WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

This is in response to the 9th and final part of shaman_'s post 312 in this thread.

The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires

Originally Posted by scott3x

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

How convenient of you to ignore the 15 characteristics that the twin tower collapses share with conventional controlled demolitions and the 4 characteristics that differentiate it destruction of buildings by fire. If you ever choose to analyze them, however, they'll be waiting for you here.

...you are trying to suggest that it is a controlled demolition because it looked like one. It didn't though.

According to many experts, including many architects and engineers, it did indeed look like one. You are, ofcourse, free to see whatever you like in the WTC collapses

To rationalize this you do a little dance and then readjust to, well it looked like one, just an unusual one!

I have never said that the twin tower demolitions were 'just like' normal controlled demolitions. However, as I have made clear here, they were controlled demolitions nonetheless, albeit unusual ones.

 

[Headspin]

We were told WTC7 looked like a demolition, but they say it wasn't a demolition.

What was done scientifically to determime that it wasn't a demolition?

 

[scott3x]

We were told WTC7 looked like a demolition, but they say it wasn't a demolition.

What was done scientifically to determine that it wasn't a demolition?

Never thought of that one .

 

[shaman_]

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

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Your behaviour resembles that of a religious fanatic. The new religion being 9/11.

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



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.

Oh well if it looks fine to you…

As I have said to you many times now, they include professions like software engineers and urban activists as architectural and engineering professionals. Do you understand?

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

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?

Further possibilities would be more speculation and not worth very much.

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


'Normal' office fire tests



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.

lol You seem to think that ‘discrediting my arguments’ involves spamming text from conspiracy pages containing flaws which have been pointed out to you several times.

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

You are playing dumb again and it is a disgraceful, desperate tactic. I have pointed you towards the Cardington tests many times. Not once or twice, many times.

There are also the NIST office fire tests and Kenny pointed you to some other tests. Now you pretend that you have never seen them and request to see the evidence to keep up the act.

We’ll start with the Cardington tests because we have discussed them several times. The third test was fueled by wood only and the fourth test was office materials. Look at the temperatures reached.

Here is a link from your favorite site.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

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


The immense explosions in the WTC towers



I agree wholeheartedly. And what immense explosions there were:

Just posting a still picture to try and imply explosions is pathetic.
Yes that is a picture of one of the tallest buildings in the world towards the end of a total collapse. If you are trying to say that it looks like an explosion then watch the video and you will see that this is not the case. It is these sort of tactics that has lead me to despise truthers. Misrepresenting photos is not evidence.

Breaking things and hurling them way beyond the towers themselves:

So when it collapses into its footprint it is suspicious when the debris falls away it is suspicious. Truther rationalization at its finest!

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

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories



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.

Yet the waterboy thinks it is compelling evidence on its own… That was the point.

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

So why would Silverstein be having a conversation with the fire chief regarding what to do? Do you get this point? They were trying to decide what to do after seven hours of burning. If it was pre-planned that conversation wouldn’t have happened. The quote discredits the claim.

When did I say otherwise? However, the company he worked for definitely -did- deal with steel

Uh. What do I have to do to get this through to you? He did not work in that area. He is not an expert on the properties of steel. Who cares if he worked that the company which tested the components? You can’t refer to him as an authority just because he worked at the same company. He is not an expert on temperatures reached in office fires! Why can’t you compute this?

The temperatures went well over 250C so his original letter is even more irrelevant. I am guessing you will somehow avoid understanding and will spam another irrelevant article of his thinking it is somehow a response.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Your reverence for the opinion of Kevin Ryan.

Oh that's right he has read a lot about 911 so he’s an expert.

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



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.

The fire caused the collapse.
?

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

You really don’t know? The construction was different.

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

No the columns were not protected by concrete. It was these columns which supported the load. From http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

“There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. There were reinforced concrete floors in the core as well. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced. The columns in the core were also not incased in concrete. This was an error made by the BBC which grew a life of its own. Here is the article. Note the date it was created, Sept. 13, 2001, just 2 das after the collapse.”
The building relied on steel supports with fireproofing instead of reinforced concrete.

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."

So where is the data from this analysis?

It is contradicted by many peer reviewed documents from structural engineers.

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.

The impacts did not bring the towers down, and they did stand long enough so that the occupants under the impact floors could escape.

They were designed to withstand impact from the fastest plane at that time which was slower than the 767s. According to Leslie Robertson the jet fuel was not taken into consideration.

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.

Yeah we’ve been through this one about five times. You are dishonest and pathetic to keep trying to misrepresent this. Your pitiful attempts at debate are part of the reason I have no respect for truthers now, which is probably not fair on other truthers…

By the time the jet fuel had burnt out there was a raging fire across multiple floors. Watch some footage, it was an inferno. Other office fires did not start with a massive explosion and then a fire across multiple floors in a matter of seconds. To imply that the jet fuel had little effect is a lame attempt to misrepresent truth.

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.

Using his brilliant skills as a scientist he managers to establish a probability without much test data. This guy is a kook.

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.
************************

So what is he trying to say? There is photographic evidence of the fireproofing being removed. Is he claiming it didn’t happen?

The WTC fires were in reach of the firefighters too, despite explosions hampering their ability to reach them in a more timely fashion

What a stupid thing to say. Could they reach the fires with their hoses? Could they take a lift up there? With all their equipment it would have taken well over half an hour for them to climb 80 something flights of steps to get to the fire.

