WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 6th and final part of shaman's post 294 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

then "resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete."

"Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom”

Certainly. I can easily imagine that Steven Jones would have said the same had he been in Astaneh's position. What's your point?

I am clarifying why he resigned. It does nothing to support the conspiracy religion.

I don't see how your statement changes anything. It seems clear to me that he left because he felt that the investigation was being overly secretive and that's a view that many alternate theory believers take as well, including myself.

I'll get to the rest of your posts when I feel like wasting some more time trying to reason with a religious nut.

And again with the insults. I'm sure glad I reported this post. If Stryder doesn't do something, I think it'll be clear that he only does something when he himself is being insulted.

 

[shaman_]

This is in response to the second part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.



Then surely you agree that the group's decision was appalling?

What was the group’s decision?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

You constantly play dumb and I feel like I am arguing with a child at times.

This is in response to the 3rd part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.

No. I'm asking -you- if that's what -you're- claiming.

Read the text quoted. You are speculating as to what he was really thinking. I pointed out that you don’t know what he is thinking and you challenge me with “how do you know”, “I feel that my reasoning on his thought process may be valid.”.

You seem to think you can read his mind. :shrug:

This is in response to the 4th part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.



Why, because I want some clarification on his apparent statement regarding vaporized steel?

Because you have ignored all his research and conclusions. You are ignoring everything he says because you don’t want to hear it but you have latched onto a word in an article which wasn’t even a quote.

This is in response to the 6th and final part of shaman's post 256 in this thread.



True, but I wouldn't automatically disbelieve him either. I -would-, however, like a clarification as to why he didn't say anything concerning the New York Times report. But this is speculation. At present, he has never denied that he saw evidence of vaporized steel.

He has never publicly denied that he saw mischievous aliens in the wreckage so that must be true as well.

Not regarding his apparent claim that steel was vaporized.

If you actually read his research you will see his opinion. From the news articles to his testimony he made it clear that the fires were responsible and makes no explanations for vaporised steel. All you have is paraphrase which is completely outwieghed by work which is most definitely in his words.

 

[shaman_]

so this is an admission that molten aluminium does not glow orange/yellow in daylight conditions. good.

No I think it can glow orange. I have linked to photos where it is doing so.

However I think if it were pure we would have seen more silver immediately as it flowed over the edge.

so now you are claiming molten aluminium can glow in daylight conditions. bad.

Did you look at the pictures I linked to? The ones that actually were aluminium. You didn’t comment on them.

I have already told you that those pictures are molten iron not aluminium. you are repeating a disinformation lie, does the truth even matter to you?
you even admit it in your very next comment in the same post....


do you understand it yet - those are the same pictures of molten iron, that you quoted in post 230!
check it yourself so you do not repeat the lie again:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/Aluminum_Glows.html
http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/melting.html

they are not aluminium, they are iron:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/f/Glowing-Aluminum-Disinformation-by-brian-vasquez.pdf

Sorry I did not realise they were the same pictures. The sources were completely different. I posted the others two weeks ago and didn’t check. However as I said before, they are not the only ones I posted. You didn’t comment on the others.

under discussion is the color of the glow, not whether it is glowing or not. the colour of the glow is important because it indicates what the metal is, and what it isn't.

It is glowing orange in a couple of the pictures I posted above and it isn't dark. But again, I don't think the substance is pure aluminum.

molten steel? you should say "thermite residue", not "molten steel" otherwise you are misrepresenting your opponents position. its been pointed out to you several times.

I doubt that. Don’t blame me if the truth movement are unclear whether bombs or incendiaries were responsible. Scott keeps making references to low temperatures and high temperatures and I have asked repeatedly what the theory is but have never had a response. I’m sure he has referred to the material as molten steel. You are now talking about thermite but last month it was nanothermite. Bear with me if I am unclear on what the theory is.

There is plenty of evidence for "thermite residue" that has been presented in this thread and you are well aware of. perhaps that is why you said "molten steel" instead of "thermite residue".

There are problems with the thermite claims which have been presented in these threads that I’m sure you are aware of.

what things? i don't recall reading about "other things"? .

You responded to the post where I suggested “It may be aluminium mixed with lead, it could be aluminium with some dissolved iron (metals can become soluble in a molten metal of a lower melting point),”

you will of course have provided previous examples of other fires producing yellow/orange molten material pouring out of a building fire? or is it just wild speculation unsupported by previous fire cases?

Did you think that one through? How many large office fires begin with a 767 in the building?

remember we are talking about thermite residue, not molten steel, so lets see how your argument works now - "it is unlikely to be thermite residue because that would require thermite"

So you point out that I am talking about steel and not thermite residue then you present an interpretation where I am talking about thermite residue. ?

surely you now see the bad logic in what you say?
You admit you do not know what it is, so this is an admission that you are arguing from personal incredulity, rather than scientific observations. . .

