fire as well?


Are you trying to say that they listed the columns weakening in their description on the cause for fun?Not at all -- the weakening of the columns is a prime reason the columns failed, but you would have to explain to all of us how the sagging of the central columns (your claim) caused the sagging of the floor (which can be explained by the weakening of the floor itself).

In other words (repeating again for your benefit), a weakened floor is enough to cause a sagging floor.

Weakened columns + extra forces from sagging floors = initial collapse of perimeter columns.

You started out with a fundamental misunderstanding of the NIST theory, and now you have progressed to having fundamental misunderstandings within the NIST theory once you pretended to not have the fundamental misunderstanding of the theory in the first place.

I guess that's progress.

[biological clock]

No, we're asking you.


Why so you can post a 400 word SA on how I am wrong and wear a tin foil hat?

Fuzzy might enjoy the tag team ass raping you and Blake are giving him I prefer not to go through the unnecessary pain.

[ChumpDumper]

Why so you can post a 400 word SA on how I am wrong and wear a tin foil hat?No, I just want to know how fast you think it should have fallen. The NIST says that once the buildings got started, pretty much nothing was going to stop them until they hit the ground. You say differently. I would like to know how much slower you think the collapse should have taken and why.


Fuzzy might enjoy the tag team ass raping you and Blake are giving him I prefer not to go through the unnecessary pain.Yes, the internets can be so hurtful.

[man on wire]

I get of work around 8pm I hope Chump is here so I can school him!

[ChumpDumper]

I get of work around 8pm I hope Chump is here so I can school him!You have a job?

[man on wire]

I work at Kinko's.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hold the phone.

Here is what YOU specifically said:You made no mention of floors at all.

You said the central columns sagged.

Not floors.

Not at all.

The floors and columns were weakened.

The weakened floors sagged.

You said the weakened central columns sagged and made no mention of the floors whatsoever.

Why is that necessary if the floors are weakened by the fire as well?

Not at all -- the weakening of the columns is a prime reason the columns failed, but you would have to explain to all of us how the sagging of the central columns (your claim) caused the sagging of the floor (which can be explained by the weakening of the floor itself).

In other words (repeating again for your benefit), a weakened floor is enough to cause a sagging floor.

Weakened columns + extra forces from sagging floors = initial collapse of perimeter columns.

You started out with a fundamental misunderstanding of the NIST theory, and now you have progressed to having fundamental misunderstandings within the NIST theory once you pretended to not have the fundamental misunderstanding of the theory in the first place.

I guess that's progress.

I never said that the central columns sagged. What I said ws that they weakened. How does a vertical column sag? What I said was


They think that the fire was hot enough in the interior that it caused the central support colums to weakn and their sagging towards trhe middle caused the bowing in the exterior columns.

when i said 'their,' which i misspelled, I meant the floor. the central columns were connected to the outer columsn by the trellis. REally though this is a red herring.

At the end of the day the central columns weakening was integral to their scenario which you were claiming was attributed only by the floor which is wrong. My original argument still stands.

[Blake]

I
when i said 'their,' which i misspelled, I meant the floor. the central columns were connected to the outer columsn by the trellis. REally though this is a red herring.


I see...... so when you said "I am an 'ME''', you misspelled and meant "I am not an 'ME'". Is that a red herring too?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This message is hidden because Blake is on your ignore list.

sweet ambrosia

[The Power Hour.]

This Fuzzy vato may be more than Chump and Blake can deal with?

[AntiChrist]

This Fuzzy vato may be more than Chump and Blake can deal with?


Signing in under numerous troll names and giving yourself props is pretty lame.


By the way, that DarrinS dude is kicking some serious twoofer ass.

[ChumpDumper]

I see...... so when you said "I am an 'ME''', you misspelled and meant "I am not an 'ME'". Is that a red herring too?:lol

[ChumpDumper]

I never said that the central columns sagged. What I said ws that they weakened. How does a vertical column sag? What I said was

when i said 'their,' which i misspelled, I meant the floor. the central columns were connected to the outer columsn by the trellis. REally though this is a red herring.It's not a red herring at all. You sucked at making your point.


At the end of the day the central columns weakening was integral to their scenario which you were claiming was attributed only by the floor which is wrong. My original argument still stands.You STILL don't understand at all.

Of course the weakening of ALL the columns is integral to the collapse theory.

The weakening of the columns is not integral to the sagging of the floors.

Really though, this is a red herring. You have done nothing to even come close to disputing the NIST's theory and conclusions -- but we can't expect you to do so since your understanding of the theory itself is severely lacking.

It's like claiming to be an mechanical engineer when you haven't finished school.

Baby steps....

[Blake]

:lol

careful....he'll put you on ignore too

hey mouse, let me borrow one of your trolls so fuzz can read what I write.

let me have the anti christ one.

edit: I forgot.....you have a 'blake.' troll

lemme borrow it

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not a red herring at all. You sucked at making your point.

You STILL don't understand at all.

Of course the weakening of ALL the columns is integral to the collapse theory.

The weakening of the columns is not integral to the sagging of the floors.

Really though, this is a red herring. You have done nothing to even come close to disputing the NIST's theory and conclusions -- but we can't expect you to do so since your understanding of the theory itself is severely lacking.

It's like claiming to be an mechanical engineer when you haven't finished school.

Baby steps....

From the NIST report:


significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged

Condradicts you saying:


The weakening of the columns is not integral to the sagging of the floors.

Go ahead and argue more minutiae.

[ChumpDumper]

From the NIST report:



Condradicts you saying:Not really. They were all weakened.

So what?


Go ahead and argue more minutiae.Why don't you tell us all your alternative explanation for the bowing of the perimeter columns.

We've been waiting a day now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not really. They were all weakened.

So what?

Why don't you tell us all your alternative explanation for the bowing of the perimeter columns.

We've been waiting a day now.

So what? You were wrong douchebag. You were telling me to come back when I have a better understanding. Well you thought that the fires caused the bowing. IOW youre a fucking hypocrite and you should come back when you have a clue as to what went on.

[Blake]

So what? You were wrong douchebag. You were telling me to come back when I have a better understanding. Well you thought that the fires caused the bowing. IOW youre a fucking hypocrite and you should come back when you have a clue as to what went on.

:lol

I should put him on ignore for these kinds of hurtful posts.

.....sweet ambrosia

[ChumpDumper]

So what? You were wrong douchebag. You were telling me to come back when I have a better understanding. Well you thought that the fires caused the bowing.Uh, yeah -- because they did. You are the one saying they didn't. I just asked you for your alternative explanation. Have you lost the ability to understand English now?
IOW youre a fucking hypocrite and you should come back when you have a clue as to what went on.:rollin

You get funnier as you get more wrong.

[Earth]

Signing in under numerous troll names and giving yourself props is pretty lame.
.

Getting you to notice makes it all worth it :tu

[911]

So who won the debate?

[ChumpDumper]

Well, no twoofer offered an alternative explanation for anything, so Bush won by default.

[mouse]

Maybe I can shed some light on this subject!

[DarrinS]

Maybe I can shed some light on this subject!

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/339882657_e3b78a16dd.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Uh, yeah -- because they did. You are the one saying they didn't. I just asked you for your alternative explanation. Have you lost the ability to understand English now?:rollin

You get funnier as you get more wrong.

See this is what I mean by you and youre red herrings. I explain how the collapse of the building was dependent on the central columns being weakened and how given the fact that peoplewere able to walk through the central portion of the building which would be impossilbe at 1000 degrees. Go stick your face in a broiler and see how long you can keep it there. That is half the temp they are claing that was being radiated onto the central columns.