. 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."

What? What the hell is that supposed to be proving?

.
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 columns were NOT reinforced concrete.

.


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. *********************

Those other skyscrapers were not hit by 767s!

..among other differences.


It's like trying to explain something complicated to a child, except that it isn’t complicated. You are a religious fanatic who manages to avoid logic and reason at every turn. You substitute these things with an addiction to moronic conspiracy sites.

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




The Mccormick Place hall collapsed because its structure was nowhere near as strong as the WTC buildings, as I made clear in

The roof of the Mccormick place was not holding up thirty stories of the WTC! Once the steel supports start softening it does not matter how strong you think the building is.

Once again, a simple fire, not jet fuel, no smashing planes, and it collapsed in thirty minutes……

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

The steel softened and collapsed. That the building was a different shape is irrelevant. Normal fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse. It has been well and truly established. At some point you are going to have to come back and visit reality.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Part 2

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?

Your behaviour resembles that of a religious fanatic.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth site

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.

Oh well if it looks fine to you…

As I have said to you many times now, they include professions like software engineers and urban activists as architectural and engineering professionals. Do you understand?

I did a search on the list and did indeed find some software engineers. I actually agree that they shouldn't be included in a list that's supposed to be for people who have degreed knowledge of what makes buildings collapse. However, in the list (and this is the list you should be looking at, btw) I could find only one 'urban activist'. The guy also has a degree in architecture, however, so I really don't see how that should matter. He's also the only 'urban activist' in the larger list, which anyone can sign- 2927 and counting. I myself am in it. I, like many in that list, don't have any architect or engineer degrees, but one would be foolish to surmise that we therefore have no knowledge concerning the matter.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Part 2

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?

Further possibilities would be more speculation and not worth very much.

When one has insufficient data to form a definitive conclusion, theories are where it's at. By no means does this mean that the matter shouldn't be investigated further; only that it is a -good- thing to create theories of why things are the way they are and then to attempt to test those theories against reality. In this particular case, I think the matter would be rather simple- create a truly independent 9/11 commission that had the power of subpoena. Then, they could subpoena Underwriter Laboratories and ask them why it is that they denied testing the steel when they obviously did and why it is that they fired the man in their company who seemed to be the most interested in getting to the truth.

 

[Headspin]

So why would Silverstein be having a conversation with the fire chief regarding what to do?

Good question. do you have an answer?

It is extremely unlikely Silverstein was talking with the fire department on 911. The fire department are on record stating they never contact the building owners during a fire, and this would seem a reasonable and likely assumption in this case (especially regarding any decisions to be made).

Do you get this point? They were trying to decide what to do after seven hours of burning.

Hold on, why would the fire department involve Silverstein in any decision making process? You have made an assumption that a conversation took place between Silverstein and the fire department. You do not consider other more obvious possibilties:

1. Silverstein was making it all up, in order to give an explanation for the obvious demolition of wtc7.
2. He was telling the truth, but he was talking with someone else pretending to be the fire department.
3. Silverstein was telling a half-truth. That he was talking with someone else other than the fire department, such as FEMA, invisible government, Guiliani, <insert speculation>

If it was pre-planned that conversation wouldn’t have happened.

If a demolition was NOT pre-planned then that conversation wouldn't have happened either!

This is what makes the whole thing suspicious - that the conversation should never have happened whatever the circumstances of the event! it is worth repeating - even if we take Silverstein's clarification that he meant "pull out the fireman" when he said "pull IT", what the heck was he doing discussing the logistics of the fire fighting operation with the fire department? The fire department commander even denies the conversation took place!

Who would benefit by entangling the fire department with the notion of demolition? it stinks of a psycological operation to me, of which Silverstein is a part, either witting or unwitting.

"'Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives."
http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/

Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

'Normal' office fire tests, part 2

Originally Posted by scott3x

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.

lol You seem to think that ‘discrediting my arguments’ involves spamming text from conspiracy pages containing flaws which have been pointed out to you several times.

Where I have seen flaws in my reasoning, I have acknowledged them and corrected my stance. However, you can't rely on your 'pointed out several times' to get you by in arguments. Just because I've pointed something out to you before doesn't mean that I believe I can say 'I've pointed out the flaw in that before' and think that's good enough. No, I do my homework and give you a link to where I have pointed out your flaw.

Originally Posted by scott3x

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

You are playing dumb again and it is a disgraceful, desperate tactic. I have pointed you towards the Cardington tests many times. Not once or twice, many times.

I know you've talked of the Cardington tests in the past, but I thought that Headspin had dealt with it. After having done a search in sciforums, however, it seems that Headspin didn't respond to post 95 in this thread, your last post on the matter. I did, but I didn't get into the Cardington issue. I agree that this issue deserves more scrutiny in the future.

I believe that the evidence that the fires couldn't have brought down the building is overwhelming, but I acknowledge that not everyone sees things the way I do and for that reason, we should delve into arguments that official story supporters find to be valid.

However, I think you should be aware of the following statement from Cardington, which I got from Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth:
The Cardington Fire Tests, a series of large-scale fire tests conducted in steel-framed buildings in 2000 by the University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research Program, determined that:
“A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.”