I have been stating what it most likely is based on “scientific observations”. You however ignore all possibilities and just know that it must be thermite!

Thermite residue would appear exactly as seen in the video - flowing yellow-orange molten metal.

Could you show me a video please?

Why don't list the expected observations of a thermite compound and which of these were not observed, and why the observations for thermite as already presented to you are not "credible". It is not sufficient just to state "not credible" without a reason for stating so, otherwise that would just be a "no its not" argument.

Something I get from the truthers constantly. Its been done before and I’m not going to summarize the subject again in this post. At a later date maybe.

aluminium would have flowed when it melted, ie at 600C, ie when it was silver.

That didn’t answer the question I was asking but even so, the fact that the flow occurred after the bowing started increases the likelihood of aluminium/aluminium oxides.

 

[Headspin]

I don’t think it was pure aluminium. I don’t actually know what that material is.

you don't know what it is, but you know what it isn't. this is my position too.

I am saying it is not aluminum because it does not have the physical properties of molten aluiminium in daylight conditions and all attempts to recreate aluminum mixed with other materials fail to match the observations.

You are saying it is aluminium mixed with other materials but you have no evidence to support your speculation.

However it is a huge leap of faith to claim that it must be steel. It is the same desperate rationalising we see over and over again.

I never said it was "steel"? this is misrepresenting my position. I also never said "it must be" something.

"huge", "leap of faith" "claim that it must", "desperate rationalising", "over and over" - why the unreasonable use of hyperbolic language? I suspect it is because you realise your arguments are unconvincing.
It is easier for you to attack an exagerated position.

A witness said he heard a bomb so it must have been a bomb!

if a witness said he heard a bomb, then there is strong evidence for a bomb. Whilst it is a false to say "there must have been a bomb", it is true to say "there may have been a bomb".

Do you see how you used hyperbole to exagerate and misrepresent your opponents position? you do this because you have no basis to argue against the actual position being put forward, so you need to exagerate your opponents positions in order that you can attack it. All reasonable minds will recognise this. Besides being dishonest, you are only fooling yourself.

As I said I have already posted several pics of orange aluminium.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1280681.html?page=2

http://www.bn.saint-gobain.com/Data...ation_edit.asp?ele_ch_id=A0000000000000001326

http://www.granton.k12.wi.us/highSchool/teched/index.htm

http://www.uhigh.ilstu.edu/tech/tech gallery.htm

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2006/Feb/18/bz/FP602180326.html

They must all be reflecting the container…….

do you notice all your examples are in darkened conditions. do you accept that there is a difference in how molten aluminium looks in daylight and in darkened conditions? the third example you give is actually silver - the container and the fire coming from the motlen aluminium is orange. the aluminium is silver. the second example is a generic library picture, there is nothing to indicate that it is aluminium, it looks very much like molten steel.

It wouldn’t even have to mix properly. The aluminium just had to carry the glowing material out of the building.

what is the material that you think would glow yellow-orange?

They probably don’t consider it important. I have found very little regarding this particular issue.

This is incorrect, the molten metal is the central issue for Professor Jones and the reason he originally questioned the events. he is on record saying this. it is widely discussed by both sides. how can you say "don't consider it important". it is widely discussed on truth and anti-truth forums all the time.

Why haven’t the truth movement been able to come up with cohesive theory after all these years.

it is the official theory that is not cohesive. who told you that the truth movement was supposed to come up with a "cohesive theory"? ahh wait, i think i know who told you what to think.

We still have the crap like cherry picked testimony of bombs in the basement to prove the incendiary at the 80th floor caused a collapse!

you need to look up the definition of "cherry picking" it is misapplied here. nowhere is it claimed that bombs in the basement proves incendaries caused the collapse. more exageration and misrepresentation.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 1st part of shaman's post 302 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Ah, well, that's understandable. Larry Silverstein certainly wouldn't want any evidence that would make it clear that the buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions to come out I would imagine. The question of how the explosives were placed would inevitably come up, and I believe the answer to that question would not look good for him.

Sometimes you need to leave your simplistic fantasy land. If the construction of the buildings was found to be faulty then there would be legal implications because people could potentially be held responsible for the collapse. This would be an ugly can of worms.

Indeed. You seem to be saying that we shouldn't hold anyone legally responsible for the collapse. An... interesting conclusion.

In any case, there would be even -more- implications if it were found that the buildings couldn't have fallen down at all without the help of explosives. In a way, perhaps it was fortunate for Astaneh that he quit when he did; he may have found out so much that even he would have found it hard to deny that the WTC collapses were the result of controlled demolition. That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor.