You say this is not the case and quote a part of the NIST FAQ without context. You claim it was only the floors and that I do not know what I am talking about and thus should go away. When I put in the context that led up to your quote which states the columns weakening led to the floors sagging. At this point you resort to smilies and insulting me. Well at thispoint its clear that you try and hide your lack of understanding physical law behind bluster and insults.

Now you are trying to toss out another red herring: whats our alternative hypothesis. Who gives a shit? At the end of the day just because I have no alternative explanation does not make it such that the eyewitness testimony of those from the upper floors does not directly contradict the NIST model.

[ChumpDumper]

See this is what I mean by you and youre red herrings. I explain how the collapse of the building was dependent on the central columns being weakened and how given the fact that peoplewere able to walk through the central portion of the building which would be impossilbe at 1000 degrees. Go stick your face in a broiler and see how long you can keep it there. That is half the temp they are claing that was being radiated onto the central columns.the collapse initiated at the perimeter columns. You still have a long way to go before you undertand the theory. You need to understand the theory before you can criticize it.

And again, you don't realize how big this building is. People were able to move down exactly one staircase out of all the possible escape routes in both towers. You are saying that that one stairwell had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to be true.

That's wrong.

I'm sure you'll be angry about that now too.


You say this is not the case and quote a part of the NIST FAQ without context. You claim it was only the floors and that I do not know what I am talking about and thus should go away. When I put in the context that led up to your quote which states the columns weakening led to the floors sagging. At this point you resort to smilies and insulting me. Well at thispoint its clear that you try and hide your lack of understanding physical law behind bluster and insults.You said the central columns sagged.

You were wrong.

You are angry about it.

We get it.

The floor sagged.

Due to the heat.

Do you understand that?

Sure, central columns could have been weakened too, but how much?

Enough to make the floors sag on their own?

Why is this so important to you? Oh, that's right -- it keeps you from having to provide any alternative explanation.


Now you are trying to toss out another red herring: whats our alternative hypothesis. Who gives a shit? At the end of the day just because I have no alternative explanation does not make it such that the eyewitness testimony of those from the upper floors does not directly contradict the NIST model.So you are saying you will never have an alternative explanation.

So whom are we to believe?

The people with an actual theory that works.

The NIST.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the collapse initiated at the perimeter columns. You still have a long way to go before you undertand the theory. You need to understand the theory before you can criticize it.

And again, you don't realize how big this building is. People were able to move down exactly one staircase out of all the possible escape routes in both towers. You are saying that that one stairwell had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to be true.

That's wrong.

I'm sure you'll be angry about that now too.

You said the central columns sagged.

You were wrong.

You are angry about it.

We get it.

The floor sagged.

Due to the heat.

Do you understand that?

Sure, central columns could have been weakened too, but how much?

Enough to make the floors sag on their own?

Why is this so important to you? Oh, that's right -- it keeps you from having to provide any alternative explanation.

So you are saying you will never have an alternative explanation.

So whom are we to believe?

The people with an actual theory that works.

The NIST.

You cannot read what is in plain english. The NIST faq gives a chronology of events. It clearly states the weakening of the floors and columns. Here is an excerpt of another NIST report giving the chronolgy:


# These fires, in combination with the dislodged fireproofing, were responsible for a chain of events in which the building core weakened and began losing its ability to carry loads.
# The floors weakened and sagged from the fires, pulling inward on the perimeter columns.

According to NIST, the outer columns were just the last part of a chain of events. It even uses the term 'chain of events' which is exactly what I am talking about. I am not mad, I just realize that you are wrong.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm

[ChumpDumper]

You cannot read what is in plain english. The NIST faq gives a chronology of events. It clearly states the weakening of the floors and columns. Here is an excerpt of another NIST report giving the chronolgy:



According to NIST, the outer columns were just the last part of a chain of events. It even uses the term 'chain of events' which is exactly what I am talking about. I am not mad, I just realize that you are wrong.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_briefing_april0505.htm
Thank you for telling me what I already know.

You are catching up -- very slowly for someone who lied about being a mechanical engineer -- but progress is progress.

Now, you have done nothing to refute the NIST theory except say that Stairwell A in the south tower had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to work.

This is simply untrue.

[DarrinS]

See, even Tonto gets it.

Lone Ranger: What happened, Tonto?

Tonto: Plane crash. Fire burn. Metal bend. Building fall.

http://www.televisionheaven.co.uk/loneranger.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thank you for telling me what I already know.

You are catching up -- very slowly for someone who lied about being a mechanical engineer -- but progress is progress.

Now, you have done nothing to refute the NIST theory except say that Stairwell A in the south tower had to be 1000 degrees for the NIST theory to work.

This is simply untrue.

I am sorry you misinterpreted what I was saying about ME. My intention was not to mislead and if it was I certainly would not have explained what it is I do. Even a moron can figure that out. Your labels are meaningless.

If you knew it you certainly do not know how to express it in a way that does not contradict what you supposedly know. Hey at least you finally admit that the central columns failing were instrumental in the collapse. Before you kept babbling about it not mattering how the central columns weakening when you say things like:


Not really. They were all weakened.

So what?

You can pretend you understood the NIST theory all you want. Its obvious that you only thought the end result was important in their model.

I also like how you backtracked from your previous bullshit assertion that both towers only had a single staircase that was functional. That was bullshit. In WTC1 multimple staircases were used. But lets look a bit deeper.

Whats cute is how you always hide behind, 'its big, you have no idea of scale.' This is especially cute when it was made apparent that you did not know how scale applied to the thermodynamic model within the building or really any other way. Essentially you basically say, 'its big' when you can't think of anything to say.

Well WTC1 and 2 were 70 yards to a side. The interior core was less than 30 yards to a side. Therefore all people going down the stairs were AT LEAST within 30 yards of these 1000 degree superheated gases and that is making the assumption that the stairwells were on the very opposite side of where the gas was.

That assumption doesnt match eyewitness accounts because:

1) People in WTC2 report being able to see the fires from the stairwell.
2) None of the people in any of stairwells reported conditions that come even close to what it would be like if you were standing less than 60 feet from a 1000 degree airflow from the fires that NIST used as the heat transfer device.

Lets be clear here. NIST does not claim that exposure to the fire caused the steel to increase in temperature. They make that clear with this statement:


In a following set of computations using the Fire Structure Interface, the evolving temperatures of the concrete and steel structural components of the towers were calculated by exposing them to the mapped air temperatures (shown in NIST NCSTAR 1-5G).

IOW the air on those floors was 1000 degrees not the fires according to NIST.

So what youre saying is that people were able to descend down stairwells where they could see the fires when the air temperature on those floors according to NIST was 1000 degrees.

There is plenty of analysis from metallurgists saying that the model was impossible. Here is a quote from the "Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention" indicating the steel sampled from the effected floors showed no evidence of being effected by temperatures of even 625 degrees.


Abstract Recovered structural steel from the World Trade Center was examined as part of the National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation to provide data on potential temperature excursions seen by the steel for input and validation of the fire and thermal finite element models. While numerous experimental techniques were appraised for use during this study, two proved to be practical: assessment of the primer paint on the structural elements and examination of the steel microstructure. Results from these two techniques are presented. Evaluation of primer paint from 21 exterior panel sections, which represent approximately 3% of the panels from fire-involved floors, was conducted and indicated that only three locations may have experienced temperatures over 250°C. Steel microstructures taken from these and other areas on exterior panels exposed to pre-collapse fires showed no evidence of exposure to temperatures exceeding 625°C for times longer than the detectable lower limit of 15 min. The lack of high-temperature excursions observed during this analysis may be related to the protection afforded by intact spray-applied fire-resistant material on the components at the time of exposure.