(University of Edinburgh, 2005; Building Research Establishment, Centre for Fire Safety Engineering)

There are also the NIST office fire tests

From Frank Legge's Conspiracy Theories, Myths, Skepticism, and 9/11: their Impact on Democracy article in the Journal of 9/11 studies:

Were any experiments done by NIST to confirm any of their assumptions? Yes, they performed some office fire tests which showed that the period of intense heating lasted from 10 to 20 minutes. 41 This seems to be too brief to be consistent with the requirement to get the whole area where collapse would initiate up to the right temperature simultaneously. NIST gave no explanation as to why it was proper to ignore this negative test result. This is not responsible scientific procedure.

and Kenny pointed you to some other tests.

Perhaps he or someone else could point them out again. I'm willing to wager I keep better track of this thread then anyone else, but Kenny's major work is in the one thread to rule them all and I do have other things to do in my life then go through 2000+ posts looking for what Kenny said on 'other' fire tests.

We’ll start with the Cardington tests because we have discussed them several times. The third test was fueled by wood only and the fourth test was office materials. Look at the temperatures reached.

Here is a link from your favorite site.
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/fire/cardington.htm

The fact that you found the link on my favourite site should give you cause for concern . I think the temperature you want me to note is the following one:
"The temperature-time history of the fire atmosphere is shown in Figure 4.11 The bottom flange of the central secondary beam achieved a maximum temperature of 903°C after 114 minutes."

This is all well and good, but the tests were -not- done to a building the size of the WTC towers. It would have taken quite a bit of fire indeed to reach those temperatures for those buildings.

But the most interesting thing is from another statement I found regarding the Cardington tests on my favourite 9/11 site, in an article titled A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction:
"The Cardington tests demonstrated that modern steel frames acting compositely with steel deck floor slabs have a coherence that provides a resistance to fire far greater than that normally assumed. This confirms evidence from other sources. "

In essence, -despite- the temperatures reached, the building did -not- collapse. Leading one to believe that even higher temperatures would have had to apply in order to actually bring a steel framed building to collapse.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The immense explosions in the WTC towers, Part 2

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

I agree wholeheartedly. And what immense explosions there were:

Just posting a still picture to try and imply explosions is pathetic.

There are also these points, which you choose to ignore.

Yes that is a picture of one of the tallest buildings in the world towards the end of a total collapse. If you are trying to say that it looks like an explosion then watch the video and you will see that this is not the case.

Because I've -never- watched any videos now, have I?

Suffice it to say that I believe the videos only make it more evident.

It is these sort of tactics that has lead me to despise truthers.

You'll have to see your favourite therapist to work out such issues

Breaking things and hurling them way beyond the towers themselves:
http://www.ae911truth.org/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg

So when it collapses into its footprint it is suspicious when the debris falls away it is suspicious. Truther rationalization at its finest!

If it had just 'fallen away' in a way that respected the conservation of momentum such as the slow partial collapse as in the case of the windsor tower in Madrid, it would be one thing. Having the building explosively collapse in a matter of seconds is another thing entirely.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Part 2

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.

Yet the waterboy thinks it is compelling evidence on its own… That was the point.

Kevin Ryan thought it was compelling evidence at the time he wrote that article. There's a lot of evidence out there and even an official story supporter (you, Kenny, Geoff, can't remember) agreed that it was strange that Larry Silverstein said 'they decided to pull it', because buildings are labelled as 'its', not firefighters. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip of the tongue on the part of Mr. Silverstein, but it's also possible that he simply slipped up and said 'it' instead of 'them'. Regardless, the point is that you focus on this one small issue in Kevin Ryan's article and seem to ignore everything else.

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

So why would Silverstein be having a conversation with the fire chief regarding what to do? Do you get this point? They were trying to decide what to do after seven hours of burning. If it was pre-planned that conversation wouldn’t have happened.

You may want to see Headspin's response to your questions ...

Originally Posted by scott3x

When did I say otherwise? However, the company he worked for definitely -did- deal with steel

Uh. What do I have to do to get this through to you? He did not work in that area. He is not an expert on the properties of steel.

I'm assuming you say this because he doesn't have a degree in the properties of steel or some such? The guy studied the issue of the WTC steel for 2 years. He read the comments of noted authorities, such as John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers, who said that he had performed an analysis on jet plane crashes and the ensuing fires and that "the building structure would still be there." He then brought up politically dangerous issues and was subsequently fired.

Who cares if he worked that the company which tested the components?

Kevin Ryan clearly did. You see, he had a fairly developed conscience and he made that clear in his letter to NIST's Frank Gayle. In essence, either the steel they certified was of substandard quality (which would require an investigation into quality of their certification of steel) or the towers could not have come down due to the fires alone. Politically speaking, this was putting his company between a rock and a hard place. His company didn't want to be seen as supporting conspiracy theories but at the same time it certainly didn't want to be seen as engaging in sub standard certification. Solution? Fire the guy who's raising the embrassing issues and obfuscate the matter by denying they certify steel when in fact they certify the end product, steel assemblies (which is even more crucial; good steel badly assembled can still do a bad job).

You can’t refer to him as an authority just because he worked at the same company. He is not an expert on temperatures reached in office fires! Why can’t you compute this?

He knows all about the temperatures that steel can reach from office fires. Why does he know? Because he did the research! You don't need fancy degrees for everything. Examples of his knowledge are clear. Almost at the beginning of his article "Propping up the War on Terror", he states:
"It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."

I certainly didn't know that before I read it. But he knew it back in 2006 if not earlier, because he was hard at work reading up on the towers.