More silly speculation .. He investigated the steel and made his conclusions that no explosives were involved.

He tentatively concluded that the fires were 'most likely' due to fire, then "resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete." Not very promising. But hey, atleast people in high places aren't getting sued. This seems to be of paramount concern to you...

I don’t give a damn who gets sued.

Then surely you agree that the group's decision was appalling?

What was the group’s decision?

You have apparently forgotten your statement you made back in post 125, which I have included in this post, concerning an 'ugly can of worms'. I certainly agree that it would indeed have been an 'ugly can of worms', but you seem to have no objection to it not being opened for Astaneh. Why is that?

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 2nd part of shaman's post 302 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Not very promising. But hey, atleast people in high places aren't getting sued. This seems to be of paramount concern to you...

I don’t give a damn who gets sued.

How old are you Scott?

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

You constantly play dumb and I feel like I am arguing with a child at times.

I'm not 'playing' anything. And I, atleast, have the ability to keep my comments civil.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 3rd part of shaman's post 302 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

That, in turn, may have meant that he would have been suspended from his university, and seriously, who wants to lose their job? Perhaps this is why he never responded to me when I asked him about the vaporized steel. If he can just stay -quiet- enough about it all, perhaps he can continue his work as a professor.

You don't have any insight as to what the professor is thinking.

How would you know? You talk to him recently?

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that you know what he is thinking. Is that what you are saying

No. I'm asking -you- if that's what -you're- claiming.

Read the text quoted. You are speculating as to what he was really thinking. I pointed out that you don’t know what he is thinking and you challenge me with “how do you know”, “I feel that my reasoning on his thought process may be valid.”.

You seem to think you can read his mind.

Perhaps it has seemed that way to you. In fact, however, I would argue that it's -you- who seems to think you can read his mind. I state this because you claimed that I "don't have any insight as to what the professor is thinking". But how would you -know- that unless you had (a) talked to him recently or (b) be able to read his mind? I have always made it clear that I was theorizing as to what he might be thinking. Even your quotes make that clear. I ask you how you -know- that my theory/reasoning is invalid and I say that my reasoning -may- be valid. You, on the other hand, seem to believe you -know- that my theory provides no insight on Astaneh's reasoning.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 4th part of shaman's post 302 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

Originally Posted by scott3x

I feel that my reasoning on his thought process may be valid. I've emailed him in an attempt to ascertain his viewpoint with more certainty, but as I've mentioned, I received no response.

He probably thinks you are an annoying crackpot.

Why, because I want some clarification on his apparent statement regarding vaporized steel?

Because you have ignored all his research and conclusions. You are ignoring everything he says because you don’t want to hear it but you have latched onto a word in an article which wasn’t even a quote.

I didn't ignore anything. The conclusions in his FEMA report were tentative and he himself left the investigation due to restrictions he didn't like. Even the government admitted the FEMA report's conclusions were insufficient, going on to do more reports, this time with NIST in charge. -However-, the claim made by the New York Times article that Astaneh had claimed to see vaporized steel has -not- been discredited by anyone. Yet apparently you don't think the claim is even worth investigating.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 5th part of shaman's post 302 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

True, but I wouldn't automatically disbelieve him either. I -would-, however, like a clarification as to why he didn't say anything concerning the New York Times report. But this is speculation. At present, he has never denied that he saw evidence of vaporized steel.

He has never publicly denied that he saw mischievous aliens in the wreckage so that must be true as well.

If the New York Times had claimed that he saw mischievous aliens, I'm sure there would be a full investigation of the matter. The problem here is that the issue of whether or not there was evidence of vaporized steel is a technical matter. Most people don't understand how important it is that Astaneh apparently claimed some steel had been vaporized. I'm not saying I always trust the New York Times, but I would -certainly- believe that on something as important as the cause of the twin towers collapses, a little more investigation would be warranted on claims of vaporized steel, since there's no way jet fuel initiated office fires could have done that, regardless of what Astaneh does or does not believe on the matter.

 

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 6th and final part of shaman's post 302 in this thread.

Originally Posted by scott3x

Not regarding his apparent claim that steel was vaporized.

If you actually read his research you will see his opinion. From the news articles to his testimony he made it clear that the fires were responsible and makes no explanations for vaporised steel. All you have is paraphrase which is completely outweighed by work which is most definitely in his words.