[ChumpDumper]

I am sorry you misinterpreted what I was saying about ME. My intention was not to mislead and if it was I certainly would not have explained what it is I do. Even a moron can figure that out. Your labels are meaningless.Of course you wanted to mislead. You worded it very carefully to do so.


If you knew it you certainly do not know how to express it in a way that does not contradict what you supposedly know. Hey at least you finally admit that the central columns failing were instrumental in the collapse. Before you kept babbling about it not mattering how the central columns weakening when you say things like: My impression ist hey were pretty much going to go when the perimeter columns went since that's what happened at all the levels below the heated one. If you would like to show some calculations showing they would not, I'm waiting.




You can pretend you understood the NIST theory all you want. Its obvious that you only thought the end result was important in their model.I am completely allowing for the heating of the central columns. I'm not convinced they were integral to the sagging of the floors. They almost certainly happened at the same time -- so there is really nothing to debate here.


I also like how you backtracked from your previous bullshit assertion that both towers only had a single staircase that was functional. That was bullshit. In WTC1 multimple staircases were used. But lets look a bit deeper.I never backed off that assertion because there was only one stairwell that was not blocked at some point. Stairwell A, south tower. You didn't understand that I was repeating my assertion, only being more specific the second time I said it.


Whats cute is how you always hide behind, 'its big, you have no idea of scale.' This is especially cute when it was made apparent that you did not know how scale applied to the thermodynamic model within the building or really any other way. Essentially you basically say, 'its big' when you can't think of anything to say.I'm saying that it is not necessary for one stairwell to be 1000 degrees for enough of the other building to be hot enough to be weakened to the point of collapse. You are.


Well WTC1 and 2 were 70 yards to a side. The interior core was less than 30 yards to a side. Therefore all people going down the stairs were AT LEAST within 30 yards of these 1000 degree superheated gases and that is making the assumption that the stairwells were on the very opposite side of where the gas was.I am sitting about 5 yards from the presence of superheated gas in the oven. I am not aflame.


That assumption doesnt match eyewitness accounts because:

1) People in WTC2 report being able to see the fires from the stairwell.On what floor? Fires were not limited to the impact floors.


2) None of the people in any of stairwells reported conditions that come even close to what it would be like if you were standing less than 60 feet from a 1000 degree airflow from the fires that NIST used as the heat transfer device.So you are saying I should be on fire right now.


Lets be clear here. NIST does not claim that exposure to the fire caused the steel to increase in temperature. They make that clear with this statement:



IOW the air on those floors was 1000 degrees not the fires according to NIST.And?


So what youre saying is that people were able to descend down stairwells where they could see the fires when the air temperature on those floors according to NIST was 1000 degrees.You are saying that people reported seeing fires on the impact floors from stairwell A of the south tower mere minutes before its collapse. Again, you seem to have no idea:

1) What stairwell worked from top to bottom of either tower.

2) How tall the building is and how long it takes to descend 74 floors.


There is plenty of analysis from metallurgists saying that the model was impossible. Here is a quote from the "Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention" indicating the steel sampled from the effected floors showed no evidence of being effected by temperatures of even 625 degrees.Those are from EXTERIOR panel sections.

Now you don't know what "exterior" means.

This just gets better and better.


There are reports from workers for Underwriters Labs saying that the heat models are shit and they were the ones contracted by NIST to do the testing of the steel.Are you seriously going to bring Kevin Ryan into this?

Fantastic!

Please give us all his quotes and include his qualifications from his job at UL.

[Word!]

:tu

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Of course you wanted to mislead. You worded it very carefully to do so.

My impression ist hey were pretty much going to go when the perimeter columns went since that's what happened at all the levels below the heated one. If you would like to show some calculations showing they would not, I'm waiting.



I am completely allowing for the heating of the central columns. I'm not convinced they were integral to the sagging of the floors. They almost certainly happened at the same time -- so there is really nothing to debate here.

I never backed off that assertion because there was only one stairwell that was not blocked at some point. Stairwell A, south tower. You didn't understand that I was repeating my assertion, only being more specific the second time I said it.

I'm saying that it is not necessary for one stairwell to be 1000 degrees for enough of the other building to be hot enough to be weakened to the point of collapse. You are.

I am sitting about 5 yards from the presence of superheated gas in the oven. I am not aflame.

On what floor? Fires were not limited to the impact floors.

So you are saying I should be on fire right now.

And?

You are saying that people reported seeing fires on the impact floors from stairwell A of the south tower mere minutes before its collapse. Again, I don't you have any idea:

1) What stairwell worked from top to bottom of either tower.

2) How tall the building is and how long it takes to descend 74 floors.

Those are from EXTERIOR panel sections.

Now you don't know what "exterior" means.

This just gets better and better.

Are you seriously going to bring Kevin Ryan into this?

Fantastic!

Please give us all his quotes and include his qualifications from his job at UL.

I am not sure how I even worded it. Like I said you can guess my intent but you would be wrong. If you were misled then I really do apologize. That should have been apparent when I without provacation explained what it is that I do. You apparently have an axe to grind and I annoy you so you resort to this. Whatever.

Too bad a stove does not operate in the manner like a building fire does. Hell the NIST model doesn't even operate under the premise of a building fire because building fires do not reach 1000 degrees typically I will use simple terms to explain the difference.

In a stove, you send a current through a highly resistant material. As such the material, the heating element, generates heat in the enclosure until it reaches your desired temperature. Air flow in no way shape or form is necessary. In fact, it is discouraged because if the air is escaping it deters the ability to heat the enclosure. A building fire requires oxygen to burn and thus produce heat. In this scenario air flow is not only encouraged, it is necessary. Trying to compare the two is quite frankly stupid.

The NIST report does not talk about fire temperature. It talks about air temperatures in layers and levels. IOW the air on entire floors was that temperature. But hey according to you its possible that these layers were everywhere to weaken the trusses and supports but somehow were kept out of the stairwells despite all the smoke and visible flames from within the stairwells as they were going thru the floors in question.

Actually, reports are that debris had pierced the stairwells and that people descending could see the fires and feel the heat. That being the case there is no fucking way it was 1000 degrees. Like I sadi go ahead and put your face in the oven at a broil and see how long it lasts. That would be half the temp they are claiming.

Whats becoming VERY apparent is thatr you do not think for yourself. Your arguments are basically verbatim from debunking911.com. Your 'incredulity' argument is almost verbatim. Whats really telling here is how you kept on with saying NIST was not reliant on the central columns lsoing integrity. I was reading the NIST chronology and thinking to myself that any dimwit could gather that with ease.

It was not until I started reading 911debunker.com that I realized why. One of that guys central arguments is that the central columns could not be needed for the collapse because his opposition relied on that. He claimed that NIST supported that. Well you bought that as gospel and wouldn't see what NIST was really saying when it was spelled out in plain english for everyone to see. As I am reading that site, I am seeing more an more where your exact train of logic comes from.

You claim to 'know' all about the WTC tragedy. In reality you do not know shit beyond what people tell you is the case. Its apparent that you could not begin to discuss basic terms like vectors and torque or heat transfer or latent heat versus radiant heat. Hell you cannot even tell the difference between a fire and a heating element.

I know a lot about what the 'truthers' claim is faulty. The sulfur they keep crowing about can be explained easily from the gypsum. I do not take anything as gospel.

