WTC Collapses

[KennyJC]

the passport that survived beautifully intact from a terrorist pocket through the fireball?

How long would it have been in a fireball? I know that you are a truther, but even you must realize that for something to burned, it has to have prolonged exposure.

 

[KennyJC]

it was brought down as a safety measure to avoid any collateral damage. all buildings have that in place. nobody ever talks about it because of the fear factor.

lol, you people are goofy.

 

[KennyJC]

It's one thing for the jet fuel to achieve temperatures 3 times as high for a few minutes. It's quite another for the WTC steel to get anywhere near that temperature. This issue is the truly important one.

Once again Scott, you are covering your eyes and ears on this issue to keep your pathetic fantasy going.

I have shown you tests in which steel supports reached a temperature of 1000c in 40 minutes. This wasn't in a furnace, but a regular office fire.

So you don't get to pretend like this is a big mystery, because it's not.

 

[Headspin]

#4. I use to braze. I understand about fire and metal. In the one film I saw where a small river of molten metal was running out of the corner of a tower, onto the street level far below, that told me the metal within the building we could not see in all probability had reached not only a weakening point so the metal was bending but had reached a melting point, finding it's way to lower floors to do more structural damage.

how did the fire reach a high enough temperature to melt the steel into a liquid? the consensus is that the steel could not have melted due to the fire. fire experiments confirm this too. steel is melted in a blast furnace with pure oxygen pumped in. these conditions were not possible in the wtc.

I would actually like to see the 'terrorists' theory come to be as it would explain much but at present, that is not the case. So I will go the way of the jets till proof positive is shown either way.

Professor Steven Jones has analysed the "dust" and found the chemical fingerprint of thermite at the nano, the micro and the macro level. He has also claimed to have found unreacted nanothermite, a high tech explosive which releases immense heat way above the melting temperature of steel.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FCqsIgCcZQ
further analysis of the red chips has shown the composition of the red chips to be less than 25 nanometers, confirming the substance to be nanothermite.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00845000001001006000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

 

[shaman_]

This is for headspin who asked to see some debunking of Steven Jones' claims.

Several documents regarding thermite
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

Debunks Jones’ paper Why Indeed Did the blah blah
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones'hypothesesbydavero

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

Addresses the early claims of Thermite
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html


http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

Jones’ claims in general.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Ryan Mackey’s document is a response to David Ray Griffin, but he repeats most of Jones’ claims. Thermite is brought up many times.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

This is a good summary of Jones claims over the years.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4157113&postcount=1

 

[shaman_]

The list of architects and engineers, complete with their numbers and addresses is far from meaningless. They can be verified easily enough. All you need is a phone. If they weren't behind it, I sincerely don't believe that they'd risk revealing so much about themselves. As to why they aren't writing papers for engineering magazines, are you sure none of them are? Simply because you or I haven't heard of it doesn't mean they haven't done it. I think it's understandable if few have done so, however. For one, why reinvent the wheel? The founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, Richard Gage, was initially struck by the evidence that noted 9/11 author David Ray Griffin had gathered. Kevin Ryan had also begun to talk to David Ray Griffin and in fact allowed him to publish a copy of the letter that he'd sent to Frank Gayle's NIST before he was fired for writing said letter. Kevin Ryan has worked with Steven Jones on atleast one paper. Architects and Engineers also relies on Jim Hoffman's 9/11 Research page. In other words, all of these people are essentially working -together-.

I know. It is the blind leading the blind.

You must be looking at a list that includes people who aren't architects and engineers. The more then 500 architects and enginers can be seen here:
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_

No check the site. There are more than 500 "architectural and engineering professionals". They have padded those numbers up with software developers, chemists, electrical engineers, urban activists.

 

[psikeyhackr]

What would happen if the core failed and pulled the tower downwards (the core carried the majority of the load).

Where does that come from?

The NCSTAR1 report says it was a 53% to 47% ratio, almost equal. But the perimeter columns had the higher overload capacity because there were so many of them.

psik

 

[shaman_]

the conclusions of the report (that the steel softened and buckled) are not supported by the temperature evidence of the samples.

That is correct. However very few of the samples came from the area of the impacts.

There is still plenty of evidence to confidently say that the temperatures went well over 250C.

The fires in building four caused warping to the steel. Explosives? Thermite?

 

[shaman_]

A certain title aside, I think they're fairly good.