I've read his research. And as you say, I have certainly never seen him make any mention of vaporized steel. Which is why I believe the fact that a New York Times article claimed that he made just such a claim is worthy of an investigation. There is actually another New York Times article that mentioned evaporated steel. This time it claims that Jonathan Barnett, one of the lead investigators for WTC 7, is claiming that evaporated steel was found. Here is the relevant part of the article:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.[Emphasis mine]


Yes, yes, there are no quote marks on what Dr. Barnett said either. But surely you realize that this adds further weight to the possibility that evidence of evaporated steel was indeed found? Would it really be so difficult to have an official investigation as to why these claims were made? I just emailed New York Times reporter James Glanz, as he wrote the above linked article and co-wrote the one that claims that Astaneh spoke of vaporized steel. Last year he was appointed as Baghdad bureau chief of The New York Times, however, so not sure if he'll ever respond to -me-. If there were an official investigation, however, it'd be another matter entirely.

 

[shaman_]

you don't know what it is, but you know what it isn't. this is my position too.

Are you sure? It sounds like you know what it is.

I am saying it is not aluminum because it does not have the physical properties of molten aluiminium in daylight conditions and all attempts to recreate aluminum mixed with other materials fail to match the observations.

I’m not convinced that these attempts were adequate replications of what happened on 9/11. There are other possibilities of source materials in those buildings and mixing a few woodchips in a saucepan doesn’t repeat what happened in the WTC.

You are saying it is aluminium mixed with other materials but you have no evidence to support your speculation.

As there were other materials in that building it’s not an unreasonable speculation is it?

I never said it was "steel"? this is misrepresenting my position.

You are correct I am again conflating theories again. You are suggesting it is thermite, or thermite residue, correct? Do you mean aluminum oxides and iron?

I also never said "it must be" something.

You are not keen to ponder possibilities other than pure aluminum and thermite residue.

"huge", "leap of faith" "claim that it must", "desperate rationalising", "over and over" - why the unreasonable use of hyperbolic language? I suspect it is because you realise your arguments are unconvincing. It is easier for you to attack an exagerated position.

The arguments regularly put forward by truthers are absurd and their position requires little exaggerating. However I will stop conflating your arguments with the many stupid ones I have heard so far headspin.

if a witness said he heard a bomb, then there is strong evidence for a bomb. Whilst it is a false to say "there must have been a bomb", it is true to say "there may have been a bomb". .

Most witnesses are not able to distinguish between a bomb and a transformer exploding. Of the thousands of testimonies taken, it is not at all surprising that some witnesses mention hearing something like a bomb (how else would you describe it?), especially considering there was a bombing attempt only a few years earlier. To use this testimony, while ignoring the mundane explanations for a bomb is dishonest and a desperate act, and I don’t think I am exaggerating there.

Do you see how you used hyperbole to exagerate and misrepresent your opponents position? you do this because you have no basis to argue against the actual position being put forward, so you need to exagerate your opponents positions in order that you can attack it. All reasonable minds will recognise this. Besides being dishonest, you are only fooling yourself.

No you are the one fooling yourself. Have you actually read the arguments put forward by the truthers? You are trying very hard to paint them as honest and reasonable but any reasonable mind will recognize that this is not the case. The 911 movement is a mix of ignorance, bad science and dishonest tactics such as misrepresenting testimony.

While your arguments on this particular subject have mainly been sound, you would be kidding yourself to suggest that the majority of the 911 conspiracy theories are as well.

do you notice all your examples are in darkened conditions. do you accept that there is a difference in how molten aluminium looks in daylight and in darkened conditions? the third example you give is actually silver - the container and the fire coming from the motlen aluminium is orange. the aluminium is silver. the second example is a generic library picture, there is nothing to indicate that it is aluminium, it looks very much like molten steel.

Perhaps but the heading was ‘Molten Aluminium’.

I don't think it is dark in all pictures.

It is certainly very orange in the last picture but you can’t see the surroundings. The point is that aluminum can glow and it can be orange. As I have said, I don’t think that is pure aluminum flowing out of the building.

what is the material that you think would glow yellow-orange?

Don’t know. I have suggested some possibilities.

This is incorrect, the molten metal is the central issue for Professor Jones and the reason he originally questioned the events. he is on record saying this. it is widely discussed by both sides. how can you say "don't consider it important". it is widely discussed on truth and anti-truth forums all the time.

No it isn’t. When compared to the other wild claims made by truthers, the subject of the material pouring out of the building is touched on rarely. Of the resources I have there is very little discussion on the subject. It is only mentioned if a few of the guides I have seen. Probably the best known debunking article is the popular mechanics one and they don’t mention it. 911myths don’t mention it either.

the official theory that is not cohesive. who told you that the truth movement was supposed to come up with a "cohesive theory"?

Lol You say that as if it is a lot to ask for after seven years! Yeah I am setting the bar too high by expecting the combined effort of all these conspiracy theorists to produce an accepted theory that makes sense.

ahh wait, i think i know who told you what to think.