[Blake]

IWhats becoming VERY apparent is thatr you do not think for yourself.

what's been VERY apparent from post #1 is that you think you are smarter than the NIST.

You criticize their findings with your sloppy logic, yet have failed to come up with models of your own to explain it.


FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."


FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air — along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse — was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

who to believe..........real world engineers and professors or fuzzy.....

tough call

[Blake]

Nov 25, 2008
The National Institute of Standards and Technology has released its final report on the fires and building collapses caused by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Skeptics continue to argue burning jet fuel could not have felled the buildings, but this report -- "strengthened by clarifications and supplemental text suggested by organizations and individuals worldwide" in response to the draft report on the collapse of World Trade Center building 7, released for public comment on Aug. 21, the agency said -- concludes fire alone caused WTC 7 to fall. "The extensive three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation found that the fires on multiple floors in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event. Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down," NIST concluded.

http://ohsonline.com/articles/2008/11/25-last-report-completes-study.aspx

[ChumpDumper]

I am not sure how I even worded it. Like I said you can guess my intent but you would be wrong. If you were misled then I really do apologize. That should have been apparent when I without provacation explained what it is that I do. You apparently have an axe to grind and I annoy you so you resort to this. Whatever.So to be clear, you are not a mechanical engineer.


Too bad a stove does not operate in the manner like a building fire does. Hell the NIST model doesn't even operate under the premise of a building fire because building fires do not reach 1000 degrees typically I will use simple terms to explain the difference.So to be clear, you never looked at the fire data from the tests done before 9/11. Your claim that fires don't get that hot is your saying fires don't get that hot.


In a stove, you send a current through a highly resistant material. As such the material, the heating element, generates heat in the enclosure until it reaches your desired temperature. Air flow in no way shape or form is necessary. In fact, it is discouraged because if the air is escaping it deters the ability to heat the enclosure. A building fire requires oxygen to burn and thus produce heat. In this scenario air flow is not only encouraged, it is necessary. Trying to compare the two is quite frankly stupid.


The NIST report does not talk about fire temperature. It talks about air temperatures in layers and levels. IOW the air on entire floors was that temperature. But hey according to you its possible that these layers were everywhere to weaken the trusses and supports but somehow were kept out of the stairwells despite all the smoke and visible flames from within the stairwells as they were going thru the floors in question.So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.


Actually, reports are that debris had pierced the stairwells and that people descending could see the fires and feel the heat. That being the case there is no fucking way it was 1000 degrees. Like I sadi go ahead and put your face in the oven at a broil and see how long it lasts. That would be half the temp they are claiming.So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.


Whats becoming VERY apparent is thatr you do not think for yourself. Your arguments are basically verbatim from debunking911.com. Your 'incredulity' argument is almost verbatim. Whats really telling here is how you kept on with saying NIST was not reliant on the central columns lsoing integrity. I was reading the NIST chronology and thinking to myself that any dimwit could gather that with ease.No I'm saying I think the floors could sag whether the core columns were weakened or not -- but it doesn't matter since the columns were likely weakened anyway. That's pretty independent.


It was not until I started reading 911debunker.com that I realized why. One of that guys central arguments is that the central columns could not be needed for the collapse because his opposition relied on that. He claimed that NIST supported that. Well you bought that as gospel and wouldn't see what NIST was really saying when it was spelled out in plain english for everyone to see. As I am reading that site, I am seeing more an more where your exact train of logic comes from.Uh, no. That's not where it came from at all, and it doesn't matter anyway. You have done nothing to refute the NIST theory.


You claim to 'know' all about the WTC tragedy.Just more than you. Doesn't take much.


In reality you do not know shit beyond what people tell you is the case. Its apparent that you could not begin to discuss basic terms like vectors and torque or heat transfer or latent heat versus radiant heat. Hell you cannot even tell the difference between a fire and a heating element.So you are saying I am currently on fire.


I know a lot about what the 'truthers' claim is faulty.I know what you are claiming is faulty. You just don't know that much about it. That's ok, but pretending you do gets you in trouble.

Now, tell me about the people who saw flames on the impact zone from Stairwell A of the south tower minutes before it collapsed.

I am asking you for quotes and links.

[MavTalker]

It took me an hour to read this whole topic and it looks like Chump may have finally met his match!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So to be clear, you are not a mechanical engineer.

So to be clear, you never looked at the fire data from the tests done before 9/11. Your claim that fires don't get that hot is your saying fires don't get that hot.



So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.

So to be clear, you are saying people saw fires from stairwell A in the south tower on the 74 floor minutes before it collapsed.

No I'm saying I think the floors could sag whether the core columns were weakened or not -- but it doesn't matter since the columns were likely weakened anyway. That's pretty independent.

Uh, no. That's not where it came from at all, and it doesn't matter anyway. You have done nothing to refute the NIST theory.

Just more than you. Doesn't take much.

So you are saying I am currently on fire.

I know what you are claiming is faulty. You just don't know that much about it. That's ok, but pretending you do gets you in trouble.

Now, tell me about the people who saw flames on the impact zone from Stairwell A of the south tower minutes before it collapsed.

I am asking you for quotes and links.

If you do not understand that I am a senior studying mechanical engineering by now then you are pretty damn stupid. It should have been very clear the first day we were talking about this. I explained it and quite frankly I am not even sure how I phrased it that has you so confused.

There are an assload of quotes all over the place of people seeing smoke and flames descending down to floor 78 where often times they were stonewalled because of the idiotic 'security' measures in the building. Look them up yourself. There are an assload of reports of debris penetrating the shafts in the area. There are an assload of reports of smoke entering the shaft.

Given the fact that NIST claims superheated air at 1000 degrees was circulating a the central columns and trusses. I don't need to claim that fires get to any temperature. I am very well aware of what temperatures of diffuse hydrocarbon fires are. NIST knows as well. Thats why they came up with this model of superheated air.

I know what you are trying to do. You are hoping that I will rely on some single report that you can use your cookie cutter response from your favorite debunking website. Sorry, chump, isnt going to happen.

At least you admit that you get your canned answers from these debunk sites. I still cannot get how you keep clinging to the independence of the sagging floors. I know why you do it. Your canned answers rely on it and you have no technical knowledge to adjust. Tell us more about scale, jackass.

Heres a hint: if the floors had only sagged, the building would not have fallen. I mean NIST even talks about how it was an inward collapse. They rejected there initial hypothesis which they initially fed to PM. They changed it to an inward collapse. In order for it to be an inward collapse the inner columns would have to be weakened. If you had any fucking clue about force vectors it would be intuitive for you. If you had any clue you would realize that no part of the chronology of events that NIST claims led to the collapse was independent. Quite frankly its really damn stupid to think that. Its almost as if you think they put in the interior columns losing their ability to support a load in aforementioned chronology for fun.

And its hilarious that you keep babbling about how I am acting like I know more than I do. If anyone is doing that it is you. Quite frankly, I imagine that the last time you learned anything about physics was back in high school. Seeing that you hold The Breakfast Club in esteem I would put that at about 20 years ago. When there is technical jargon in the NIST reports you don't have the first fucking clue what they are talking about. Your discussions of scale and parroting debunking websites clearly show that you just do not have the background to understand.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This message is hidden because Blake is on your ignore list.

I have no interest in listening to your psychotic ravings. Take your insecure ass somewhere else. How about you try and drum up a convo with Darrin or Chump. Oh yeah they haven't given a shit about anything youve said either.

I am going to bed.

