WTC Collapses

[Headspin]

Accumulating various pieces of unconvincing evidence doesn’t make them more convincing. Quantity does not equal quality. Jones has a deep seeded belief in something, as with his religious beliefs, and all the evidence he finds points to that belief and it could never be invalidated. So he sees thermite everywhere.

would you catch yourself!
why don;t you take your own advice:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104858&postcount=185

While you are lecturing me on the scientific method ( although you don’t seem to know the meaning of the word ‘falsify’) , perhaps you could comment on some of those links.

Accumulating various pieces of unconvincing evidence doesn’t make them more convincing. Quantity does not equal quality. Shaman has a deep seeded belief in something, as with his religious beliefs, and all the evidence he finds points to that belief and it could never be invalidated. So he never sees thermite anywhere.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 379 in this thread.

no one is saying that something happening for the first time must mean a conspiracy!

Truthers imply that all the time and I was making it clear that it won't cut it. When do truthers imply this? Scott and others repeat “No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire!” like it is a daily prayer.

That's just the appetizer. Here's the main course concerning the arguments that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/wtc/

Yes, I know, I know, you've supposedly countered it somewhere. By all means, please point out these counters.

You can keep trying to defend the truther movement and paint them as reasonable but you would be kidding yourself. Do you think all the theories are sane?

I sincerely doubt he does. I certainly don't. I wouldn't even be surprised if some of the supposed conspiracy theorists are inside job plants.

 

[scott3x]

This post is another response to shaman_'s post 379 in this thread.

little effort to test his own work? are you making this up as you go?

Jones has addressed all the major points brought up by the skeptics on a continuing basis to the point of wasting most of his time on it,

Really?
He’s addressed the criticisms I posted in this post, which you instantly discarded?

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2104858&postcount=185

While you are lecturing me on the scientific method ( although you don’t seem to know the meaning of the word ‘falsify’) , perhaps you could comment on some of those links.

Headspin may not have the time, but I have a bit. I found a particularly amusing link which was a link within the first link you mention in post 185, (wouldn't open, JREF can be real slow sometimes):

Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

Must be some pretty lethal 'paper' ...

 

[scott3x]

Accumulating various pieces of unconvincing evidence doesn’t make them more convincing. Quantity does not equal quality. Jones has a deep seeded belief in something, as with his religious beliefs, and all the evidence he finds points to that belief and it could never be invalidated. So he sees thermite everywhere.

Accumulating various pieces of unconvincing evidence doesn’t make them more convincing. Quantity does not equal quality. Shaman has a deep seeded belief in something, as with his religious beliefs, and all the evidence he finds points to that belief and it could never be invalidated. So he never sees thermite anywhere.

Personally, I don't think that Steven Jones sees thermite everywhere or that shaman never sees thermite anywhere (although he perhaps believes that none was present at ground zero ). I also don't believe that either Steven Jones or shaman_ would hold on to their beliefs regardless of the evidence. I -do- believe that the issues surrounding 9/11 are very complex, which is why we're still debating them 7 years after the fact. Perhaps we'll be debating them 60+ years after the fact, as in the case of Pearl Harbor. I would like to believe the people who have put a lot of effort in this and other 9/11 threads have done so for a reason- to find out the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth and to share that truth with our fellow human beings. Regardless of what side you take, this is a noble goal and it says something of the people who put in this effort.

 

[Headspin]

Originally Posted by Headspin
they sample air after all major fires, warehouses full of plastic computers and suchlike, so any notion of plastics producing this checmical has no evidence to support it. ”

Erik Swartz thought so.

this proves my point that you have no evidence to support the notion that burning plastics caused the extraordinary levels of 1,3 DPP. if you had evidence you would have shown it. all you have is a guess from Swartz.

“In addition, the compound 1,3-diphenylpropane- [ 1',1'-(1,3-propanediyl)bis-benzene] was observed, and to our knowledge, this species has not previously been reported from ambient sampling. It has been associated with polystyrene and other plastics, which are in abundance at the WTC site.”

so the readings were out of the ordinary, right?

I can certainly believe he is wrong. Can you briefly explain why that is incorrect

1,3dpp is found in trace amounts from the degradation of polystyrene over a long period of time at normal temperatures. it appears that it is not found in abundant quantities from the burning of plastics and polysteyrene. it appears that they cannot form readily under high temperatures.