The temperatures went well over 250C so his original letter is even more irrelevant.

It's nothing of the sort. Here's the part of his letter that you should be focusing on:
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.

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?

Your reverence for the opinion of Kevin Ryan.

The fact that I deeply respect Kevin Ryan in no ways means that I am easily impressed. You have the opportunity to disagree with anything Kevin Ryan or anyone else I mention says and if I find your argument to be valid, I will make it my own. Perhaps one day you will come to understand that what I have the -most- respect for is the truth.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 2

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.

The fire caused the collapse.
?

Yes, we all know that. What 9/11 research brings up is why the windsor tower, a steel-reinforced concrete framed tower, suffered a partial collapse due to fire, whereas on the only date 100% steel framed towers allegedly collapsed, was on September 11, 2001; and not once, but 3 times.

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

You really don’t know? The construction was different.

Yes, it certainly was. Which is why it made far more sense for the windsor tower in Madrid to collapse then it did for the WTC towers to collapse, as the above linked article makes clear.

Concrete core.

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

No the columns were not protected by concrete. It was these columns which supported the load. From http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm

“There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. There were reinforced concrete floors in the core as well. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced.

You're right. The -concrete- core was -steel- reinforced.

The columns in the core were also not encased in concrete.

I believe we actually agree here. This is what 911review.org states it was not:

And this is what it states it was:

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."

So where is the data from this analysis?

I wish I knew. Perhaps Kevin Ryan knows but I'm not in contact with him.

It is contradicted by many peer reviewed documents from structural engineers.

Which have been debunked by notable truth movement authors such as Steven Jones and others.

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.

The impacts did not bring the towers down, and they did stand long enough so that the occupants under the impact floors could escape.

They were designed to withstand impact from the fastest plane at that time which was slower than the 767s.

Surely you mean faster?

A few fun facts:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

Anyway, both planes would have had a negligible effect building. Frank De Martini, the WTC project manager and who died in the WTC towers on 9/11, was recorded as saying the following before 9/11:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

According to Leslie Robertson the jet fuel was not taken into consideration.

As you would say, "so where is the data from this analysis?"

Since data on the analysis of both Leslie Robertson and John Skilling is currently beyond our grasp, perhaps you would like to rely on credentials alone in this case?

I think a little refreshing commentary from Kevin Ryan's "Propping up the War on Terror" is in order:
Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine [emphasis mine] 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."

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 3

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.

By the time the jet fuel had burnt out there was a raging fire across multiple floors. Watch some footage, it was an inferno.

The only 'raging inferno' i saw was where molten metal (quite possibly molten iron) was coming out:

As I believe you know, there's no way that an office fire could have produced molten iron.

As for the rest, here's a good picture of how the fire was shortly before the buildings collapsed:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html

Not exactly a 'raging inferno'.

Other office fires did not start with a massive explosion and then a fire across multiple floors in a matter of seconds. To imply that the jet fuel had little effect is a lame attempt to misrepresent truth.

Even NIST doesn't seem to think think that the initial crash and fireballs did so much structural damage, but if you want to call the truth movement -and- NIST wrong, go ahead.

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.

Using his brilliant skills as a scientist he manages to establish a probability without much test data. This guy is a kook.

Kevin Ryan is simply hypothesizing based on the information he had, which wasn't too much. The real blunder is NIST's- it comes up with 'final' conclusions even though they barely had any data. Ofcourse, if they're part of the inside job, it makes a lot of sense- it seems clear to me that the data was going against the 'planes took off the fireproofing', so the less data the better.

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, Ryan makes another argument based on the available energy.
************************

So what is he trying to say? There is photographic evidence of the fireproofing being removed. Is he claiming it didn’t happen?

Seems like it to me. I've heard there's photographic evidence that the fireproofing -wasn't- removed. So let's see your photographic evidence.

 

[shaman_]

Good question. do you have an answer?

It is extremely unlikely Silverstein was talking with the fire department on 911. The fire department are on record stating they never contact the building owners during a fire,

Source?

and this would seem a reasonable and likely assumption in this case

You should probably watch those assumptions headspin.

(especially regarding any decisions to be made).

In the quote it does say that the fire dept made the decision to pull the men out.

Hold on, why would the fire department involve Silverstein in any decision making process? You have made an assumption that a conversation took place between Silverstein and the fire department.

Assumption? What am I assuming? I am just reading the quote. It is a quote brought up by the troofers.

You do not consider other more obvious possibilties:

1. Silverstein was making it all up, in order to give an explanation for the obvious demolition of wtc7.
2. He was telling the truth, but he was talking with someone else pretending to be the fire department.
3. Silverstein was telling a half-truth. That he was talking with someone else other than the fire department, such as FEMA, invisible government, Guiliani, <insert speculation>

You can say that about any quote that you don’t like from 911. It is a dodge.

Truthers like crackpot Jones bring the quote up as evidence. Yet if you actually look at the words being said, instead of just clinging to one, you will see that the quote does not imply a demolition, so now you need to rationalise that he was making it all up and the conversation never happened.

If a demolition was NOT pre-planned then that conversation wouldn't have happened either!

This is what makes the whole thing suspicious - that the conversation should never have happened whatever the circumstances of the event! it is worth repeating - even if we take Silverstein's clarification that he meant "pull out the fireman" when he said "pull IT", what the heck was he doing discussing the logistics of the fire fighting operation with the fire department? The fire department commander even denies the conversation took place!