[ChumpDumper]

If you do not understand that I am a senior studying mechanical engineering by now then you are pretty damn stupid. It should have been very clear the first day we were talking about this. I explained it and quite frankly I am not even sure how I phrased it that has you so confused.As long as we are clear that you are not an engineer, it's cool.


There are an assload of quotes all over the place of people seeing smoke and flames descending down to floor 78 where often times they were stonewalled because of the idiotic 'security' measures in the building. Look them up yourself. There are an assload of reports of debris penetrating the shafts in the area. There are an assload of reports of smoke entering the shaft.That's not what I asked you for.

I am asking you for quotes from people who said they saw the flames in the impact floors on the way down the only stairwell that was passable from top to bottom -- stairwell A, south tower -- minutes before the south tower fell. I ask you for that specific a quote because that is the only thing that will support your argument.

So find it and give us all a link.


Given the fact that NIST claims superheated air at 1000 degrees was circulating a the central columns and trusses. I don't need to claim that fires get to any temperature. I am very well aware of what temperatures of diffuse hydrocarbon fires are. NIST knows as well. Thats why they came up with this model of superheated air.So where is you fire data? I told you where you could find the fire test.

Please give me a link to your office fire data.


I know what you are trying to do. You are hoping that I will rely on some single report that you can use your cookie cutter response from your favorite debunking website. Sorry, chump, isnt going to happen.I have asked you for two pieces of information to prove you are just not making shit up. If you do not produce them, I will conclude you are making shit up.


At least you admit that you get your canned answers from these debunk sites.But I didn't do that with the sagging floors. That's merely my own conclusion. I don't know what website theory you are talking about.
I still cannot get how you keep clinging to the independence of the sagging floors.I don't cling to it -- I merely think it's possible. I said it didn't matter either way. It's not critical to any claim I am making, and I don't know why you are stuck on it.


I know why you do it. Your canned answers rely on it and you have no technical knowledge to adjust. Tell us more about scale, jackass.It makes no difference to me whether the core columns weakening contributed to the floor sagging.

No difference.

No difference.

No difference.

I'll post it more times if it helps you understand.


Heres a hint: if the floors had only sagged, the building would not have fallen. I mean NIST even talks about how it was an inward collapse. They rejected there initial hypothesis which they initially fed to PM. They changed it to an inward collapse. In order for it to be an inward collapse the inner columns would have to be weakened. If you had any fucking clue about force vectors it would be intuitive for you. If you had any clue you would realize that no part of the chronology of events that NIST claims led to the collapse was independent. Quite frankly its really damn stupid to think that. Its almost as if you think they put in the interior columns losing their ability to support a load in aforementioned chronology for fun.I now stipulate the core columns were weakened.

How does that help you now?

It actually helps my argument more than anything, so yeah, I stipulate that the core columns were weakened.


And its hilarious that you keep babbling about how I am acting like I know more than I do. If anyone is doing that it is you. Quite frankly, I imagine that the last time you learned anything about physics was back in high school. Seeing that you hold The Breakfast Club in esteem I would put that at about 20 years ago. When there is technical jargon in the NIST reports you don't have the first fucking clue what they are talking about. Your discussions of scale and parroting debunking websites clearly show that you just do not have the background to understand.Please provide the links I asked for.

I asked for a quote from someone who saw the fires in the impact zonefrom stairwell A minutes before its collapse.

I asked for your sources of information about the temperatures of office fires.

I have stipulated that the core columns were weakened by the temperatures cause by the fires, thereby bolstering my argument.

Thanks for helping my argument and for the links you will provide to the quotes and fire temperatures.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, and use your expertise to address this issue you have tied to avoid with arguments over minutiae:
Seriously, if one argues that the fires were not hot enough to weaken the steel to the point that it deformed under load, one has to come up with a plausible explanation why the steel deformed under load.

http://www.geocities.com/representativepress/WTCONE1023.jpg

The numbers in and around the red circle represent the amount in inches that the perimeter columns have deformed by 10:23 AM. They claim to be accurate within 6 inches -- so someone tell me what else other than heat could have deformed the steel in the floors, causing them to sag and pull in the perimeter columns, deforming them to the extent, 40 or 50 inches, clearly shown in this picture.

More pictures and text here: http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.htmlissue in bold.

Give us those links and address that issue.

[Blake]

I have no interest in listening to your psychotic ravings. Take your insecure ass somewhere else. How about you try and drum up a convo with Darrin or Chump. Oh yeah they haven't given a shit about anything youve said either.

I am going to bed.

Really?

Is that why you mentioned the NIST talking to "PM" right after I posted the article from Popular Mechanics?


...I mean NIST even talks about how it was an inward collapse. They rejected there initial hypothesis which they initially fed to PM......

When you get out of bed today maybe you will provide a model or link or source to back up what you are claiming.

Most likely not.

[RandomGuy]

Good gravy this is something even *I* don't want to get in the middle of.

The NIST got a lot of talented people to look into the mechanics of the failure, used a lot of resources, and did a good chunk of credible science on this. All of that science is available for anybody to pour over on their website.

I doubt any one person has the resources or the expertise to really go over it with a fine tooth comb and give it a fair examination as to whether they did a good job or not.

One can argue over the minutae, but the NIST very very probably got it right or at least very close as to the exact mechanics of the building collapse.

[Blake]

One can argue over the minutae, but the NIST very very probably got it right or at least very close as to the exact mechanics of the building collapse.

Actually no they didn't.

Any college senior that majors in mechanical engineering can see that.

[RandomGuy]

See this is what I mean by you and youre red herrings. I explain how the collapse of the building was dependent on the central columns being weakened and how given the fact that peoplewere able to walk through the central portion of the building which would be impossilbe at 1000 degrees. Go stick your face in a broiler and see how long you can keep it there. That is half the temp they are claing that was being radiated onto the central columns.

You say this is not the case and quote a part of the NIST FAQ without context. You claim it was only the floors and that I do not know what I am talking about and thus should go away. When I put in the context that led up to your quote which states the columns weakening led to the floors sagging. At this point you resort to smilies and insulting me. Well at thispoint its clear that you try and hide your lack of understanding physical law behind bluster and insults.

Now you are trying to toss out another red herring: whats our alternative hypothesis. Who gives a shit? At the end of the day just because I have no alternative explanation does not make it such that the eyewitness testimony of those from the upper floors does not directly contradict the NIST model.

From what I am given to understand, the NIST didn't claim that the fires burned at that temperature in any one place for very long, and the peak temperatures cited were generally along the very top of the ceilings.

If one watches the time lapse photography of the temperature simulations, one can see the fires moving from place to place.

One cannot rightly conclude that just because people found places where fires weren't that the fires really weren't all that hot.

Further, the NIST model does not state that fires were everywhere within every floor. If you base your statements on the misconception that what the firefighters saw on the lower floors was prevalent on the floors that they couldn't reach, then your perception of what the NIST version contradicting the actual eyewitness testimony seems to be flawed.

Since the NIST, for its report, interviewed hundreds of survivors, I find the statement that somehow their version of events contradicts that of those same survivors to be a bit of a stretch. They said they fully took into account those statements, and said those statements seemed to support their models.

Assuming they aren't lying about that, it would seem to me that your perception of contradiction is probably based on a mistaken perception of some sort on your part.

[RandomGuy]

Actually no they didn't.

Any college senior that majors in mechanical engineering can see that.

(shrugs)

I am not one of those, so I have to assume that the hundreds of PhDs and professionals that contributed to the report probably got fairly close.

If one has an alternative theory, then one should provide that to the NIST or appropriate regulatory agency that deals with fires.