"the sources Swartz uses to support 1,3-DPP as
a combustion product of polystyrene are not studies of
polystyrene combustion, but of gasses released in the longterm
degradation of enclosed polystyrene food product
packaging"

burning polystyrene produces much more styrene than 1,3dpp, no styrene was sampled by the epa:

"the major product of the combustion or
thermolysis of polystyrene, far outweighing others, is the
monomer styrene. This leads us to the fact that, although
styrene was a species of interest at 290 Broadway during
the same time period as was 1,3-DPP, styrene detections
were not reported in the FOIA provided data (EPA 2004).
Therefore, it appears that Swartz’ first suggested hypothesis,
that 1,3-DPP resulted from combustion of polystyrene,
is not probable."

swartz then suggests (a guess!) how 1,3dpp could have been encapsulated in computer plastic casings, which were liberated when they were pulverised.

thankfully ryan and jones are on hand to put an end to the alchemy of the post 911 dark ages:
"Consumer plastics do not typically have large amounts of
unusual organic compounds just simply ‘‘encapsulated’’
within them."

you really should read paper you so often ridicule:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/fulltext.pdf

and how thermite is the real answer?[/I]

it is in the peer reviewed paper which has been published publicy, which you don't appear to have read. 1,3dpp is used in the production of silica based lattice to control the size of the nano-pores for sol gel nanothermates. the molten alumino iron spheres that jones has found in the wtc dust have the chemical signature for a silica based lattice nanothermate. the lattice would be silicon based, the nano sized pores within the lattice contain the aluminium and iron nano particles, the 1,3 DPP regulates the pore size within the lattice during production. the sol gel is dried and the resultant solid is the nanothermate incendary/explosive.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b310405b

The synthesis of novel nanostructured materials has
involved the use of 1,3-DPP to functionalize mesoporous
silicas through control of pore size (Kidder et al. 2003).
The resulting novel hybrid materials possess silyl aryl
ether linkages to the silica surface that are thermally
stable to ca. 550C, but can be easily cleaved at room
temperature with aqueous base for quantitative
recovery of the organic moieties. (Kidder et al. 2005)
Such novel nanostructured materials are known to have
been the focus of intense research in the past 10 years,
particularly with regard to energetic nanocomposites.
Energetic nanocomposites are hybrid sol–gel materials,
often made with a silica base, that have been combined
with metal oxides and nano-scale aluminum powder to
form superthermite materials. Much of this work has been
done at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (Gash
et al. 2000; Clapsaddle et al. 2004, 2005; Simpson et al.
2004).

"5 Hypothesis for release of 1,3-DPP and other unusual
species at WTC"
you can read it here:
http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/CC/article.asp?doi=b310405b

Truthers imply that all the time and I was making it clear that it wont cut it. When do truthers imply this? Scott and others repeat “No steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire!” like it is a daily prayer.

it is a "fact" or an "observation", stop pretending that the people you attack use a single fact to form a conclusion.

You can keep trying to defend the truther movement and paint them as reasonable but you would be kidding yourself. Do you think all the theories are sane?

you are cartoonising in your mind, putting the "truth movement" into a neat cartoonised charicature package in your mind, this enables you to ridicule, smear and attack those that disagree with you. you think it is cool to do so. it isn't cool. it is fascist. did you know that the FBI paid people to spit at soldiers returning from vietnam in order to smear the antiwar movement? do you understand the methodology behind false flags? can you prove to me that the death beams from space and plane holograms are genuine theories put forward by genunine people? isn't it more likely they are put out by disinformationists to discredit anyone questioning 911 ?

There is a standard that needs to be met. Jones is not meeting that standard.

nonsense, what are you talking about? the paper was peer reviewed and published in an open mainstream scientific journal. always with attacking the man, never the argument.

No. My point still stands. Jones originally mentioned the selected quote in “Answers to Objections and Questions” and “Why Indeed the did the Twin Towers Collapse” after much ridicule, he removed it from “Why Indeed …” and has included the other quote from Swartz in "Answers to ..". It was addressed in his most recent attempt at credibility – his paper in the Environmentalist.

However he did use it originally. So I was not lied to at all. The point in contention was whether he had selectively quoted. He had.
Got it?

i have no idea what you are talking about. he uses the swartz quote to illustrate and substantiate a FACT (that the levels of 1,3 DPP were extraordinarily high is a FACT). once a scientist has assembled the FACTS you can formulate a hypothesis to explain all the FACTS. The apparant guess of swartz on the cause of the 1,3 DPP has no bearing on the FACTS. The FACTS are the FACTS. opinions are not FACTS. got it?

 

[shaman_]

no it isn't, but what i hoped to achieve is recognition from you that your constant insults are a poor substitue for a reasonable discussion. nobody wins a throwing fight.

Actually I have kept my insults to a minimum. The worst thing I have said is that Scott was a religious nut. However there is certainly much sarcasm and vitriol in my posts. This is a result of the frustration of dealing with someone who isn’t able to defend the position they have taken, so they resort to immature and dishonest tactics in an attempt to save face.

I don't have the time that you and scott have,

I don’t have the time either. I belt these posts out quickly on my lunch hour and I’m still always many posts behind scott. Rushing these posts out in an attempt to keep up with Scott has led to mistakes in the past, which you have been nice enough to pick up on.

so simply linking to masses of information will not get a response from me.

..Something I have to deal with regularly.

So lets see ....
1. You asked for examples of debunking
2. You then attacked me because I asked for clarification when you wanted to see some links!
3. Then you declare that none of them debunk Jones, and give some vague dismissive comments
4. You complain that posting these links is a waste of time because you are too busy.

Play games much?


The reality is that if you are going to insult me and defend Jones you will be asked to back it up at some point.