Source?

If you read the quote you will see that he said the fire dept decided to pull the men out. A reasonable interpretation is that they were calling the owner to tell him that they were going to stop trying to save his building and that it was about to collapse.

Who would benefit by entangling the fire department with the notion of demolition? it stinks of a psycological operation to me, of which Silverstein is a part, either witting or unwitting.

"'Psychological Operations: Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives."
http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/

o …k….

Whats with the underlining?

Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

 

[leopold]

. . . but one would be foolish to surmise that we therefore have no knowledge concerning the matter.

what "knowledge" do you have concerning the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 scott?
you wasn't even aware of butt joints in the core columns until i pointed that fact out to you.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 8th and final part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 4

The WTC fires were in reach of the firefighters too, despite explosions hampering their ability to reach them in a more timely fashion...

[snip insult] Could they reach the fires with their hoses? Could they take a lift up there? With all their equipment it would have taken well over half an hour for them to climb 80 something flights of steps to get to the fire.

Considering the fact that no steel framed building has ever collapsed before or since 9/11, that shouldn't have been much of a problem, if fires were the only thing involved.

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."

What? What the hell is that supposed to be proving?

There were only 2 isolated pockets of fire. They should have been able to knock it down with 2 lines.

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 columns were NOT reinforced concrete.

Right you are. It was the core that was steel reinforced.

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. *********************

Those other skyscrapers were not hit by 767s!

The 767s made negligible damage to the building's structure...

..among other differences.

What differences might those be? That the WTC towers had an "inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities"? Perhaps that this capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels? Or perhaps it's those perimeter columns, which were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."?

[snip more insults]

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.

The roof of the Mccormick place was not holding up thirty stories of the WTC!

Exactly. Ah, you don't understand. Let me put it this way- what type of structure do you think would be stronger- a structure meant to support the weight of a 110 floor building, or the roof of a building that didn't need to support much more then a bit of snow and rain? I can hear the charge now- but when the WTC tower started collapsing, all that weight! All that weight? Even assuming the highly dubious proposition that fires even knocked down one floor to get things going, do you honestly believe that when a floor came down one floor to the one below it, that it suddenly exerted more than 2000% of its live load? Please. I know you have such problems with it, but you really should start thinking a bit more about k'nex or legos for that matter. Put simply- the collapse would have halted immediately.

Once the steel supports start softening it does not matter how strong you think the building is.

Ah yes, once the building was 'poised for collapse', a miracle occurs and the concrete turns into dust exploding outwards, with steel beams being hurled up to 500 feet in some truly nifty card trick or some such that GeoffP assures me his geologist (?) friend told him was quite possible. shaman_, -why- do you suppose that NIST decided to leave things as 'poised for collapse' and not even attempt to get their tweaked computer simulation to actually simulate the collapse? I have said it before and I'll say it again: I believe they thought it better to not do the simulation and be thought the fools then to actually attempt it and remove all doubt.

Once again, a simple fire, not jet fuel, no smashing planes, and it collapsed in thirty minutes……

Look, you want to understand the difference between a warehouse and the twin towers, I advise you to do a little research. Otherwise, I can't help but feel a little embarassed for you...

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

The steel softened and collapsed.

Look, even in the Cardington tests, with temperatures above those of normal office fires, the steel didn't collapse. But perhaps you should continue undisturbed in your fantasyland...

That the building was a different shape is irrelevant.

Who's talking about shape? I'm talking about load bearing capacities.

Normal fires can cause steel to weaken and collapse. It has been well and truly established.

Steel roofed warehouses, ok. 100% steel framed towers? Not a chance.

At some point you are going to have to come back and visit reality.

Well, I guess we can agree that -someone- is out of touch with reality here

 

[scott3x]

. . . but one would be foolish to surmise that we therefore have no knowledge concerning the matter.

what "knowledge" do you have concerning the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 scott?
you weren't even aware of butt joints in the core columns until i pointed that fact out to you..

Gasp! I wasn't? Ah, then surely I have no knowledge of WTC 1 and 2

 

[shaman_]

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



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

Don’t be an idiot. You know he area of expertise is cold fusion. He is not a structural engineer.

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

Re-read everything I have ever said about Steven Jones and you will have your answer.

What makes you believe this?

We have to take his word on his accumulation of samples and the results of those samples. Have others tested them?

Sure, Steven Jones.

:roflmao:

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

It appears that he makes no attempt to falsify his own work at all. He doesn’t consider the other possibilities for the chemical signatures he finds. The answer is always a CD. That is not good science.

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

What does that have to do with my comment?

Do you have any evidence to support those claims?

His cherry picking of Erik Schwartz’s testimony and his use of photographs of workers with a light below them as evidence of molten metal.

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.

He was also ridiculed – before - 9/11, for writing dodgy papers outside his field. Something he is still doing now. Remember his interpretations of artwork to lead him to the conclusion that jesus visited the Americas?

Before the building even fell down?

Of course before the building fell down!

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?

You have no link to reality do you?

Hey maybe thermite was used at the McCormick Place? When the bridge collapsed after the gas tanker crash maybe thermite was involved. Perhaps all those steel structures which collapsed from fire were actually brought down by thermite!?

Did anyone check the Hindenburg for thermite? Did anyone check the Titanic? It was supposed to be unsinkable! But it sank! Conspiracy!