[RandomGuy]

Skeptics continue to argue burning jet fuel could not have felled the buildings

That isn't what the NIST said happened. Funny thing about those skeptics is that they probably didn't read the NIST report either.

If you are going to criticize a theory, it is best to understand what that theory says first.

[DarrinS]

It took me an hour to read this whole topic and it looks like Chump may have finally met his match!


Based on what?

[Blake]

Based on what?

based on mouse saying so

[Blake]

(shrugs)

I am not one of those, so I have to assume that the hundreds of PhDs and professionals that contributed to the report probably got fairly close.

If one has an alternative theory, then one should provide that to the NIST or appropriate regulatory agency that deals with fires.




That isn't what the NIST said happened. Funny thing about those skeptics is that they probably didn't read the NIST report either.

If you are going to criticize a theory, it is best to understand what that theory says first.


Not if you are fuzzy. If you are a mechanical engineering major still in school, you are an expert on what happened.

[ChumpDumper]

If you are going to criticize a theory, it is best to understand what that theory says first.Amen.

Fuzzy, brimming with the hubris of youth and the know-it-all arrogance of the college student, has made assumptions that just don't make any sense in the face of the NIST theory but should be easily proved by him if they are indeed true.

First he says this:


The NIST report does not talk about fire temperature. It talks about air temperatures in layers and levels. IOW the air on entire floors was that temperature. But hey according to you its possible that these layers were everywhere to weaken the trusses and supports but somehow were kept out of the stairwells despite all the smoke and visible flames from within the stairwells as they were going thru the floors in question.and
There are an assload of quotes all over the place of people seeing smoke and flames descending down to floor 78

In this he makes several assumptions. He assumes that:

1) All stairwells in the impact zone were passable.

2) An "assload" of people passed the impact zone on the way down.

3) An "assload" of people observed the fires in the impact zones at their most intense, minutes before the collapse of either tower.

Let's take a look at his assumptions one at a time.

1) All stairwells in the impact zone were passable.[/B

Well this one is easy enough. One need only peruse the NIST report detailing the evacuation of the WTC:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-7.pdf


In WTC 1, all three stairwells and the elevators were destroyed in the impact region. No occupant evacuated from above the 91st floor.

Above the 91st floor, all three stairwells are grouped closely together inside the core. There is a picture of what the NIST believes to be the damage done to the core on page 74 of the report.

That decisively makes the case that no one from above the 91st floor in WTC 1 could have passed the impact zone and later reported on what he saw or felt in the impact zone. If fuzzy has any information contradicting that, he should feel free to post it.

As for WTC 2:


For the hundreds of occupants who remined above the skylobby when WTC 2 was hit, two of the buildings three stairwells had been destroyed by the impact. Only the staircase furthest away from the plane's impact was passable (Stairwell A), and even this stairwell was severely damaged in places.

There is a picture on page 99 that illustrates the damage they believe was done to the south tower on an impact floor. Notice how the stairwells are much spaced much farther apart than in the impact zone in the north tower.

So we have thoroughly established that only one out of six total stairwells in both WTC towers was passable. If Fuzzy has any information to dispute this, he should post it.

Let's look at the next Fuzzy assumption:

[B]2) An "assload" of people passed the impact zone on the way down.

Well having only one passable stairwell through the impact zone really helps narrow this down. The NIST did a pretty thorough job of interviewing the evacuees and found that only 18 people from floors 78 or above at the time of impact in the south tower were able to make their way down stairwell A past the impact zone. A table of their locations is available on page 106 of the above linked report.

One of those evacuees died shortly after 9/11, so Fuzzy's definition of an assload is 17.

Which brings us to his third assumption:

3) An "assload" of people observed the fires in the impact zones at their most intense, minutes before the collapse of either tower.

Having established his assload as 17, Fuzzy now claims that those 17 people observed the fires in the south tower at their most intense from Stairwell A when they passed by.

Based on telephone interviews, the NIST figured the average speed at which evacuees in the north tower moved from floor 91 to the exit was 1.3 floors per minute. Don't ask me why this wasn't done for the south tower -- but I'm going to make my own assumption and say the times were likely similar.

So let's take a floor in the impact zone -- floor 80 -- nice round number. How long would it take a person to get to the exit from the 80th floor? Using the north tower figures, about an hour. Seeing as the south tower only stood for 56 minutes after being struck, the "assload" of people from the impact zone and above certainly had to be able to move more quickly (more than likely since the evacuation of that building had begun with the earlier hit on the north tower). Even then can Fuzzy claim that his assload of 17 people saw and reported the fires at the impact floors at their most intense when it had to take them the better part of an hour to get out of the building?

I expect Fuzzy to be able to back up all his claims. He is, after all, a mechanical engineering student and all his claims are based upon solid science.

His assload of people has been clearly defined.

What they had to see and report has been clearly defined.

When they had to see what they reported has been clearly defined.

Please respond with the sort of detail and links I have provided.

Thank you.

[Phase-T]

It took me an hour to read this whole topic and it looks like Chump may have finally met his match!

I see Chump kicking ass! I haven't seen an ass waxing like this since the Obama vs McCain election.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is lovely Chump you are trying to force NIST reports and debunker theories into the argument as if they could even apply.

1) I never said all stairwells near the top of the building were available. Your a moron to think that.

Another thing is that you obviously have no idea what the routes down were like. I'll give you a hint: there was not a single stairwell that went from the top all the way to the bottom. That is actually what caused some people to take so long they would go from hallways and lobbies to other stairwell only to reach the bottom and run into locked doors etc.

2) These were the only the people the NIST were able to get onto the telephone. NIST was not even commissioned until 2002I realize that if the debunkers or NIST do not put into simple terms that even you can understand that you do not believe it but if you were to look a bit deeper intot he media reportsx and interviews in the hours days and months following the aftermath you might actually get somewhere. I mean this is so mind numbingly stupid. Its almost as if you think that if NIST did not report it then it didn't happen.

One such report has a lady talking about the smoke entering the area around the impact zones and that she felt like she was melting. Now I am sure that it was hot but if smoke and thus the 1000 degree air were getting into the well then she literally would have been burnt to a crisp. Skin burns at 130 degrees. I have been in attics that are about that hot working on the AC and you can only stay there about ten minutes at a time or you begin to swoon. You are talking about air that was supposedly 6 times hotter than that.

3) I read this a couple of times and thought to my self, ' he really cannot be this stupid.' This is a prime example of you quoting NIST or a debunker site and hoping the proverbial shit sticks hit the wall the wall. Who gives a fuck how long it took? I mean really I would love to see you try and explain this.



Really the crown jewel is when you once again copy and paste the bowing outer columns pictures from your fave debumk site and then turn around and give the same fucking canned argument. The guy was fucking wrong. Yes NIST gave a chronology of events that included the outer bowing of the exterior columns. I am not disputing that.

Where he got it wrong and thus you because you are too ignorant to even begin to understand how the forces wrk in the modelis that NIST in plain fucking english which has been quoted for you about a dozen times by now stated that the interior columns weakening and losing their load bearing capacity was also key. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I mean really they describe the process by which it fell is an 'inward collapse' where are the exterior columns? Oh yeah that right the 'outer' part of the building. I mean really it should be intuitive to a mongoloid. For some reason you cannot just grasp the concept. Try using your own noggin rather than parroting the debunk site of your choice.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh, and use your expertise to address this issue you have tied to avoid with arguments over minutiae:issue in bold.

Give us those links and address that issue.