God? Who?

you need to look up the definition of "cherry picking" it is misapplied here. nowhere is it claimed that bombs in the basement proves incendaries caused the collapse. more exageration and misrepresentation.

That comment was somewhat facetious.

But it isn’t far from the mark though is it? There has most certainly been cherry picking (applied correctly) when presenting the evidence for bombs and thermite. Even Jones has been caught out doing this with a quote from Erik Schwartz. So what is the theory of bombs in the basement? The bombs were there for the sake of it? The collapse started at the top. You don't think misrepresenting testimony to try to establish something like bombs in the basement for a collapse which started at the top is a little stupid? Do you avoid being critical of 911 theories?

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 186 from this thread.

It is in great part the arguments of these 'blind' men that have been steadily countering your claims.

Only in the minds of religious fanatics.

This
I did. Apparently it's you who wasn't looking closely...



That's in another list on their site- another 2889 people at last count. Here's the list you're thinking of, which includes architects, engineers and some if not all of the 2889 other supporters.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Scott.
Go to the ae911truth site.
Look at the title.
It says -
“
Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

550 architectural and engineering professionals

“

That isn’t 550 architects and engineers. It says architectural and engineering professionals. Their idea of an architectural or engineering professional is very questionable.

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 103 from this thread.



The only error he may have made was due to NIST's interim report as I mentioned before.




This I think I can agree to- it seems clear that his employer was either in on the 9/11 deception or (perhaps more likely) a coward and was stuck between a rock and a hard place- either he had to admit that their testing of the steel was flawed or they had to contradict the government's cronies. Neither option would look good to a coward, and so they chose a third option- firing the person who was bringing up the issue to begin with and denying that they tested the steel.

More speculation on your part. Perhaps you can read their minds as well.

He was perhaps desperately trying to hold on to the idea that fire was indeed the only cause of the collapse, something that NIST's Frank Gayle was apparently also trying to do at the time. Any higher temperatures simply weren't credible

It has been demonstrated to you many times that that is blatantly false. You are dishonest to keep repeating it. You have been shown different office tests where normal fires reached near 1000C.

in terms of being induced by jet induced fires alone and would necesitate another explanation- such as explosives.

Explosive explode. They break things with force. They don’t just make things hotter.

How so?

He thinks the “pull” comment is compelling evidence.

It does nothing of the sort. It only makes clear that the demolition had to have been planned well in advance of September 11th. I have already presented a story wherein 9/11 was being planned 11 months before 9/11.

If it was planned why would Silverstein be having a discussion regarding what to do? If it was planned that discussion wasn’t needed. The “decision to pull” was apparently already made a long time ago. See the problem here?

He had excellent qualifications,

Not in the relevant areas.

having read a lot on the subject of steel,

lol

that being the area that the company he worked for had played a part in, in regards to the WTC towers.

He did not work in the area testing steel. He worked with water.

His opinion on this subject is irrelevant. He is not an expert on steel. Those far more qualified to speak on this subject (no not Steven Jones) have published peer reviewed papers that outweigh the opinion of the waterboy.

How much of the above article did you read? I think that article is a powerful testament to his knowledge regarding the WTC collapses.

You are easily impressed.

This is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 103 in this thread.



The Windsor tower in Madrid only suffered a partial collapse:

But the steel supports collapsed. Can’t you see how important that is?

This, after the fire had burned fiercely for almost a day, unlike the 1 and 2 hour fires in the WTC towers. Again, a picture makes it clear how fierce the fire was:

.

Smaller
Concrete core.
No planes smashed into it.
No jet fuel to start the explosion.
Fireproofing

As 9/11 Research sums up:
************************
Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account.

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete

In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses. .

Fires within reach of firefighers.
Fires started slowly on one floor.
No structural damage.
Fireproofing intact ect ect.

Constantly repeating that a skyscraper hasn’t collapsed like this before is irrelevant and a laughable attempt to imply a conspiracy. Show me the skyscrapers that stayed up after being hit by airliners at full speed and losing their fireproofing…

Once again, to set the record straight on the WTC towers' cores:
***********************
The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
***********************

So there you have it. A tube in tube, steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, surrounded by a structural steel framework configured as another tube. Combined, they accounted for half of the gravity load. .

and….?

What does that have to do with the Madrid tower having a reinforced concrete core which the WTC did not have?


The Madrid Tower is just another demonstration that office fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse.

I already debunked your 'all steel structures are alike' argument in post 57. .

lol Nice piece of “debunking” there.

I responded to that post at the time.

The roof of the Mccormick Place hall collapsed thirty minutes from an ordinary fire. No planes needed and no jet fuel. It is yet another demonstration that ordinary fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse. Pointing out irrelevant structural differences is willingly missing the point.