How about just this summary then - http://911guide.googlepages.com/jones

would you catch yourself!
why don;t you take your own advice:



Accumulating various pieces of unconvincing evidence doesn’t make them more convincing. Quantity does not equal quality. Shaman has a deep seeded belief in something, as with his religious beliefs, and all the evidence he finds points to that belief and it could never be invalidated. So he never sees thermite anywhere.

I see what ya did there. Clever.


However the evidence for the official story is somewhat more credible than the thermite alternative.

You don’t think the fire could cause the steel to weaken and collapse? There are examples of the same thing happening..

 

[Headspin]

Jones withdrew that photograph years ago from his draft conference paper. it was Fetzer (the one that has written several papers on disinformation and ended up promoting space death beams) that refused to remove the picture from his website. going back to 2005, the photograph was printed in a german book with the yellow tinge. as soon as Jones recognised the picture was a light, he removed it from his draft paper. it was always intended to be supportive to his hypothesis, not cenrtal to it. big deal!

if you look at the actual link from DECEMBER 2006:
"I am further checking whether these photos show the glow of molten metal, or of a bright light inserted into the hole. In any case, there is recorded eyewitness testimony of the molten metal pools under both Towers and WTC 7; see: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/12/why-was-there-moltenmetal-under.html"
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf

 

[Headspin]

i don't have time to go through all the rest of that stuff, it all looks like the usual stuff i'm familiar with.

what is the strongest (non ad-hom) thing that needs to be addressed?

 

[scott3x]

no it isn't, but what i hoped to achieve is recognition from you that your constant insults are a poor substitue for a reasonable discussion. nobody wins a throwing fight.

Actually I have kept my insults to a minimum. The worst thing I have said is that Scott was a religious nut. However there is certainly much sarcasm and vitriol in my posts. This is a result of the frustration of dealing with someone who isn’t able to defend the position they have taken, so they resort to immature and dishonest tactics in an attempt to save face.

I still don't understand why you think that my tactics are immature and dishonest. Perhaps, instead of insulting me, you should continue to try to explain to me why you feel this way.

I don't have the time that you and scott have,

I don’t have the time either. I belt these posts out quickly on my lunch hour and I’m still always many posts behind scott.

That's fine. If you miss something important, I'll just bring it up again later.

Rushing these posts out in an attempt to keep up with Scott has led to mistakes in the past, which you have been nice enough to pick up on.

I admit that I've rushed a bit myself at times and the results aren't always picture perfect. The one thing I try to avoid at almost all costs, however, is to engage in an insult fest. That direction leads to a useless discussion in my view. When I get real upset, I just take a break. I believe I recommended you do the same once when things were getting a bit rough and you may have even taken me up on it; all I know is that you didn't respond for a bit.

Sometimes I think that if I just write -one- more post with x, y or z point that you'll say 'hm, maybe this conspiracy stuff really -does- have something'. You haven't said that, ofcourse, but it definitely looks like you at times respect what Headspin has to say and I'm thankful for that at any rate. I certainly don't question that Headspin has simply been doing this longer then I have perhaps because of this is more knowledgeable in many things.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The immense explosions in the WTC towers, Part 3



Yes, I brought them up before- Kenny tried to counter and I countered him right back; it's all clear in the link above.

Well you are kidding yourself there but the point is that it is irritating if you are going to bring them up every time you can’t think of a response. You are using them as a distraction. Stick to the subject at hand.

Yep.

Describe or specifically mention a video and the time at which there is an explosion.

You aren't really serious are you? A lot of people believe there is ample evidence in the videos and pictures of the collapse.

Your appeal to numbers does not match credible, peer reviewed papers in mainstream engineering journals. But point me to part of a video where an explosion is noticeable.

I see you're still in the denial stage

Despising truthers isn’t a problem for me.

This post is in response to the 2nd part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Part 3



No, you did. I linked to Kevin Ryan's article, "Propping up the war on terror", which is rather large, in post 96. You're the one who decided to focus on the paragraph bringing up this point in your response in post 103.

Ok I see. I focused on that point from his article. That's true. It’s a long article and I skimmed it saw that point. I’m not doing a full review of it. The fact that he thinks the “pull it” comment is compelling evidence when according to you, he is an expert on 911 makes me have little respect for him. If he thinks that it compelling, then the what isn't convincing to him?

Yes, he did indeed seem to. We've gone over this ever since post 103. Can we just let it lie now?
I disagree in the case of Kevin Ryan. I'll cite wikipedia's entry on expert in defense of my contention:
********************
An "expert" (Audio (US) (help•info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.
********************

Note the 'can be' in the last sentence. It's not a necessity.

In the scientific community your expertise is measured by your qualifications and experience. Ryan is a chemist who has not worked with steel. He is not an authority on steel. We can debate this point forever if you like.

Because I don't agree with that assertion.

If you had cancer would you go to a doctor, or someone who had “done a lot of research”?

He is not an authority on steel and his opinion alone is not evidence. We can go in circles about this one for as long as you like but it will not change the reality.

I contend that he has done much more research then we have on the subject and that the articles he has written regarding the WTC collapses makes this clear.