No, I didn't say that.

When you claim that a bomb noise proves that there must have been bombs, then that is what you are saying.

When did I say that they made the steel soft? .

Dr. Astaneh-Asl did.

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...

You don’t explain your views! You keep spamming links but don’t actually explain what you think happened. Explain to me how the explosives made steel become hot and soft.

This is in response to the 9th and final part of shaman_'s post 312 in this thread.

The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires



How convenient of you to ignore the 15 characteristics that the twin tower collapses share with conventional controlled demolitions and the 4 characteristics that differentiate it destruction of buildings by fire. If you ever choose to analyze them, however, they'll be waiting for you here.

When I said, ‘But even ignoring the many, many mistakes’ I was trying to make a point. Something lost on you. However as to your pathetic characteristics, I have discussed most of them with you at some stage. No doubt you will pretend that I haven’t as you use immature and dishonest tactics. When I have more time I will devote a post to them.

According to many experts, including many architects and engineers, it did indeed look like one.

Well clearly it didn’t as the collapse started at the top.

I have never said that the twin tower demolitions were 'just like' normal controlled demolitions. However, as I have made clear here, they were controlled demolitions nonetheless, albeit unusual ones.

All you have done there is repeat the same moronic rationalisation that I am trying to get you to understand. It didn’t look like a controlled demolition. So you say it did look like one, just an unusual one. Can’t you comprehend even the simplest of concepts?

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Part 2



Do you have any evidence to support this claim? .

Yes. It’s all at this site. http://www.sciforums.com/

I did a search on the list and did indeed find some software engineers. I actually agree that they shouldn't be included in a list that's supposed to be for people who have degreed knowledge of what makes buildings collapse. However, in the list (and this is the list you should be looking at, btw) I could find only one 'urban activist'. The guy also has a degree in architecture, however, so I really don't see how that should matter. He's also the only 'urban activist' in the

That’s not the point. There are other professions there which are dubious. Look at the engineering professionals. They include software engineers, surveyors, optical engineers ect. They have padded out the list to get to 549. Do you get it? I’m guessing you wont.

which anyone can sign- 2927 and counting. I myself am in it. I, like many in that list, don't have any architect or engineer degrees, but one would be foolish to surmise that we therefore have no knowledge concerning the matter.

You have demonstrated how little you know and willing you are to believe foolish theories.

2927 other fools who probably believe nuclear devices were involved.

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Part 2


When one has insufficient data to form a definitive conclusion, theories are where it's at. By no means does this mean that the matter shouldn't be investigated further; only that it is a -good- thing to create theories of why things are the way they are and then to attempt to test those theories against reality.

You test your theories with reality do you? How do you do this?

In this particular case, I think the matter would be rather simple- create a truly independent 9/11 commission that had the power of subpoena. Then, they could subpoena Underwriter Laboratories and ask them why it is that they denied testing the steel

They don’t certify steel components, they certify assemblies… assemblies with fireproofing on them.

when they obviously did and why it is that they fired the man in their company who seemed to be the most interested in getting to the truth.

It is well known why they fired him. You are not interested in reality. When you hear an answer that you don’t like you just discard it and suggest an investigation.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

'Normal' office fire tests, part 2



Where I have seen flaws in my reasoning, I have acknowledged them and corrected my stance. However, you can't rely on your 'pointed out several times' to get you by in arguments.

It wouldn’t matter if I printed out the words, flew to your house, and hit you with the rolled up paper until you admitted you had read it…. A few days later you would act as if you never had.

Just because I've pointed something out to you before doesn't mean that I believe I can say 'I've pointed out the flaw in that before' and think that's good enough.

If you did I would acknowledge that we have been through it before. I would not play dumb like you do.

I know you've talked of the Cardington tests in the past, but I thought that Headspin had dealt with it. After having done a search in sciforums, however, it seems that Headspin didn't respond to post 95 in this thread, your last post on the matter. I did, but I didn't get into the Cardington issue. I agree that this issue deserves more scrutiny in the future.

I believe that the evidence that the fires couldn't have brought down the building is overwhelming, but I acknowledge that not everyone sees things the way I do and for that reason, we should delve into arguments that official story supporters find to be valid.

However, I think you should be aware of the following statement from Cardington, which I got from Fire Fighters for 9/11 Truth:
The Cardington Fire Tests, a series of large-scale fire tests conducted in steel-framed buildings in 2000 by the University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research Program, determined that:
“A steel building survived fires in experiments with extreme temperatures beyond the range possible with jet fuel.”

(University of Edinburgh, 2005; Building Research Establishment, Centre for Fire Safety Engineering)

Who is that quote from?

It is meaningless because they are not taking into account the lack of fireproofing in the WTC.
The columns in the cardington tests were mostly shielded. However after the columns started buckling they decided to shield them completely, otherwise the building may have collapsed. Read it for yourself. Read the post you linked to.


While you are reading, here is the evidence Kenny posted.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2021439&postcount=917

From Frank Legge's Conspiracy Theories, Myths, Skepticism, and 9/11: their Impact on Democracy article in the Journal of 9/11 studies:

Were any experiments done by NIST to confirm any of their assumptions? Yes, they performed some office fire tests which showed that the period of intense heating lasted from 10 to 20 minutes. 41 This seems to be too brief to be consistent with the requirement to get the whole area where collapse would initiate up to the right temperature simultaneously. NIST gave no explanation as to why it was proper to ignore this negative test result. This is not responsible scientific procedure.