Here is evidence that explosives were used:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104397&postcount=184 .

All you have there is a physicist out of his field of expertise adding another chapter to an embarrassing run of poor science led by his beliefs.

Jones does not employ transparent methods. Has anyone reputable analyzed the dust? Has Jones made any attempt to falsify his own work? Can he demonstrate that the spheres are not a result of the elements in an ordinary office? Can he demonstrate that they weren’t produced during the clean up or even the construction? This man, who has been caught out misrepresenting testimony and photographs, is supposed to be a scientist.

And here is evidence that explosions were heard and seen:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/twin_towers/collapse_chars/2.html .

I’m sure there were ..........exploding transformers, elevators crashing to the basement, pockets of jet fuel igniting ect ect.

Apparently explosions were heard at the Madrid Tower as well. Bombs?

If you are trying to assert that the only thing on the planet that create explosive noises are bombs then you might want to rethink that.

You might also want to think about how bombs are supposed to make steel soft. Bombs break things with force they don’t just make steel soft. Could you please be clear on what you actually think happened instead of spamming.

When you take into account that the precedents of steel structures collapsing from fire and the credibility of the evidence you have presented, the conspiracy looks quite absurd.

The WTC demolitions clearly weren't ordinary demolitions. Nevertheless, the amount of characteristics that they share with demolitions makes it clear that they were, indeed, demolitions.

But even ignoring the many, many mistakes in those pitiful reasons, you are trying to suggest that it is a controlled demolition because it looked like one. It didn't though. To rationalize this you do a little dance and then readjust to, well it looked like one, just an unusual one!

When you have a building collapsing it is not hard to use your imagination and think of things that may be similar to a controlled demolition, because in a controlled demolition the building collapses! Only in the minds of the gullible is that evidence for a CD.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.

The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement

Originally Posted by scott3x

It is in great part the arguments of these 'blind' men that have been steadily countering your claims.

Only in the minds of religious fanatics.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site

Originally Posted by scott3x

That's in another list on their site- another 2889 people at last count. Here's the list you're thinking of, which includes architects, engineers and some if not all of the 2889 other supporters.
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Scott.
Go to the ae911truth site.
Look at the title.
It says -
"Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

550 architectural and engineering professionals"

That isn’t 550 architects and engineers. It says architectural and engineering professionals. Their idea of an architectural or engineering professional is very questionable.

Why do you feel that their idea of architectural or engineering professionals is 'very questionable'? From a brief scan, their list looks fine to me.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories

Originally Posted by scott3x

The only error he may have made was due to NIST's interim report as I mentioned before.

This I think I can agree to- it seems clear that his employer was either in on the 9/11 deception or (perhaps more likely) a coward and was stuck between a rock and a hard place- either they had to admit that their testing of the steel was flawed or they had to contradict the government's cronies. Neither option would look good to a coward, and so they chose a third option- firing the person who was bringing up the issue to begin with and denying that they tested the steel.

More speculation on your part. Perhaps you can read their minds as well.

By saying that I have speculated, you seem to be saying that there are more possibilities. Is this the case? And if so, what other possibilities do you believe could exist?

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.


'Normal' office fire tests

Originally Posted by scott3x

He was perhaps desperately trying to hold on to the idea that fire was indeed the only cause of the collapse, something that NIST's Frank Gayle was apparently also trying to do at the time. Any higher temperatures simply weren't credible

It has been demonstrated to you many times that that is blatantly false.

And yet you never seem to cite a post wherein you have supposedly done so, as I have done when I have already discredited one of your arguments.

You are dishonest to keep repeating it. You have been shown different office tests where normal fires reached near 1000C.

Alright, let's see these 'normal' office fire tests.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.


The immense explosions in the WTC towers

Originally Posted by scott3x

He was perhaps desperately trying to hold on to the idea that fire was indeed the only cause of the collapse, something that NIST's Frank Gayle was apparently also trying to do at the time. Any higher temperatures simply weren't credible in terms of being induced by jet induced fires alone and would necesitate another explanation- such as explosives.

Explosive explode. They break things with force. They don’t just make things hotter.

I agree wholeheartedly. And what immense explosions there were:

Breaking things and hurling them way beyond the towers themselves:

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories

Originally Posted by scott3x

Originally Posted by shaman_

From the above article - “I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation.

That paragraph again confirms that he is willfully ignorant.

How so?

He thinks the “pull” comment is compelling evidence.