Even his articles contain flaws! They only highlight that he doesn’t know what he is doing.

The 911 movement is in appalling shape if the chemist who worked with water and the cold fusion physicist are the best experts you have on steel and building fires.

Scott pay attention -

How would you react if I said, Ryan Mackay said the fires caused the collapse and tried to pass that off as evidence? He is a scientist and he's done a lot of research.

Its not evidence is it? Imagine you kept trying to point this out to me and I just kept saying, "he’s done a lot of reading and he fits a wikipedia description of expert" ?

That is what you are doing and you will not budge for a second to comprehend this. Neither of them are experts and their opinion alone is not evidence.


I’m not saying that everything he says should be ignored, (something you seem to be trying with Mackay) I’m saying that his opinion that the fires couldn’t be responsible is not evidence. Got it?

Perhaps in certain circles of it. Personally, however, I want to know the truth not whether x or y person has a degree in x or y subject. I believe the saying:
"They must find it hard, those who have taken authority as truth rather than truth as authority", by Gerald Massey applies well here.




Finally! What took you so long ;-)?



Indeed

Scott you make me too angry to appreciate any of your humor.

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 390 from this thread.

The immense explosions in the WTC towers, Round 4

Yes, I brought them up before- Kenny tried to counter and I countered him right back; it's all clear in the link above.

Well you are kidding yourself there

How am I kidding myself?

but the point is that it is irritating if you are going to bring them up every time you can’t think of a response.

Bringing them up -is- a response. You seem to be suggesting that I bring it up when the topic isn't the 'subject at hand'. If so, can you cite an example wherein you believe this to be the case?

You are using them as a distraction. Stick to the subject at hand.

Can you show me an instance wherein my mentioning the collapse characteristics of the WTC collapses wasn't the subject at hand?

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?

Yep.

Describe or specifically mention a video and the time at which there is an explosion.

I believe the -whole thing- is a multitude of explosions. Of the few actual collapses of buildings, none has ever collapsed in such an explosive way and none have collapsed so thoroughly. Some still images make it clearer then the video to me. Because of its animated nature, the video is perhaps best to see the squibs, however.

You aren't really serious are you? A lot of people believe there is ample evidence in the videos and pictures of the collapse.

Your appeal to numbers does not match credible, peer reviewed papers in mainstream engineering journals.

Steven Jones and others have debunked your allegedly 'credible, peer reviewed papers'. I've asked you before, but perhaps you missed it- do you want to Steven Jones' debunking at work?

I see you're still in the denial stage.

Despising truthers isn’t a problem for me.

Or atleast that's what you believe

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 390 from this thread.


Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 4

No, you did. I linked to Kevin Ryan's article, "Propping up the war on terror", which is rather large, in post 96. You're the one who decided to focus on the paragraph bringing up this point in your response in post 103.

Ok I see. I focused on that point from his article. That's true. It’s a long article and I skimmed it saw that point. I’m not doing a full review of it. The fact that he thinks the “pull it” comment is compelling evidence when according to you, he is an expert on 911 makes me have little respect for him. If he thinks that is compelling, then what isn't convincing to him?

A lot of things. He's certainly not the only person who felt that Larry Silverstein was essentially admitting that the building was pulled; I myself did for a time. In any case, I have never seen him mention the 'pull it' comment in any of his other articles, so I assume that he has now realized that it's not compelling evidence; I believe the quote is still suspicious, however. If he meant that the fire chief had told him that he was going to pull his firemen away, one would expect he'd atleast have said 'he decided to pull -them- out' or something to that effect. People are not its- buildings are. The fact that the firechief has apparently denied he ever said any such thing to Silverstein is also worthy of investigation, don't you think?

I disagree in the case of Kevin Ryan. I'll cite wikipedia's entry on expert in defense of my contention:
********************
An "expert" (Audio (US) (help•info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.
********************

Note the 'can be' in the last sentence. It's not a necessity.

In the scientific community your expertise is measured by your qualifications and experience. Ryan is a chemist who has not worked with steel. He is not an authority on steel.

No, he's not a steelworker. Yes, he does know a great deal about steel and the WTC steel in particularly due partially or completely to his study of it since 9/11.

We can debate this point forever if you like.

Laugh . Hopefully we'll be able to come to some sort of agreement.

Because I don't agree with that assertion.

If you had cancer would you go to a doctor, or someone who had “done a lot of research”?

Hopefully the person or people I went to would be both. On a side note on doctors, while I do believe that allopathic medicine does have a lot of important knowledge, I'm also a great believer in alternative medicine. The physician I most trust is not a medical doctor but a naturopathic one, named Dr. Jonn Matsen. He was studying to be a doctor but it wasn't helping a condition he had, so he switched to studying alternative medicine. He's written 3 books, all of which I've read. Here's the blurb on the back cover of his first, "Eating Alive":
"Dr. Jonn Matsen developed poor circulation in his fingers during his late teens that could have led to amputation. He began exploring health and healing. Dr. Matsen became a Chartered Herbalist in 1976. Later, in 1983, he graduated from the John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine in Seattle, Washington. Since then he has operated the North Shore Naturopathic Clinic in North Vancouver, British Columbia".