The period of intense heat was closer to 20 minutes and NIST don’t consider it to be inconsistent with what was observed at WTC.

Perhaps he or someone else could point them out again. I'm willing to wager I keep better track of this thread then anyone else

You don’t seem to know what you read yesterday.

The fact that you found the link on my favourite site should give you cause for concern . I think the temperature you want me to note is the following one:
"The temperature-time history of the fire atmosphere is shown in Figure 4.11 The bottom flange of the central secondary beam achieved a maximum temperature of 903°C after 114 minutes."

This is all well and good, but the tests were -not- done to a building the size of the WTC towers. It would have taken quite a bit of fire indeed to reach those temperatures for those buildings.

Yes the building was larger but so was the ventilation and the fires. The simulation on the smaller building is adequate to get an indication of temperatures reached.

You once again are trying to use irrelevant differences to discard evidence you don’t like.

But the most interesting thing is from another statement I found regarding the Cardington tests on my favourite 9/11 site, in an article titled A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction:
"The Cardington tests demonstrated that modern steel frames acting compositely with steel deck floor slabs have a coherence that provides a resistance to fire far greater than that normally assumed. This confirms evidence from other sources. "

In essence, -despite- the temperatures reached, the building did -not- collapse. Leading one to believe that even higher temperatures would have had to apply in order to actually bring a steel framed building to collapse.

Keep trying. The columns in the Cardington building were insulated while that was not the case at WTC. The small parts that weren’t insulated started to warp.

 

[leopold]

There were only 2 isolated pockets of fire. They should have been able to knock it down with 2 lines.

the "knowledgable" scott strikes again.

even you scott cannot possibly believe what you posted.

and no, you didn't know about the butt joints in the core columns.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The immense explosions in the WTC towers, Part 2

these points, which you choose to ignore.

It’s like arguing with a child. I used "ignoring" because I was trying to make a point that you didn’t comprehend.

Once again, we have been though many of those points before. Don’t pretend you have brought up something new.

Because I've -never- watched any videos now, have I?
Suffice it to say that I believe the videos only make it more evident.

You are seeing explosions when you watch those videos? Explosions that most people missed but only you, with your amazing skills of perception, were able to spot.
?

You'll have to see your favourite therapist to work out such issues

I don't see it as an issue.

If it had just 'fallen away' in a way that respected the conservation of momentum such as the slow partial collapse as in the case of the windsor tower in Madrid, it would be one thing. Having the building explosively collapse in a matter of seconds is another thing entirely.

sigh

This post is in response to the 5th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Part 2



Kevin Ryan thought it was compelling evidence at the time he wrote that article. There's a lot of evidence out there and even an official story supporter (you, Kenny, Geoff, can't remember) agreed that it was strange that Larry Silverstein said 'they decided to pull it', because buildings are labelled as 'its', not firefighters. Perhaps it was a Freudian slip of the tongue on the part of Mr. Silverstein, but it's also possible that he simply slipped up and said 'it' instead of 'them'. Regardless, the point is that you focus on this one small issue in Kevin Ryan's article and seem to ignore everything else.

You chose to focus on it. I merely pointed out that he is willfully ignorant is he thinks the ‘pull’ comment is compelling evidence of anything. He seems to.

Actually looking at the context discredits the stupid theory.

You may want to see Headspin's response to your questions ...

I'm assuming you say this because he doesn't have a degree in the properties of steel or some such? The guy studied the issue of the WTC steel for 2 years. He read the comments of noted authorities, such as John Skilling, the structural engineer responsible for designing the towers,

So have I. I’m not an expert on steel and neither is Kevin Ryan.

Kevin Ryan clearly did.

You are dodging and weaving still. Just admit that Ryan is not an authority on steel and his opinion alone is not compelling evidence. Why can’t you just concede this? What is wrong with you?

You see, he had a fairly developed conscience and he made that clear in his letter to NIST's Frank Gayle. In essence, either the steel they certified was of substandard quality (which would require an investigation into quality of their certification of steel) or the towers could not have come down due to the fires alone.

Completely wrong. UL did not certify the steel. They certified structural assemblies, which have fireproofing on them. The assemblies were damaged, the fireproofing removed. So their certification was not in question.

Politically speaking, this was putting his company between a rock and a hard place. His company didn't want to be seen as supporting conspiracy theories but at the same time it certainly didn't want to be seen as engaging in sub standard certification. Solution? Fire the guy who's raising the embrassing issues and obfuscate the matter by denying they certify steel when in fact they certify the end product, steel assemblies (which is even more crucial; good steel badly assembled can still do a bad job).

You refuse, or don’t have the intellect, to comprehend the mistakes in Ryan’s letter.

He knows all about the temperatures that steel can reach from office fires. Why does he know? Because he did the research!

So what, we’ve all done some research but that doesn’t make us an authority. Our opinion is not compelling evidence.

You don't need fancy degrees for everything.

In the scientific world it’s kind of important.

Examples of his knowledge are clear. Almost at the beginning of his article "Propping up the War on Terror", he states:
"It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."

I certainly didn't know that before I read it.

Wow that paragraph totally changed my mind. He’s such an expert.

But he knew it back in 2006 if not earlier, because he was hard at work reading up on the towers.