I now know that it has been argued that they meant to pull the firefighters back. Calling the firefighters 'it' is stretching things a bit, but I'll let it slide. I certainly agree that the decision to pull the building wasn't made on 9/11, but a fair amount of time before. At the time that Kevin Ryan wrote the above, I believe the argument that it had been referring to the firefighters hadn't been made as clear as it has been now. Nevertheless, there is far more substantive evidence that the building was pulled then the comments of a fire chief and Larry Silverstein.

Originally Posted by scott3x

It does nothing of the sort. It only makes clear that the demolition had to have been planned well in advance of September 11th. I have already presented a story wherein 9/11 was being planned 11 months before 9/11.

If it was planned why would Silverstein be having a discussion regarding what to do? If it was planned that discussion wasn’t needed. The “decision to pull” was apparently already made a long time ago. See the problem here?

Yes, which is why I don't support the idea that the decision to pull was made at that time.

Originally Posted by scott3x

He had excellent qualifications, having read a lot on the subject of steel, that being the area that the company he worked for had played a part in, in regards to the WTC towers.

He did not work in the area testing steel. He worked with water.

When did I say otherwise? However, the company he worked for definitely -did- deal with steel and the nature of the WTC collapse not exactly being unimportant, he made it his business to learn quite a bit. Here's an excerpt from the article I mentioned before:
**************************************
NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

At the time of the floor tests, I worked for Underwriters Laboratories (UL). I was very interested in the progress of these tests, having already asked some sensitive questions. My interest began when UL's CEO, Loring Knoblauch, a very experienced executive with a law degree from Harvard, surprised us at the company's South Bend location, just a few weeks after 9/11, by saying that UL had certified the steel used in the WTC buildings. Knoblauch told us that we should all be proud that the buildings had stood for so long under such intense conditions. In retrospect it is clear that all of us, including Knoblauch, were ignorant of many important facts surrounding 9/11 and did not, therefore, see his statements as particularly important.

Over the next two years, however, I learned more about the issues, like the unprecedented destruction of the steel evidence and the fact that no tall steel-frame buildings have ever collapsed due to fire. And I saw video of the owner of the buildings, stating publicly that he and the fire department made the decision to "pull"---that is, to demolish---WTC7 that day,16 even though demolition requires many weeks of planning and preparation. Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine expert on the WTC. This was John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers.17 (The NOVA video, incidentally, gave this credit to Leslie Robertson. But Robertson, who never claimed to have originated the design, was only a junior member of the firm [Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson], and Skilling was known at the time to be the engineer in charge.) In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."18
**************************************

Originally Posted by scott3x

How much of the above article did you read? I think that article is a powerful testament to his knowledge regarding the WTC collapses.

You are easily impressed.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 312 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers

Originally Posted by scott3x

The Windsor tower in Madrid only suffered a partial collapse:

But the steel supports collapsed. Can’t you see how important that is?

The reason the steel supports collapsed is clarified by 9/11 Research, in its article The Windsor Building Fire - Huge Fire in Steel-Reinforced Concrete Building Causes Partial Collapse. I recommend you read it.

Originally Posted by scott3x

This, after the fire had burned fiercely for almost a day, unlike the 1 and 2 hour fires in the WTC towers. Again, a picture makes it clear how fierce the fire was:

Smaller

The building was smaller, yes. What's your point?

Concrete core.

The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core

No planes smashed into it.

From Kevin Ryan's "Propping up the War on Terror":
"In 1993, five years before his death, Skilling said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there."


James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus, University of Minnesota, Duluth; Founder, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, stated in his article Purdue 9/11 simulation exposed as fraud: Media covers up hoax and conceals crimes:
(1) The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them, insofar as the planes that allegedly hit were very similar to those that they were designed to withstand, and the Twin Towers continued to stand following those impacts with negligible effects.

No jet fuel to start the explosion.

Even Popular Mechanics doesn't think much of the jet fuel:
"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.

Fireproofing

Physicist Steven Jones in his article Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?, cites Kevin Ryan:
To follow the latest "leading hypothesis" [of NIST], what are the odds that all the fireproofing fell off in just the right places, even far from the point of impact? Without much test data, let's say it's one in a thousand.

9/11 Research's also cites Kevin Ryan in its article Review of 'A New Standard For Deception: The NIST WTC Report' - A Presentation by Kevin Ryan :
************************
3. Fireproofing widely dislodged?

The idea that fireproofing was removed from most of the structural steel surfaces of the impact zones is essential to NIST's theory. NIST sought to "prove" that the plane crashes could do this by shooting shotguns at surfaces coated with spray-on foam insulation. Contrary to the popular notion that the jolts of the plane crashes could knocked off large amounts of spray-on insulation from steel not directly in the line of fire, the tests showed that it took being sprayed with shotgun pellets to remove the insulation. In addition to the fact that there is no evidence that a crashing Boeing 757 could have been transformed into the equivalent of the thousands of shotgun blasts it would take to blast the 6,000 square meters of surface area of structural steel in the fire areas, [Kevin] Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.
************************

Originally Posted by scott3x

As 9/11 Research sums up:
************************
Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account.