The inner columns losing their load bearing capacity would do the same thing. ITs called when columns lost their ability to carry the load, the hypotenuse of the length the trusses had to cover would become greater and greater thus increasing the load on the outer columns and pulling them inward.

I do nt need a link to show that it should be self evident.

Oh and NIST doesnt even claim that the fires on the outer columns did that. They explain it as the metal in the trusses expanding and the inner columns losing their ability to carry loads. You are too ignorant to understand that anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

This is lovely Chump you are trying to force NIST reports and debunker theories into the argument as if they could even apply.

1) I never said all stairwells near the top of the building were available. Your a moron to think that.

Another thing is that you obviously have no idea what the routes down were like. I'll give you a hint: there was not a single stairwell that went from the top all the way to the bottom. That is actually what caused some people to take so long they would go from hallways and lobbies to other stairwell only to reach the bottom and run into locked doors etc.Incorrect. The stairwells followed a continuous route from the top or within a few floors of the top floor of the buildings to at least the mezzanine level or several floors underground.

I already stated that the stairwells were grouped more closely together on floors where they were not being routed around mechanical floors or skylobbies.

Like so:

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/images/911Report_Ch9_img3.jpg

This proves you didn't even bother to read my post.

Thanks for showing your ignorance once again.


2) These were the only the people the NIST were able to get onto the telephone. NIST was not even commissioned until 2002I realize that if the debunkers or NIST do not put into simple terms that even you can understand that you do not believe it but if you were to look a bit deeper intot he media reportsx and interviews in the hours days and months following the aftermath you might actually get somewhere. I mean this is so mind numbingly stupid. Its almost as if you think that if NIST did not report it then it didn't happen.I asked you for the quotes and the links to them. What is mind numbingly stupid is that you refuse to do so.


One such report has a lady talking about the smoke entering the area around the impact zones and that she felt like she was melting. Now I am sure that it was hot but if smoke and thus the 1000 degree air were getting into the well then she literally would have been burnt to a crisp. Skin burns at 130 degrees. I have been in attics that are about that hot working on the AC and you can only stay there about ten minutes at a time or you begin to swoon. You are talking about air that was supposedly 6 times hotter than that.That is neither a quote nor a link. This is your making up shit with zero context.


3) I read this a couple of times and thought to my self, ' he really cannot be this stupid.' This is a prime example of you quoting NIST or a debunker site and hoping the proverbial shit sticks hit the wall the wall. Who gives a fuck how long it took? I mean really I would love to see you try and explain this.So you are saying you have no such quotes and no links to back up anything you have ever said here.

No problem.


Really the crown jewel is when you once again copy and paste the bowing outer columns pictures from your fave debumk site and then turn around and give the same fucking canned argument. The guy was fucking wrong. Yes NIST gave a chronology of events that included the outer bowing of the exterior columns. I am not disputing that.So what are you disputing?


Where he got it wrong and thus you because you are too ignorant to even begin to understand how the forces wrk in the modelis that NIST in plain fucking english which has been quoted for you about a dozen times by now
that the interior columns weakening and losing their load bearing capacity was also key. The two are not mutually exclusive.:lmao You are still stuck on that?

You're a complete idiot.

I readily agreed to the weakening of the core columns because it only strengthens any argument I have. Since we both agree on that, why do keep pretending we don't?


I mean really they describe the process by which it fell is an 'inward collapse' where are the exterior columns? Oh yeah that right the 'outer' part of the building. I mean really it should be intuitive to a mongoloid. For some reason you cannot just grasp the concept. Try using your own noggin rather than parroting the debunk site of your choice.We cannot help but notice you have not provided any specific challenge to any of the points I made above.

One can only conclude you have none.

Please get back to us when you can specifically challenge any points made above.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I am given to understand, the NIST didn't claim that the fires burned at that temperature in any one place for very long, and the peak temperatures cited were generally along the very top of the ceilings.

If one watches the time lapse photography of the temperature simulations, one can see the fires moving from place to place.

One cannot rightly conclude that just because people found places where fires weren't that the fires really weren't all that hot.

Further, the NIST model does not state that fires were everywhere within every floor. If you base your statements on the misconception that what the firefighters saw on the lower floors was prevalent on the floors that they couldn't reach, then your perception of what the NIST version contradicting the actual eyewitness testimony seems to be flawed.

Since the NIST, for its report, interviewed hundreds of survivors, I find the statement that somehow their version of events contradicts that of those same survivors to be a bit of a stretch. They said they fully took into account those statements, and said those statements seemed to support their models.

Assuming they aren't lying about that, it would seem to me that your perception of contradiction is probably based on a mistaken perception of some sort on your part.

Good post.

I know that NIST doesn't say the fires directly caused the weakening of the steel. Instead they say the fires heated gas to 1000 degrees which was the heat transfer device. The problem with hot air is that is diffuses easily and rapidly and moves to displace cold air masses.

And do not get me wrong. I many pages ago stated that I do not believe that NIST was operating in bad faith. Darrin pointed out to me a long time ago that NIST worked jointly with the American Society of Structural Engineers and the AS or Civil Engineers. I know they have the expertise.

What I stated before is that I firmly believe they ran out of time and were forced to present a final report. They were under an intense amount of political pressure because the 9/11 commission went off like a fart in church a year before and after all it had been 6 years since they were commissioned with the project.

One thing that I wish they would have looked at a bit deeper was the poor state of maintence the building was in. One man described it as a maintenece nightmare. Yearly autumnal windstorms would dislodge fireproofing and weaken supports and wouldn't be repaired. The building was under a different code than the NY Municipal building code and thus was not subject to the same oversight etc.

NIST claims that the plane impacts dislodged fireproofing but I have read several reports that much much more had been dislodged from deterioration.

After all as the bridge collapse in Wisconsin a year or more ago showed the state of repair of the general infrastructure in this country is shit.

I do not buy the controlled demolition argument for one bit. There were over 10000 people that worked in the buildings that fell and not a single person has come forward to indicate suspicious activity of work crews etc that would have placed 1000s of charges to pull something like that off. You would think that Chump or one of the other debunk dick suckers would have thought of that. Its pretty intuitive.

[ChumpDumper]

I do not buy the controlled demolition argument for one bit. There were over 10000 people that worked in the buildings that fell and not a single person has come forward to indicate suspicious activity of work crews etc that would have placed 1000s of charges to pull something like that off. You would think that Chump or one of the other debunk dick suckers would have thought of that. Its pretty intuitive.Of course we have. It's in pretty much every thread related to 9/11.

Of course, that begs the question -- what do you think really happened on 9/11?

[911]

:corn:

[Blake]

I do not buy the controlled demolition argument for one bit. There were over 10000 people that worked in the buildings that fell and not a single person has come forward to indicate suspicious activity of work crews etc that would have placed 1000s of charges to pull something like that off. You would think that Chump or one of the other debunk dick suckers would have thought of that. Its pretty intuitive.

good lord you are an idiot.

so you dont buy controlled demolition, but you dont buy fire bringing the buildings down either?

aliens?

[RandomGuy]

Good post.

I know that NIST doesn't say the fires directly caused the weakening of the steel. Instead they say the fires heated gas to 1000 degrees which was the heat transfer device. The problem with hot air is that is diffuses easily and rapidly and moves to displace cold air masses.

And do not get me wrong. I many pages ago stated that I do not believe that NIST was operating in bad faith. Darrin pointed out to me a long time ago that NIST worked jointly with the American Society of Structural Engineers and the AS or Civil Engineers. I know they have the expertise.