He is not an authority on steel. Why can’t you understand this? He worked with water. You are wasting your time and highlighting how unreasonable you are. You should be trying to present evidence. The opinion of Ryan is not evidence. He is not an expert on steel. He is an idiot who was fired from his job for writing a letter, which contained errors, that compromised the reputation of his company. If I did the same thing at my job I would be fired as well. Conspiracy has nothing to do with it.

It's nothing of the sort. Here's the part of his letter that you should be focusing on:
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans.

That is his opinion and it is wrong. The work of people with actual relevant qualifications has shown that. How do I get this through to you? His opinion that it can’t happen is irrelevant. He is not an expert. That is not evidence.

The fact that I deeply respect Kevin Ryan in no ways means that I am easily impressed. You have the opportunity to disagree with anything Kevin Ryan or anyone else I mention says and if I find your argument to be valid, I will make it my own. Perhaps one day you will come to understand that what I have the -most- respect for is the truth.

:roflmao:

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 2



Yes, we all know that. What 9/11 research brings up is why the windsor tower, a steel-reinforced concrete framed tower, suffered a partial collapse due to fire, whereas on the only date 100% steel framed towers allegedly collapsed, was on September 11, 2001; and not once, but 3 times.

? Because they did not have the concrete framing that the Windsor Tower did. ? It’s really not that complicated.

Yes, it certainly was. Which is why it made far more sense for the windsor tower in Madrid to collapse then it did for the WTC towers to collapse, as the above linked article makes clear.

Perhaps you could summarise how that article makes it clear…..?

You're right. The -concrete- core was -steel- reinforced.

Are you reading these words or skimming? The floors were concrete but the walls were not, unlike the Madrid Tower. The columns, which supported the load, were not reinforced concrete. Get it?

I believe we actually agree here. This is what 911review.org states it was not:
And this is what it states it was:

The inner tube, which provided the majority of the support, was steel box columns, not concrete.

Have you seen this?
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=bRvimM0AcN4

I wish I knew. Perhaps Kevin Ryan knows but I'm not in contact with him.



Which have been debunked by notable truth movement authors such as Steven Jones and others.

You really think people like Astaneh-Asl have been debunked by a moron like Jones? Seriously?

I have provided you with links to many peer reviewed papers by structural engineers which support the official story. Jones can’t get his work in a mainstream journal so he has to rely on little known publications which apparently only require only a payment for publishing.

Surely you mean faster?

A few fun facts:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

Anyway, both planes would have had a negligible effect building. Frank De Martini, the WTC project manager and who died in the WTC towers on 9/11, was recorded as saying the following before 9/11:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.

They were not designed to withstand the impact of a 767, at full speed, full of jet fuel. See below.

As you would say, "so where is the data from this analysis?"

What analysis? He is saying it wasn’t taken into account. Weak attempt at a dodge.

Since data on the analysis of both Leslie Robertson and John Skilling is currently beyond our grasp, perhaps you would like to rely on credentials alone in this case?

Why don’t you read what he says.
http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

I think a little refreshing commentary from Kevin Ryan's "Propping up the War on Terror" is in order:
Perhaps most compelling for me were the words of a genuine [emphasis mine] 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."

Ok but where are the calculations?

The buildings did stay up for an hour. Did he mean that they would stay up forever?

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 324 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 3



The only 'raging inferno' i saw was where molten metal (quite possibly molten iron) was coming out:

Then you should probably watch some videos of the event.

As I believe you know, there's no way that an office fire could have produced molten iron.

You don’t know that it is iron.

As for the rest, here's a good picture of how the fire was shortly before the buildings collapsed:

Ah using carefully selected photos to misrepresent the truth. Classic troofer technique.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html

Not exactly a 'raging inferno'.

Obviously that woman has moved to the coldest part of the building. The impact hole was not the hottest part because the majority of the jet fuel was pushed to the opposite end of the building during the collision. That was where the fires were hottest. Understand? If you find that same photo but with the whole building in screen you will see the fires.

However I have another photo for you. It is the same poor woman.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPw...rU/sbD-tLSdyvA/s1600-h/EdnaCintronFalling.jpg

From - http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/08/le-vittime-dell11-settembre-i-suicidi.html Near the bottom.

Why did she jump Scott?

Why did a few hundred others jump?

That you use photos like that to push your pathetic conspiracy is disgusting.

Small fires?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPw...mKMUVbtvU/s1600-h/NorthTowerFireGJS-WTC27.jpg

Even NIST doesn't seem to think think that the initial crash and fireballs did so much structural damage, but if you want to call the truth movement -and- NIST wrong, go ahead. .

You have said something stupid and instead of conceding you just dodge around and try further misrepresentations. NIST think the initial crash knocked off a lot of the fireproofing and that the initial fireball and jet fuel started the fire which weakend the steel. Get it? Your attempts to try and twist what they say are meaningless drivel.

Kevin Ryan is simply hypothesizing based on the information he had, which wasn't too much. The real blunder is NIST's- it comes up with 'final' conclusions even though they barely had any data.

Barely any data? Have you seen the NIST report? They have mountains of data. What are you talking about?

Ofcourse, if they're part of the inside job, it makes a lot of sense- it seems clear to me that the data was going against the 'planes took off the fireproofing', so the less data the better.

The data was not going against it at all.

Seems like it to me. I've heard there's photographic evidence that the fireproofing -wasn't- removed. So let's see your photographic evidence.

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