This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s
post 337 in this thread.
Steven Jones
You seem to be forgetting that he's a -physicist- and as such knows a thing or 2 about the conservation of momentum right from the start. What's more, he has made it his business to learn a lot about the WTC collapses and do such things such as conduct an analysis of the WTC debris, finding thermate residues and even unexploded thermate.
None of those things makes him a structural engineer. The behavior of collapsing buildings and the chemicals within those buildings is not his area of expertise. Stop being a religious fanatic and just see that what I am saying is correct. His specialty was cold fusion not structural engineering. If you would just concede and say that it is wasn’t very important I might think you had an ounce of integrity but instead you just keep arguing the point. It's not his area of expertise.
In your dreams Imagine that we're 2 lawyers in a court of law. I ask you to defend your claim and you say that I should ponder everything you've already said? shaman, I'm not going to make your case for you
No you are still being obtuse. I have devoted many posts to criticising Jones in this and the other thread. You pretend that you never see them and then ask me “why do you think Jones is a bad scientist”, expecting me to summarize the whole thing over again. I’m not going to summarise everything over again every time you are trying to dodge an issue.
Who? Someone impartial no doubt? Good science requires you to try and falsify your own theories. Perhaps he gave a sample to some skeptics?
I'm glad you're having a good time anyway.
I said a reputable scientist. .. one with relevant qualifications. It will probably never happen as Jones doesn’t want his religion to be seen to disintegrate.
Oh, I misunderstood you- I thought you were asking if he has creating false evidence. In any case, he has no need to do it himself; there are tons of detractors of his theories out there and he debunked many of their claims.
You are a religious fanatic. So the answer is no he makes no attempt to falsify his claims.
My point is that Steven Jones isn't the only person who can determine whether or not thermite was used; it's been done in investigations in the past where thermite arson is suspected. I'd advise you take a look at the clip I linked to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM&feature=related
So no he can’t demonstrate that the spheres aren’t part of the clean up or the construction…
Could you show me a confirmed case of thermite arson?
Alright, get me a link and I'll take a look. I believe I've heard about the famous 'light below' one to some extent and his major crime was that he took the picture from another place without making sure that the light wasn't from molten metal. Haven't heard about Erik Schwartz's testimony.
Jones uses this in his papers.
“EPA’s Erik Swartz stated that 1,3-DPP was present at levels “that dwarfed all others.” Swartz went on to say—“We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done” (Garrett 2003).”
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
He uses that quote to imply that there is something out of the ordinary in their samples.
He never cuts out the next part.
“One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said.
He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.”
He does not even address the comment made by Swartz he just takes the part he wants and ignores the rest.
I believe he is still using that quote and used it in the Environmentalist paper.
Not this one again. He's a -mormon-. Are you even -aware- that -all- mormons believe that Jesus came to America? If he did indeed write those interpretations, he was simply reinforcing what he already believed. And believe you me, just because he's Steven Jones does -not- mean that I believe that mormons are right on this.
That paper demonstrates how he will ignore the scientific process when he has a belief in something.
This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s
post 337 in this thread.
Bombs in the buildings
I don't mean in the final seconds before they fell down- i mean -way- before they fell down.
So do I.
Very funny. I'm only suggesting that it's possible that the windsor tower fire may have had some thermite involved. I have certainly heard that it's possible the fire was due to arson, and thermite arson is not unheard of. .
and I am suggesting that thermite may have been responsible for the Titanic. I’m sure I could find quotes from the designers where it was supposed to be unsinkable. Yet it sank. How suspicious is that? The official story is full of holes
There is as much evidence for thermite on the titanic as there is for the Madrid tower. Your speculation is no less absurd than mine.
Are you going to try and imply that every steel structure that collapsed due to fire was actually brought down by thermite? I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.
If the noise is from a bomb, it's certainly a bomb. If the noise -sounds- like a bomb, it may or may not be a bomb. .
Or it could be a transformer exploding or a lift crashing to the basement or many other things.
Dr. Astaneh also thinks the buildings were "light weight"
They will never construct a high rise like the WTC again.
He also quit the investigation due to restrictions he didn't like.
Yes. I know. We discussed it about two pages ago. ? How is that relevant now? Do you just throw these things out there hoping they will equate to a response?
Last I heard, he was stating that the buildings themselves were the problem, despite the fact that they were so strongly built.
Were they designed differently they might still be standing.
I believe Headspin once said that thermite could do it, but I personally have never even stated that explosives did any such thing. I do believe, that explosives could have -bent- the steel and there's clearly evidence of some very large bent steel pieces.
So are you saying the explosives softened the steel or not? What caused the steel to get soft and weaken?
The fire? Explosives? Ultrathermite?
This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s
post 337 in this thread.