In the case of the one titled "9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush", I regretted the title, as it makes it seem like Marvin was running the show at the time of 9/11. I liked the article for other elements, but the title was admittedly misleading as there is no evidence that he played a part in its security on 9/11.

You taken a good look at the link you just pointed to though? Here's an interesting excerpt:
"Company stock became worthless after the company's de-listing. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings ceased showing Marvin Bush as a shareholder after 2000, but there are no filings indicating when his stock was sold."

So you think he is implicated in the super conspiracy of bombs and megathermite because he was a shareholder in the security company responsible for WTC? That is a desperate attempt to make a link. Think about it.

Don't you think the claim should be further investigated instead of buried under the rug simply because only one person mentioned it?

The claim appears to have no substance to it. No I don’t think it should be investigated.

As to it only being made about one tower, perhaps they only needed to do some last minute touches on that one tower. Trying to second guess why a super secretive inside job team would have done every particular little thing is a next to impossible task. I'm simply pointing out that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation.

But there isn’t sufficient evidence. Your idea of sufficient evidence appears to be anything that you read on the internet.

But Scott you are missing something very important. The (shaky) claim is that only one tower had the power down. So the other tower which collapsed fell due to the fires and structural damage? If one did then why not the other?

911 review is a conspiracy debunker site;

Oh. I’ve never looked at it before.

At times, it's difficult to know what one knows and what one doesn't know. In this type of a case, it's helpful to have someone who doesn't take your word for granted. Clearly, it would be peachy if David Ray Griffin could be here to defend his logic, but he's not and I admit that I can't make his case for him this time around.

I’m sure he could contribute to this forum - http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22

 

[psikeyhackr]

In any case, the majority of concrete that was used in the WTC was very thin, and thus, very easily broken down.

The problem with the concrete is there are so many different stories. Some sources which existed before 9/11 say there were a total of 425,000 cubic yards in the towers. That would come to 280,000 tons of the lightweight type in just one tower. Now obviously they would want to avoid putting a lot of concrete high up in the towers but there had to be a hell of a lot in the foundation and there were SIX basement levels. So why don't we have numbers specified for every level? Why are we supposed to believe that this is difficult information to get?

psik

 

[scott3x]

In any case, the majority of concrete that was used in the WTC was very thin, and thus, very easily broken down.

The problem with the concrete is there are so many different stories. Some sources which existed before 9/11 say there were a total of 425,000 cubic yards in the towers. That would come to 280,000 tons of the lightweight type in just one tower. Now obviously they would want to avoid putting a lot of concrete high up in the towers but there had to be a hell of a lot in the foundation and there were SIX basement levels. So why don't we have numbers specified for every level? Why are we supposed to believe that this is difficult information to get?

Perhaps it's not so difficult. I'm a bit confounded as to why you haven't responded to this post.

 

[alaska1976]

how did the fire reach a high enough temperature to melt the steel into a liquid? the consensus is that the steel could not have melted due to the fire. fire experiments confirm this too. steel is melted in a blast furnace with pure oxygen pumped in. these conditions were not possible in the wtc.

Your missing the fact that was filmed by the media in a coptor of the second tower that shows melted, liquid, metal, running out of the corner like slow running water from a fawcet.
You can toss any link from any professor you want from either camp that says the metal of the buildings did not melt prior to the towers collapsing. But the footage of the film of the second tower before collapse factually shows the fires had became hot enough to melt the metal used in the structure of that tower prior to it's collapse.
Thus if film footage shows metal from within the tower was melting and running out of it and onto the street below, it is very safe and very logical to believe that the heat of the fires had also weakened the metal framing enough to cause inner dammage so the framing holding up the concrete floors caved in.
That caving in/collapsing was the initial blast heard of the upper floors collapsing onto the damaged floors giving into the destruction caused to them.

 

[Headspin]

This is for headspin who asked to see some debunking of Steven Jones' claims.

Several documents regarding thermite
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter:critiquesoftheinept

Debunks Jones’ paper Why Indeed Did the blah blah
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/commentsonstevenjones'hypothesesbydavero

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

Addresses the early claims of Thermite
http://www.911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/stevene.jones'thermitethermateclaims

Jones’ claims in general.
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm

Ryan Mackey’s document is a response to David Ray Griffin, but he repeats most of Jones’ claims. Thermite is brought up many times.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

This is a good summary of Jones claims over the years.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4157113&postcount=1

What does "debunk" mean?
It means to expose as false, to disprove.