This is not to say that he discards allopathic medicine. In fact, his second or third book has about 100 pages of references to studies done by conventional doctors. As he puts it "Eating Alive":
"Since no doctor, type of practice or philosophy of healing can help every patient or every type of problem, it's important that there be a variety of approaches to the treatment of disease. A person who slips through the "safety net" of one mode of healing might still have hope that another practitioner with different experiences and insights might catch them and help them back to health."

I contend that he has done much more research then we have on the subject and that the articles he has written regarding the WTC collapses makes this clear.

Even his articles contain flaws!

You find one minor flaw and all of a sudden the article isn't worthy of note?

The 911 movement is in appalling shape if the chemist who worked with water and the cold fusion physicist are the best experts you have on steel and building fires.

You forget to mention all the research they've done on 9/11. As to whether they're the best experts, I would argue that they are the best experts on certain subjects, particularly the subject of the WTC collapses. For experts on all the subjects that 9/11 brings up, I'd turn to noted authors David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs.

Scott pay attention -

How would you react if I said, Ryan Mackay said the fires caused the collapse and tried to pass that off as evidence? He is a scientist and he's done a lot of research.

I'd ask you to present his evidence.

Its not evidence is it?

From wikipedia:
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

So: If his statements help determine the truth, they can be seen as evidence.

Imagine you kept trying to point this out to me and I just kept saying, "he’s done a lot of reading and he fits a wikipedia description of expert" ?

I know that many in the 9/11 truth movement are critical of Ryan Mackey's work and I am no exception. Nevertheless, his work hasn't been dismissed by the 9/11 movement. Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan and C. Thurston have all debunked various parts of his writings and their debunkings can be seen here:
Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers

That is what you are doing and you will not budge for a second to comprehend this. Neither of them are experts and their opinion alone is not evidence.

You know what the irony is? Few of the core people in the 9/11 movement are even arguing about what NIST says anymore; their work has been debunked a while back. Instead, the debate has turned to -unofficial- supporters of the official theory, such as Ryan Mackey and you for that matter, because the officials in charge of the 9/11 investigation have in essence closed shop.

I’m not saying that everything he says should be ignored, (something you seem to be trying with Mackey)

When have I ever said that all of Mackey's work should be ignored?

I’m saying that his opinion that the fires couldn’t be responsible is not evidence. Got it?

I get your assertion, I simply don't agree with it.

He’s such an expert.

Indeed

Scott you make me too angry to appreciate any of your humor.

I sincerely believe you should further analyze why I make you so angry. You have certainly hurt me and at times I admit that I have gotten a bit hot under the collar, but you have probably noticed that I can keep my cool. And the heat dissapears after a bit as well.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 3rd part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

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



Groan. Just read this.

Have you read it? Do you actually understand what is in that article? You have just seen that 911review has something about the Madrid Tower so in your mind the official story is debunked.

The two claims in that article are 1. That steel is a good conductor to the heat should have been conducted away from the heat source. This becomes irrelevant when the temperatures of the steel are reaching 1000C. It doesn't matter how well it is conducting at that point. As has been demonstrated to you multiple times, the steel can reach these temperatures in even normal office fires.

2. Fire can cause spalling in the concrete. This is again irrelevant as apparently spalling was not a problem at the Madrid tower as the concrete core stayed up. I saw no mention of spalling.

I think it would be best if you read the whole thing. It's only about 2 pages worth.

You aren’t even able to defend your own position and instead just keep referring me to a page which doesn’t even contradict what I am saying.

The title of the article is "The Core Structure Of The World Trade Center Towers Was A Steel Reinforced, Cast Concrete, Tubular Core". Why not take a look at the article itself?

The core columns were not reinforced in concrete. Even your own 911 article says “In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 “

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

.. and I am telling you that is wrong. The inner core was supported entirely by the steel core columns.

Perhaps you are referring to the interior core columns? If so, the article I mention states that they only supported 30% of the load as I stated above.

Here is an article which discusses mistake NIST made so you may actually read it. It goes into more detail regarding the distribution of loads on WTC1.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/loadDistribution_v1.pdf

You honestly think an 18 second video is going to persuade me that the twin towers had no concrete core? .

Your own site said so! ..As does every source of information I have seen regarding the construction of the twin towers.

In all truth, I would like more evidence then the one article I have but the article I quoted seems to know what they're talking about.

No they don’t. You blindly believe everything 911review says and don’t (or can’t) actually think critically about what they say.

Yes. You want me to quote you passages from his article "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?" where he does so?

Yes I would like you to quote me some passages where Steven Jones has debunked him. This should be good.

Several of which Steven Jones has debunked.

Perhaps you could point me to where Jones debunked these people as well…

Yes, freedom of the mainstream presses belongs to those who own them.

Right. All the engineering journals are in on it too.

You must be relying on Ryan Mackey again. From what I heard, atleast one of the publications where he paid was a peer reviewed publication.