The twin towers characteristics: how they were like controlled demolitions and unlike destruction by fires, part 2
On my site, not only do I acknowledge that you have attempted to counter my points,
So stop saying that I have ignored them.
but I have included your counters in the page in question, along with my counters to your counters. However, while I made a lot of counters towards KennyJC, I haven't yet countered any arguments you may have made in the past regarding the twin tower demolition characteristics, so be all means,
have a look and get back to me with your commentary.
What is the point of that site? It is just a selective replication of this forum.
Ok.
Here's a building that's been demolished from the top down:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ1E2NPl-s8
A building? That’s a barge. It’s only a few stories tall and its already extremely damaged. You are scraping the bottom of a barrel there.
But I will stop saying that top down demolitions never happen. Apparently they have, although the building was not similar.
However that demolition however still shares little in common with the WTC collapses. The collapse has not started at a floor near the top and collapsed one by one all the way down.
What 'simplest of concepts' is that, Mr. obsessive insulter? While the twin tower demolitions may not have been done in the normal fashion, there is still plenty of evidence that they were, indeed, demolitions.
This evidence has been examined and found to be manure.
This post is in response to the 4th part of shaman_'s
post 337 in this thread.
The Luminaries of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Part 3
Sigh
Look, just quit bothering me with these baseless insults and personal attacks ok? I've reported you twice already, but nothing seems to happen when I do so. I must admit I'm dissapointed, but that's life. .
I find your tactics far more offensive than a few insults. Calling you are religious fanatic is not much of an insult either.
But if you stop being obtuse, show some integrity and honesty and you not see any of these words which distress you so much.
Then why mention the 'urban activist'?
No. I’m saying that there was only one urban activist is not the point.
I already told you I 'get it'. They didn't 'pad it out', however. They're simply including all engineers. I think they probably should have limited it to engineers who actually had something to do with buildings, but it was their choice to make.
You almost seem to get it and then you stray off into your own world again. They have padded the list out haven’t they? Just admit it.
In any case, a fair amount of people who aren't all that knowledgeable on architecture and demolitions can familiarize themselves with the important concepts if they're willing to spend a fair amount of time on it.
Yes but they are not authorities on the collapse of buildings! Those that are in that field disagree with them. It is an fallacious appeal to numbers. Looking at some of the comments in the list it sounds like they have done hardly any research at all anyway.
This from the guy who frequently wants me to make his case for him
I wouldn’t want you to make any case for me.
I recently found an article from Steven Jones, in which he counters the idea that nuclear devices were involved. I have yet to take a look, but if I ever get into that possibility again, I think I'll take a look.
That it is even considered, is comedy.
This post is in response to the 5th and final part of shaman_'s
post 337 in this thread.
Kevin Ryan and his former employer Underwriter Laboratories, Part 3
I personally primarily use logic to test the theories I hear, .
The logic you applied to come to the conclusion that a missile hit the pentagon?
:shrug:
but people like Steven Jones do things like examine the WTC debris and do tests to determine what thermate can do.
Actually, they do certify steel components that are put together in the form of assemblies. .
They don’t certify the components. They don’t certify the steel, they certify the assemblies. You can try and twist the words around but you would still be wrong.
Kevin Ryan explains it best in his article "
Propping up the War on Terror":
**************************************
If, as our CEO had suggested, our company had tested samples of steel components and listed the results in the UL Fire Resistance Directory almost forty years ago, Mr. Skilling would have depended on these results to ensure that the buildings were sufficiently fire resistant. So I sent a formal written message to our chief executive, outlining my thoughts and asking what he was doing to protect our reputation.
…onent. This is a bit like saying "we don't crash test the car door, we crash test the whole car."
**************************************
.
If the assemblies are twisted and damaged, and the fireproofing has been removed then their rating is no longer relevant. Get it?
The company spokesman said he was fired because he “"expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."
"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong,"
Can you produce any evidence that contradicts that?
Yeah, that's why I keep on countering your claims I'm sure I, atleast, would like the whole thing investigated further
No investigation would ever be enough in the eyes of you religious fanatics. If another investigation happened and nothing was found you would never waver from your faith. Evidence and reason mean nothing to you.
you, on the other hand, seem to want to discard answers you don't like without thinking twice about them
So you are just repeating my posts back to me now?
This post is in response to shaman_'s
post 338 in this thread.
'Normal' office fire tests, part 3
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Your dishonesty is obvious to any reasonable person reading these threads.
1- I don't believe I've ever seen you acknowledge when I've pointed something out to you before.
What? I am constantly pointing it out when you spam the same crap over and over.
2- I'm not 'playing dumb'.
You may not be playing.
Corus Construction, the company that did the Cardington Fire tests. I've seen people put up the pdf link, but it seems to have been removed. This is the (now dead) link:
http://www.corusconstruction.com/legacy/fire/images/fireres_section15.pdf
Even with next to no fireproofing, the building wouldn't have collapsed.
If the areas without shielding were buckling and warping then logically all the columns would have done so if not shielded. You however will avoid logic because it is damaging to your faith.