What I stated before is that I firmly believe they ran out of time and were forced to present a final report. They were under an intense amount of political pressure because the 9/11 commission went off like a fart in church a year before and after all it had been 6 years since they were commissioned with the project.

One thing that I wish they would have looked at a bit deeper was the poor state of maintence the building was in. One man described it as a maintenece nightmare. Yearly autumnal windstorms would dislodge fireproofing and weaken supports and wouldn't be repaired. The building was under a different code than the NY Municipal building code and thus was not subject to the same oversight etc.

NIST claims that the plane impacts dislodged fireproofing but I have read several reports that much much more had been dislodged from deterioration.

After all as the bridge collapse in Wisconsin a year or more ago showed the state of repair of the general infrastructure in this country is shit.

I do not buy the controlled demolition argument for one bit. There were over 10000 people that worked in the buildings that fell and not a single person has come forward to indicate suspicious activity of work crews etc that would have placed 1000s of charges to pull something like that off. You would think that Chump or one of the other debunk dick suckers would have thought of that. Its pretty intuitive.

Here is another question that conspiracy theorists have never bothered answering:

If you are a demolitions expert and you are hired by someone to set off explosions by evil people who are willing to kill tens of thousands of people and who are therefore quite willing to kill anybody to further their agenda, are you stupid enough to believe the evil conspiracy will not kill you to keep you from talking or blackmailing them?

A rather famous conspirator, G. Gordon Liddy, once quipped: "The only way for two people to keep a secret is for one of them to be dead."

Basically demolition theory implies that there is a group of people who are smart enough to flawlesslywire two 110 story buildings for demolition, but are too stupid to realize that they will not be allowed to live long enough to spend the money they were paid for it.

I also asked the question about anybody actually seeing one of the thousands of devices that would have been needed:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2353841&postcount=994
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65131&highlight=demolition+experts&page=39

Further:

Of course the same firefighters who are expert enough in bombs to rely on to "prove" explosive devices when they hear explosions, can't be relied on to recognize bomb components in the rubble during the weeks that they were in charge of the "pile".

If you read through the "Real 9-11 Research" thread it was brought up.

Being an accountant, I even stepped through the calculations.

200 stories (wtc 1, 2, minus a few floors at the top of each)

with 47 columns to be wired, at 10 minutes a piece to affix and test wiring, divided by a 5 person crew, divided by a 40 hour work week, divided by 4.3 weeks per month, etc.

I came up with about 3-5 months if memory serves. All done without anybody noticing.

It gets more and more ridiculous as one really looks into what would be required to actually demolish the buildings.

For this reason, the truthers have mostly retreated from their fucktarded theory and concentrated on wtc7. This will, in the end, prove just as fruitless.

[RandomGuy]

What I stated before is that I firmly believe they ran out of time and were forced to present a final report. They were under an intense amount of political pressure because the 9/11 commission went off like a fart in church a year before and after all it had been 6 years since they were commissioned with the project.

One thing that I wish they would have looked at a bit deeper was the poor state of maintence the building was in. One man described it as a maintenece nightmare. Yearly autumnal windstorms would dislodge fireproofing and weaken supports and wouldn't be repaired. The building was under a different code than the NY Municipal building code and thus was not subject to the same oversight etc.

NIST claims that the plane impacts dislodged fireproofing but I have read several reports that much much more had been dislodged from deterioration.


Indeed.

I have no doubt that the age and state of maintenance probably played a part in the collapse.

The rest of this post brought up some pretty good points as well.

In the end, anybody with any sense would agree that the whole "controlled demolition" schtick is not worth a fart in a hurricaine.

[Nbadan]

If you are a demolitions expert and you are hired by someone to set off explosions by evil people who are willing to kill tens of thousands of people and who are therefore quite willing to kill anybody to further their agenda, are you stupid enough to believe the evil conspiracy will not kill you to keep you from talking or blackmailing them?

Pfffff.......that's what your hanging your head on now? WeaK! There have been criminal organizations around for decades.....guess what? They don't all kill each other off after all!

[Nbadan]

After all as the bridge collapse in Wisconsin a year or more ago showed the state of repair of the general infrastructure in this country is shit.

:lmao .......tell me you didn't go there!

[Nbadan]

200 stories (wtc 1, 2, minus a few floors at the top of each)

...your assuming that they had to wire the whole building which isn't true.........all they really had to wire was the bottom floors of the central core columns and a few columns on the upper middle floors...

[Nbadan]

the truthers have mostly retreated from their fucktarded theory and concentrated on wtc7

:rolleyes

Or maybe it's because it's the weakest part of the, Bush sponsored, 911 Commission's fictional story.......

[Nbadan]

...that's not to say that I fully believe one way or another, but that I support another investigation...

[ChumpDumper]

...your assuming that they had to wire the whole building which isn't true.........all they really had to wire was the bottom floors of the central core columns and a few columns on the upper middle floors...tell us how one would go about wiring the building in those locations.

Be specific.


:rolleyes

Or maybe it's because it's the weakest part of the, Bush sponsored, 911 Commission's fictional story.......Which part is fiction?

Be specific.


...that's not to say that I fully believe one way or another, but that I support another investigation...Investigate what?

Be specific.

[Nbadan]

tell us how one would go about wiring the building in those locations....


....with wires and explosives?

[Nbadan]

Which part is fiction?

...well, the 'independent' part to start........I haven't seen a less independent commission since Warren.............and well, we all know how that worked out...

[ChumpDumper]

....with wires and explosives?Not specific.


...well, the 'independent' part to start........I haven't seen a less independent commission since Warren.............and well, we all know how that worked out...Not specific.

[RandomGuy]

Pfffff.......that's what your hanging your head on now? WeaK! There have been criminal organizations around for decades.....guess what? They don't all kill each other off after all!

Don't like me pointing out the holes in your non-theory, I take it.

"Yeah, here is some money to wire the buildings in which we plan to kill 10,000 people, but we PROMISE to leave you alive long enough to spend the money."

:lmao

But, hey, since you want to assert that there are a group of guys who really are that smart/naive/trusting of evil conspiracies.

How many of them were there?

I'm with Chump on this one. Your theory, you tell me how it works.

[RandomGuy]

I can see the movie version of the 9-11 trial conducted by truthers now

(NbaDan to Jury)

"I don't really have any coherent theory to give you to support my claims, and despite the defendants countering every single one of my flimsy and made up points of evidence, you must find them guilty because you just know they did it.

The prosecution rests."

[RandomGuy]

....with wires and explosives?

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury...

with wire and explosives."

"'nuff said. Remember to believe me, just 'cause you know they did it."

"um, what, your honor? Do I really need to explain a coherent alternative theory? That would take, like, effort or something."

[RandomGuy]

...your assuming that they had to wire the whole building which isn't true.........all they really had to wire was the bottom floors of the central core columns and a few columns on the upper middle floors...

Except for the part that shows that no part of the bottom floors started moving before the debris wave hit it.

That was one of the primary points that the real demolitions experts brought up.

Somehow the explosives were so flawlessly set that they went off ONLY after the debris wave hit them?

How did they get the initial collapse started? If they did indeed wire the floors that were impacted by the jets, can you tell me how the explosives didn't cook off immediately when the fires from the fuel started the internal fires?

Even fires that "aren't really that hot and oxygen starved" give off enough heat to cook off explosives.

Can you explain this for me? What kind of explosive was used that was fire-proof?

[unibrow]

Nbadan is on fire! :tu

[RandomGuy]

Nbadan is on fire! :tu

(hands NBAdan a fire extinguisher for his pants)

[unibrow]

:lmao