I heard otherwise.

I wait with baited breath




Even NIST apparently admitted that an analysis -was- made. No, not by the junior WTC engineer Leslie Robertson, but by John Skilling. As Kevin Ryan states:
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."

.. and where are the details of this analysis? People since then have also done analysis and their findings are consistent with the official story.

Kevin Ryan also states in the aforementioned article:
"...NIST suggested that the documents that would support testing of the steel components, along with documents containing Skilling's jet-fuel-fire analysis, could not be found.26"

.. and…?

Read through a bit. Looks like I may have an idea as to where you got the idea that 707s were 'slow flying'

.I never said they were slow flying. Leslie Robertson was referring to one flying slowly if it were lost in fog....

That's certainly my impression.

Hey the builders of the titanic said that it was unsinkable….

This post is in response to the 4th and final part of shaman_'s post 340 from this thread.

The difference between steel warehouses, steel reinforced concrete framed towers and 100% steel framed towers, part 5

I have. .

Then to claim that you didn’t see any large fires is dishonest.

Many believe it was most likely to be iron. It certainly wasn't pure molten aluminum. I can't currently counter your idea that it was a combination of the 2, but even if it was, the office fires could not have accounted for the iron part. Thermate would have done quite a good job of it, though. Steven Jones deals with 4 possibilities in his paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method", which you can currently download from NIST itself.

Those possibilities are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted and is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with
added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)
.

Or it could be something he hasn’t listed there such as a mixture of lead from batteries or partly dissolved iron (from temperatures near 1000C) or something else.

Of those, he establishes that the only one that is credible is the 4th. .

No, really!

You sure you're not the one who's misrepresenting the truth? You and others have presented your photos as well and I have remained unpersuaded. .

You are seeing what you want to see.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim? .

You are being obtuse again. Why don’t you think about it? Give it a go. Thinking won’t hurt you.

People will go to the coldest part of the building, not the hottest. Won’t they?

Do you have such a picture? I'd actually like to see it. .

I do actually. Its in this document though. http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/FST-D1.pdf

Hot by building standards and by human standards are 2 very different things. .

If the floors were visibly bowing and twisted steel was found there clearly it was hot by building standards!

Yes, small fires, relative to the size of the building.

Stop and think about that comment. It may have looked like only a small percentage of the building was on fire but that is misleading due to its size. The building was one of the tallest in the world. Only one floor had to fail for the collapse to begin.

That was an awesome picture though. I believe I remember reading somewhere that thermite may have been used to create some of the fires in the towers as well.

Oh come on Scott that is a baseless, desperate rationalization . You are trying to shoehorn thermite into every explanation.

Yes, I know about NIST's flimsy 'plane knocked off the fireproofing' theory. Here's an excerpt from an annotated debate between Steven Jones and Leslie Robertson:
*************************************
[Leslie Robertson:]
"Now, if you look at a good example would be perhaps surrounding buildings where debris from the Trade Center struck the building and if you went to those areas, you found that the impact of the debris had shaken off the fire protection materials. It wasn't scraped off, it was taken off by the impact I feel, probably the vibration of the structure due to the impact of the, of the aircraft."

GR: He “feels.” He’s trying to head off the push for a serious scientific investigation, which scientists, engineers, and millions of citizens agree have never been done, because of his feelings. He says he read the NIST report, but it doesn’t sound as though he remembers NIST’s inability to establish fireproofing loss by forces of vibration.

That inability led NIST to make an absurd attempt (a “shotgun approach,” if you will) to prove that the impacts must have dislodged large amounts of fireproofing material directly. According to Kevin Ryan, fired whistleblower from Underwriters Laboratories:

The shotgun test not only failed to support NIST's pre-determined conclusions, as was the case for all of their other physical tests, but it actually proved that the fireproofing could not have been sheared off because too much energy would be needed. This did not deter NIST, as they simply proceeded by filling their computer model with vague, sweeping assumptions like suggesting that the fireproofing was completely removed wherever the office furnishings were damaged (i.e. if a cube wall fell or a pencil was broken, thousands of square meters of fireproofing must have been sheared off too).23

...there is no evidence that a Boeing 767 could transform into any number of shotgun blasts. Nearly 100,000 blasts would be needed based on NIST’s own damage estimates, and these would have to be directed in a very symmetrical fashion to strip the columns and floors from all sides. However, it is much more likely that the aircraft debris was a distribution of sizes from very large chunks to a few smaller ones, and that it was directed asymmetrically. Also, there is no indication that fireproofing was stripped from beneath the aluminum cladding on the exterior columns, but in subsequent steps of their story, NIST depends on this....

To put NIST’s pivotal claim to rest, there was simply no energy available to cause fireproofing loss. Previous calculations by engineers at MIT had shown that all the kinetic energy from the aircraft was consumed in breaking columns, crushing the floors and destroying the aircraft itself. But NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of energy was needed per square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off. For the areas in question, more than 6,000 square meters of column, floor deck and floor joist surface, the extra energy needed would be several times more than the entire amount of kinetic energy available to begin with.24 [emphasis added]​

*************************************

Which is blatantly wrong. Mackey addresses this several times through the document I repeatedly quote.