Here's an excerpt from Kevin Ryan's article
The short reign of Ryan Mackey:
************************
In fact, UL did test floor assemblies in 1970, that were “similar” to those used in the WTC towers, but this fact has not been repeated by NIST since their progress report of May 2003.[7] The results of those early tests were interesting, considering that they showed the “floor assembly sagged 3 inches... at 120 minutes”, which correlates with the August 2004 floor tests done by UL as part of the NIST investigation. Of course, 120 minutes is much longer than the fire times in the failure zones of either tower.
There are several other facts about UL’s August 2004 floor model tests, performed as part of the NIST WTC investigation, that should be emphasized. These facts show that, even despite designing these tests in an intentionally deceptive way, the floor models still supported their loads in the furnace. Not only did UL and NIST add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with “as built” fireproofing of 0.75 inches, one with “as specified” fireproofing” thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the “as specified” condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the “as impacted” condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.
************************
Which has nothing at all to do with the Cardington fire tests. Are you even reading these posts?
So after that pathetic attempt at a rebuttal are you going to concede that office fires can reach temperatures near 1000C? Are you going to keep spamming irrelevant quotes?
You have made no mention of Kenny's tests either.
NIST's report is full of absurdities, as many in the 911 truth movement have made clear. I already debunked NIST's claims on the 'raging fires' ages ago in
a response to Kenny way back when we were all still in the '
one' thread.
You are a deluded fanatic who will comfortably go through life convinced that you have debunked everything regardless of the reality.
Once again you bring up the paint samples. This has been explained to you five or six times. Very few of the samples came from the impact areas.
“In other words, of the 229 pieces of WTC 1 and 2 steel, only nine were column fragments from the impact zones, and of those, only four were in the interior. Since the exterior pieces understandably would have been cooler by convection with outside air and their placement at the edge of the fires, we are more interested in the core column fragments.”
Regarding the flashovers….
"This is wrong. To demonstrate the errors above, we will use the temperature data from Appendix C of NCSTAR1-5E, which is both representative of an ordinary fire and well suited to the situation in the WTC Towers. Mr. Hoffman here again complains about the “megawatt super-burner,” but the author reminds Mr. Hoffman that the “super-burner” was only active for the first 600 seconds of tests 1, 2, and 4, and the first 120 seconds of tests 3, 5, and 6. Readers may ignore these time periods if desired as they do not affect our conclusions, listed below:
Excepting only Test 5, thermocouples in Tree 2 experienced temperatures of over 800 oC for several minutes. In the case of Test 1, the period above 800 oC was over 20 minutes in duration. In tests 2 through 4, instrumentation was damaged by temperatures spiking above 1200 oC – and approaching 1600 oC in Test 2 – making a determination of duration impossible.
The lone exception, Test 5, was the test of “rubblized” workstations where combustible materials were collapsed, partially buried by ceiling tiles, and not provided additional ventilation. Lower temperatures are expected, but this case still produced gas temperatures of over 600 oC for roughly fifteen minutes.
· Thermocouples in Tree 3, located away from the burning workstations and thus less susceptible to damage, reported temperatures above 800 oC for at least ten minutes in all six tests. Readers are reminded that half of these tests involved no jet fuel, just ordinary office materials.
· These results directly contradict Mr. Hoffman’s claim, reprinted above, that temperatures above 800 oC are only produced for “a few seconds.”
Mr. Hoffman’s other mistakes in the excerpt above are as follows:
· In our discussion of Mr. Douglas’s claims in Appendix C of this whitepaper, we have criticized NIST on the basis that the jet fuel used in these tests – 4 L per workstation, as described on Page 8 of NCSTAR1-5E – was too little, approximately one third the amount expected to remain after the aircraft impact
and initial fireballs. Mr. Hoffman’s claim that “they must have had to pour on quite a lot of jet fuel” is in fact completely backwards. The author believes the amount was insufficient.
· The NIST Report does not imply, deceptively or otherwise, that there were sustained temperatures in excess of 1100 oC in the core. NIST’s estimates of gas temperatures are given in NCSTAR1-5F, and rarely exceed 700 oC in the core (the hottest example being Floor 96 of Case B). The temperatures and durations reported by NIST are totally consistent with the results of the compartment test in NCSTAR1-5E.”
-R.Mackey
So no you haven't debunked the high temperatures. Were you not aware that people had responded to your post in the other thread? No?
Do you have any evidence to support that claim? .
You spam the same rubbish over and over as if no one has ever pointed out the flaws in your “research”.
You either have a memory problem or you are intellectually dishonest.
I think the above quoted and linked to material from notable 911 luminaries have made it clear that this is not the case.
You have posted nothing that contradicts the results of the Cardington tests. I understand that you will somehow avoid seeing this, as you are not a reasonable person. You have pretty much had evidence rammed down your throat but you still play games.