None of those links provide anything that disproves Jones work.
I said originally that i have not seen any debunking of Jones work. I cannot find anything in those links that show Jones work to be false. It didn't take long to encounter the usual politically driven rhetoric, distortions and ad hominem arguments.

What you have there is everything that has ever been offered as criticism with no regard to integrity. If you think Jones work is bunk, it should be easy to present a clear case.

 

[shaman_]

Your missing the fact that was filmed by the media in a coptor of the second tower that shows melted, liquid, metal, running out of the corner like slow running water from a fawcet.
You can toss any link from any professor you want from either camp that says the metal of the buildings did not melt prior to the towers collapsing. But the footage of the film of the second tower before collapse factually shows the fires had became hot enough to melt the metal used in the structure of that tower prior to it's collapse.
Thus if film footage shows metal from within the tower was melting and running out of it and onto the street below, it is very safe and very logical to believe that the heat of the fires had also weakened the metal framing enough to cause inner dammage so the framing holding up the concrete floors caved in.
That caving in/collapsing was the initial blast heard of the upper floors collapsing onto the damaged floors giving into the destruction caused to them.

Or it could be aluminium from the planes. There was tons of the stuff in the building.

This is particularly more likely if the flow of molten material is near the impact point. The sagging of the floors would have caused it to flow out.

 

[shaman_]

What does "debunk" mean?
It means to expose as false, to disprove. . None of those links provide anything that disproves Jones work.

Those articles point out just how flawed, idiotic, and at times dishonest, his claims are.

I said originally that i have not seen any debunking of Jones work. I cannot find anything in those links that show Jones work to be false.

You read them right? Or like a Christian reading about the mechanisms behind evolution did you just know that they were wrong before reading them… which you may not have actually done.

It didn't take long to encounter the usual politically driven rhetoric, distortions and ad hominem arguments.

Some of the articles are more professional than others. Only a few resort to ad hominem.

What you have there is everything that has ever been offered as criticism with no regard to integrity. If you think Jones work is bunk, it should be easy to present a clear case.

It’s there if you want to see it.:shrug:

 

[Headspin]

yes I have read most of them over the last few years. I don't intend to read them again. It is also not necessary to read the entirety of the big documents after one encounters blatant falsehoods.

do you know how many times i have encountered people using the "its like intelligent design" argument without seeming to realise it is not a valid argument.

 

[shaman_]

do you know how many times i have encountered people using the "its like intelligent design" argument without seeming to realise it is not a valid argument.

four times?

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by Headspin

do you know how many times i have encountered people using the "its like intelligent design" argument without seeming to realise it is not a valid argument.

four times?

I think the conversation has veered just a -tad- off the topic at hand. In the next day or 2, I'll try to update my web site a bit with all the information that people have brought to it regarding particular sub topics atleast. My hope is that I'll be able to present the latest counters (from either side) and we can get back to the meat of the matter. I just realized I've passed the 1000 post mark (yay me ).

 

[Cyperium]

Found a good excerpt that refutes the notion that the planes and fires brought down the twin towers:
*************************
The Strength of Steel Frame Structures

For those who want us to imagine that the Towers "collapsed", the assumption that they "fell" on their own is a critical part of the story. But to anyone who is familiar with the performance of modern steel-frame structures, it should be obvious that they cannot simply collapse on their own, with or without an office fire, or even from the impact of a falling portion of the same building. If impacted from above, the Towers might bend or distort, but they wouldn't explode, disintegrate in mid-air, or collapse like a house of cards!

Anyone who's ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural members remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted if it falls to the floor, but it will never just collapse into pieces under any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional forces. Buildings that have fallen in earthquakes demonstrate this resistance to disintegration.

*************************
http://www.truememes.com/semantics.html

For a more detailed analysis of why collapses had to have been demolitions, feel free to visit my web page on the subject:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

Those buildings weren't that massive compared to the twin towers. Something the size of the twin towers can't tip, it will only collapse upon itself, think about it, if it started tipping at any place of the building it would not be able to maintain structure.

- if reality proves different than your ideas, trust reality.

 

[leopold]

the passport that survived beautifully intact from a terrorist pocket through the fireball?

there were reams of paper that were blown out of the hole the plane made, the very same hole that had the huge fireball coming out of it.
quite a few of those pages made their way to new jersey without any signs of being burnt.