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete

In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

Fires within reach of firefighers.

The WTC fires were in reach of the firefighters too, despite explosions hampering their ability to reach them in a more timely fashion. However, the buildings were demolished before they had a chance to address them. Here's an excerpt I got from the memory hole, from a firefighter radio call, about 7 minutes before the collapse of WTC 1 (it can make you think that perhaps someone wanted the towers down -before- the fires were put out):
****************************
9:52 a.m.

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven to Battalion Seven Alpha."

"Freddie, come on over. Freddie, come on over by us."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones."

Originally Posted by scott3x

Once again, to set the record straight on the WTC towers' cores:
***********************
The design was a "tube in a tube" construction where the steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, was surrounded with a structural steel framework configured as another tube with the load bearing capacity bias towards the perimeter wall with the core acting to reduce deformation of the steel structure maximizing its load bearing capacity. All steel structures with the proportions of the WTC towers have inherent problems with flex and torsion. Distribution of gravity loads was; perimeter walls 50%, interior core columns 30% core 20%.
***********************

So there you have it. A tube in tube, steel reinforced, cast concrete interior tube, surrounded by a structural steel framework configured as another tube. Combined, they accounted for half of the gravity load. .

and….?

What does that have to do with the Madrid tower having a reinforced concrete core which the WTC did not have?

Sigh. The point is that the WTC -also- had a reinforced concrete core. And you may have noted that the Windsor tower's -core- did -not- collapse.

The Madrid Tower is just another demonstration that office fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse.

As 9/11 Research succinctly puts it:
*********************
In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.
*********************

Originally Posted by scott3x

I already debunked your 'all steel structures are alike' argument in post 57. .

lol Nice piece of “debunking” there.

I responded to that post at the time.

Yes, in post 65. I countered your misleading human/dog analogy in post 80, to which you have yet to respond.

The roof of the Mccormick Place hall collapsed thirty minutes from an ordinary fire. No planes needed and no jet fuel.

The Mccormick Place hall collapsed because its structure was nowhere near as strong as the WTC buildings, as I made clear in post 57. You're going to have to do better then talk about humans and dogs to make your case that you successfully countered that post.

Pointing out irrelevant structural differences is willingly missing the point.

The structural differences are far from irrelevant, as was made clear in post 57.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 8th part of shaman_'s post 312 in this thread.

Evidence that explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings

Originally Posted by scott3x

Here is evidence that explosives were used:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104397&postcount=184

All you have there is a physicist out of his field of expertise

Why do you believe that he's out of his field of expertise?

adding another chapter to an embarrassing run of poor science led by his beliefs.

What makes you believe that he has engaged in 'poor science'?

Jones does not employ transparent methods.

What makes you believe this?

Has anyone reputable analyzed the dust?

Sure, Steven Jones.

Has Jones made any attempt to falsify his own work?

Not to my knowledge. Have you seen any evidence to the contrary?

Can he demonstrate that the spheres are not a result of the elements in an ordinary office? Can he demonstrate that they weren’t produced during the clean up or even the construction?

Yep. In fact, thermite arson is something normal law enforcement has detected as well as Steven Jones makes clear in the following video clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM&feature=related

This man, who has been caught out misrepresenting testimony and photograph...

Do you have any evidence to support those claims?

...is supposed to be a scientist.

The fact that he's a scientist is unquestioned by anyone of any credibility. He was also quite a noted scientist -before- 9/11 as well, having been published in both Nature and Scientific American.

Originally Posted by scott3x

And here is evidence that explosions were heard and seen:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/twin_towers/collapse_chars/2.html

I’m sure there were ..........exploding transformers, elevators crashing to the basement, pockets of jet fuel igniting etc etc.

Before the building even fell down? You may want to take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45fZlX1ZCU0

Apparently explosions were heard at the Madrid Tower as well. Bombs?

Who knows, perhaps a little thermite was used there too, though clearly not on the scale of the WTC towers. Was the Windsor tower ever checked for thermite arson?

If you are trying to assert that the only thing on the planet that create explosive noises are bombs then you might want to rethink that.

No, I didn't say that.

You might also want to think about how bombs are supposed to make steel soft.

When did I say that they made the steel soft?

Could you please be clear on what you actually think happened instead of spamming.

Look, if you don't like how I explain my views, you're free to go elsewhere. I atleast have refrained from insulting you while doing so, although I note that this post of yours was a lot better then a certain post from the past...