Here are a couple of excerpts.

“This is a mystification of the NIST summary of findings presented on page 273 of
NCSTAR1-6A. Here NIST reports that SFRM would be completely dislodged “by direct
impact with solid objects that had a kinetic energy … approaching 104 to 105 ft-lb / ft2
(105 to 106 J / m2).” Mr. Ryan has disingenuously used the upper end of that scale,
incorporating the full extra factor of 10. However, this is irrelevant, because Ryan also
makes the assumption that the SFRM absorbs all of this energy. The NIST summary
does not suggest that this energy was absorbed. Instead, it says that projectiles require a
certain kinetic energy to transfer the needed shock to break the SFRM loose – but
afterwards, those projectiles would retain most of their energy, either ricocheting or
smashing the formerly fireproofed building contents out of the way. The SFRM absorbs
only a tiny fraction of this energy, leaving the rest to break loose other SFRM or damage
the building structure. This is clearly seen in NIST’s results, such as Figure C-4, where
the shotgun pellets passed through the SFRM, retaining enough energy to destroy the
pellets themselves, while the SFRM – untouched except for a dozen small holes – falls
off in a single piece. It is obvious that the only energy absorbed by the SFRM itself was
in resistance to the pellets (minimal; SFRM is hardly bulletproof) and damping
oscillation of the steel plate as it vibrated after being struck, prior to shaking the SFRM
loose. Both contributions are extremely low, and the vast majority of the SFRM that falls
away is undamaged. Therefore, the energy is not absorbed, and thus Ryan’s claim that
the total energy of impact is too low to dislodge the SFRM is completely wrong.


“NIST does not claim that 1 MJ of energy per square meter was needed.
Again, NIST reported, on page 273 of NCSTAR1-6A:
Based on the observations made in the ballistic impact tests, the SFRM was dislodged by direct
impact with solid objects that had a kinetic energy per unit impact area approaching 104 to 105 ft
lb/ft2 (105 to 106 J/m2). In addition, SFRM that was not dislodged after the debris impact lost its
adhesion to the steel surface in all but one test. The SFRM on the steel plate was dislodged upon
impact of the projectiles, except for the ballistic impact at a 60 degree angle to the plate. When
the SFRM was taped to the steel plate and the tape carefully removed after debris impact at 0
173
degree, no adhesion of the SFRM to the steel plate was found, the same result found for the 0
degree impact test without duct tape. For SFRM on steel bars, the remaining SFRM after impact
rotated freely with respect to the bar. [267] (Emphasis added)
The author is not presenting the above to advance a rigorous estimate of the true energy
requirement, but merely to clarify that Mr. Ryan did also misrepresent NIST in the
passage cited by Dr. Griffin. The summary cited above is totally incompatible with Mr.
Ryan’s statement, again, that “NIST’s tests indicate that 1 MJ of energy was needed per
square meter of surface area to shear the fireproofing off.” They do no such thing.
NIST’s own summary statement indicates that it is impact, not energy itself, that is
required, and that the energy of impacting objects need only approach 0.1 to 1 MJ / m2,
not 1 MJ / m2 as Mr. Ryan reported. Regarding the table of energy values describing
NIST’s tests, it is correct that most of the tests are closer to 1 MJ / m2 than the lower end
of NIST’s range as Mr. Ryan insists, but this is no excuse for misquoting the conclusion.
“

I'm talking about their 2004 interim NIST report, which is the one that Kevin Ryan was looking at at the time. In that report, they state that most of the steel hadn't gone beyond 250C..

1. They don’t state that in the report at all but I have tried repeatedly to get that through to you. Those figures are from the paint samples only. You refuse to comprehend anything that damages the conspiracy.
2. If it was an interim report then it probably wasn’t “final” conclusions, was it genius?

Perhaps now that I have presented more evidence you wish to change your tune?

Will you change your tune after reading Mackey's comments. I doubt you have read anything of his that I have presented.

5 trusses where the plane crashed into the building? That all you got?

That answer is all you have got? You wanted to see evidence; you saw it, now you are challenging me for more. You spend the entire discussion backed into the corner don’t you Scott?

 

[shaman_]

Scott I have a document for you to read regarding your ae911 points.

The author (Gregory Urich) actually agrees that further investigation is required on a few of them so you may be a little more open minded to what he is saying.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

 

[scott3x]

Scott I have a document for you to read regarding your ae911 points.

The author (Gregory Urich) actually agrees that further investigation is required on a few of them so you may be a little more open minded to what he is saying.

http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/911/OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf

Haven't even read the document yet but I am glad that -someone- on the official story side thinks that a little more investigation is warranted. The fact that you're bringing him up leads me to believe that you yourself may feel this way.

Anyway, will probably get to the article and the post of yours before this one i'm responding to in the not too distant future...

 

[TW Scott]

The arguments on his Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth web site aren't based upon how many firemen were able to put out the WTC 7 fires. Here are the points made for WTC 7 (generally similar to the twin tower collapses, but they do differ a bit):
********************************
As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

Rapid? The building was burning for most othe day before it collapsed.

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

Those were cracks. Not explosions. Not to mention if it was explosions you would have seen dust and widows being blown out.

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at nearly free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance

Actually, in large building like WTC1&2 and 7 and symmetrical collapse is the path of least resistance. These building are designed to allow gravity to keep them stable in high winds. the building falling sideway would be working against gravity for half the building. Meaning an asymmetrical collapse would need massive amounts of energy acting on the outside of the building to counteract that surpass the weight of the building.

4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment

Actually that is not too hard to believe given we have NEVER seen such a large building collapse in any other fashion. We implode building becuase it is the easiet thing to do, not to help with cleanup.

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

the dust clouds were actually pretty insignificant and were not burning all that much more than a normal office fire.

6. Tons of molten metal found by CDI (Demolition Contractor).

Which would coincide with a day long fight with the office fire. A controlled demolition would not have had molten metals.

7. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

Thermite, the compound you are thinking of, is nothing mre tha aluminum Oxide and Ferrorus Oxide mixed together. Geez were would we find a ton of aluminim rust and steel rust.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

Probably from the rust pockets that coincidently form Thermite.

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

Funny, how they don't have as many really big building they have delat with as American Demolitions experts.

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

Doesn't take a genius to know that a rapidly burning building might come down. Especially when you have had no luck fighting the fire.

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

This would be if you had a brick building fire. Wood places go up quick and paoper filled steel offices go just as damned quick.

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

And what if you have an almost even even level of damage right to left and are working with a building type that is designed to collapse exactly one way.

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

Excuse me but a few hundred degrees is all that is needed to soften steels. Or worse make it expand an pop rivets.

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

You have not proved that any other building had larger fires, when in some reprorts half the interior of the bulding was engulfed. You have not had hotter as we don;t tend to measure fire temeprature while fighting. And you don;t have longer as there was little supression systems in WTC7 thanks to it being clsoe to being abandoned anyways. Fires that were fought for longer had to contend with active fire supression so were not nearly as intense.

 

[Headspin]

“ 7. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD. ”

Thermite, the compound you are thinking of, is nothing mre tha aluminum Oxide and Ferrorus Oxide mixed together. Geez were would we find a ton of aluminim rust and steel rust.

the claim is not that those compounds are unique to thermite or thermate.

If it were the case that thermite use could not be identified in a fire where aluminium and steel existed in a building, then why and how does the the United States National Fire Protection Association require that thermite be tested for in the event of fires, fire code NFPA-921 ?
http://www.nfpa.org/

The evidence is that of the form those compounds take. It was found at the macro scale, the micro scale and the nano scale, atomically melted together which is not the same as saying "a chunk of aluminium + a chunk of steel = thermite".
One doesn't produce a cake by throwing the raw ingredients into a bucket.

have you read this:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf

 

[scott3x]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 393 from this thread.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 1

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.

Groan. Just read this.

Have you read it?

A fair amount of it, yes.

Do you actually understand what is in that article?

I certainly believe so.

You have just seen that 911review has something about the Madrid Tower so in your mind the official story is debunked.

911review is an official story site. The site I linked to is, as you have (correctly) labelled it before, my 'favourite' site concerning 9/11, 9/11 Research.

The two claims in that article are 1. That steel is a good conductor to the heat should have been conducted away from the heat source. This becomes irrelevant when the temperatures of the steel are reaching 1000C. It doesn't matter how well it is conducting at that point. As has been demonstrated to you multiple times, the steel can reach these temperatures in even normal office fires.

I've never heard that. I imagine you're thinking that the Cardington fire tests were done to simulate normal test fires? I've heard that they were done to simulate extreme test fires. And the Cardington fire tests were done to much smaller buildings.

2. Fire can cause spalling in the concrete. This is again irrelevant as apparently spalling was not a problem at the Madrid tower as the concrete core stayed up. I saw no mention of spalling.

Ah, so if the core collapses then the problem -must- be poor design? As it happens, the WTC buildings had steel frames- no concrete to be found in them. It was the -Madrid- tower that had the concrete frames. They were weakly reinforced with steel, but as I make clear below, the reinforcement was weak and the load bearing was mainly done by the core.

I think it would be best if you read the whole thing. It's only about 2 pages worth.

You aren’t even able to defend your own position and instead just keep referring me to a page which doesn’t even contradict what I am saying.

Alright, since you won't go to the link, I guess the link must come to you. Here's a good chunk of it:
**********************************
Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account.

Compare these photographs of the Windsor building fire to photographs of the Twin Towers' fires and Building 7's fires:

Windsor fire

Windsor fire close-up

Twin Tower fires

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete [framed buildings]

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.

In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described [at their site], makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.


Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires.

* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.

* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel[Emphasis mine]. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat. Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

 

[John99]

no planes flew into those other buildings, imbecile.

 

[Headspin]

no planes flew into those other buildings, imbecile.

no plane flew into building 7, genius.