WTC Collapses

[Tony Szamboti]

Floor sections were tested by the NIST in furnaces with double the expected loads and didn't fail in two hours. The problem is they were tested with fireproofing but the NIST wants to claim the failure in the WTC occurred because the plane impact removed fireproofing.

So the obvious and SCIENTIFIC thing to do it test a floor section without fireproofing.

The NIST has not done this.

Of course if they test a section without fireproofing and it DOES NOT FAIL then all of their bullshit goes out of the window. So they don't do the test and don't point out that that is the LOGICAL thing to do.

So we end up keeping things sufficiently vague and confused so plenty of people can BELIEVE what they prefer and debates can go on ad infinitum leaving out necessary information.

psik

NIST actually did test a floor assembly without fireproofing. However, they claimed it was only for calibration purposes to see what temperature the steel would get to without fireproofing. Interestingly, there is nothing more said about it. The implication here is obvious that there was no collapse or anything resembling it, which is apparently why little was said about it.

 

[John99]

Why's that?

No, but there are some here who definitely know a thing or 2 about building structures, and it looks like one of them has already taken on your point...

Pretty obvious.

 

[scott3x]

...I don't know much about the joists, I'll let someone else take that one.

Floor sections were tested by the NIST in furnaces with double the expected loads and didn't fail in two hours. The problem is they were tested with fireproofing but the NIST wants to claim the failure in the WTC occurred because the plane impact removed fireproofing.

So the obvious and SCIENTIFIC thing to do it test a floor section without fireproofing.

The NIST has not done this.

Probably because they know that it'd make little difference. If memory serves, I believe that they did some tests on some steel that had little fireproofing and it didn't change much.

Of course if they test a section without fireproofing and it DOES NOT FAIL then all of their bullshit goes out of the window. So they don't do the test and don't point out that that is the LOGICAL thing to do.

Yeah. Kind of like they destroyed most of the WTC steel too. And employed the likes of such versatiles characters as Gene Corley, as Kevin Ryan explains in his article "Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories":
*****
Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony.7 Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster. Perhaps someone else, with less experience in bombings and more experience in fires, would have been a better choice. But without authority to save samples or even obtain blueprints, the ASCE investigation was ineffective anyway. Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.8
*****

So we end up keeping things sufficiently vague and confused so plenty of people can BELIEVE what they prefer and debates can go on ad infinitum leaving out necessary information.

Well, despite the coverup efforts, there is still a fair amount of information out there. Nevertheless, I certainly agree that it would be good if more people were aware of the evidence that was destroyed. Once enough people are aware, the next step would be to start demanding to know -why- this evidence was destroyed.

 

[leopold]

Fall of Physics

it's interesting that your posts have been called strawmen there as well.

 

[scott3x]

NIST actually did test a floor assembly without fireproofing. However, they claimed it was only for calibration purposes to see what temperature the steel would get to without fireproofing. Interestingly, there is nothing more said about it. The implication here is obvious that there was no collapse or anything resembling it, which is apparently why little was said about it.

Ah, good to know, thanks.

 

[John99]

Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

Those buildings would have never been taken out for that reason. So that is your personal interest in this?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Those buildings would have never been taken out for that reason. So that is your personal interest in this?

Please provide a basis for what you are saying here other than incredulity.

Many people have come to believe that the shock and awe of these building collapses was done to lay the foundation and gain the support of the American people for disguised resource wars otherwise known as "the war on terror" or Dick Cheney's "war that won't end in our lifetime".

How convenient it is to have an amorphous enemy which can be said to exist anywhere, especially in places which have resources coveted by certain people in the United States and Great Britain.

 

[John99]

Common sense.

 

[leopold]

NIST actually did test a floor assembly without fireproofing. However, they claimed it was only for calibration purposes to see what temperature the steel would get to without fireproofing. Interestingly, there is nothing more said about it.

what else would you like for them to say about it?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Common sense.

You are naive.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

what else would you like for them to say about it?

They should have admitted that this test showed that the theory of floor truss sagging causing collapse was not reproduceable and thus had little validity if any.

 

[John99]

Please provide a basis for what you are saying here other than incredulity.

Many people have come to believe that the shock and awe of these building collapses was done to lay the foundation and gain the support of the American people for disguised resource wars otherwise known as "the war on terror" or Dick Cheney's "war that won't end in our lifetime".

governments dont need support from its citizens to got to war.

anyone who thinks this is having pipe dreams.

 

[scott3x]

Freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them, Round 2

This post is in response to shaman_'s post 649 in this thread.

There is always the paper that he and some other 9/11 truth notables published,

Wow all these years and all he can get is a little known journal which apparently required nothing more than a fee for publication. Isn’t that a bit strange.

It was a peer reviewed journal. And you are apparently not paying attention to the title of this sub thread; that is, that freedom of a given press belongs to those who own it.

So back to the point, why can’t he get these things published in a respected journal?

If by respected, you mean mainstream, see my point above. There is also the fact that the mass media has done quite a good job of getting people to not take theories that differ significantly from the official story into account. One need go no further then this forum, where most of the admins are apparently dismissive of alternative theories to the official ones regarding 9/11.

Are you suggesting that all the structural engineers are dishonest?

No, I'm saying that freedom of the presses belongs to those who own them. It has been mentioned before that structural engineers are heavily reliant on governments to get contracts. We have a mechanical engineer in this very forum now, however, so again, perhaps you will realize that we've got enough expertise right here to solve these issues...

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.

Unsubstantiated rumours abound...

No I substantiated mine. You did not.

Sorry, but hearing otherwise isn't exactly substantiation. I believe we've been in this argument before and that your source is Ryan Mackey; if so, let's have his argument. I believe I've already seen his argument debunked and I may have even posted its debunking in one of these conspiracy threads.

 

[John99]

You are naive.

if i was naive i would believe you.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

governments dont need support from its citizens to got to war.

anyone who thinks this is having pipe dreams.

While one could say a government could go to war without the implicit approval of their citizenry it isn't a very smart thing to do, especially since it is the citizenry which mans the Army they use to fight the war.

 

[scott3x]

Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies about the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories

Those buildings would have never been taken out for that reason.

Which buildings did you have in mind? The WTC buildings, the Oklahoma building (I did mention it in the post you're responding to), or both? Secondly, for what reason would the buildings in question have never been taken out?

So that is your personal interest in this?

Ah, yes, "that". John, please, please, please respond with a little more context.

 

[John99]

It would not be a very good start to take out two vital buildings to your own economy. not very smart.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

if i was naive i would believe you.

I think a better term for it is that you are just incredulous and don't believe people like Dick Cheney and the oil people he represents could do something like 911 to deceptively gain backing for their aims.

However, in clinging to this belief you are denying a mountain of evidence which points to precisely that sort of thing being the reality.

 

[scott3x]

NIST actually did test a floor assembly without fireproofing. However, they claimed it was only for calibration purposes to see what temperature the steel would get to without fireproofing. Interestingly, there is nothing more said about it.

what else would you like for them to say about it?

Well, you know, it might be interesting to know if the floor assemblies collapsed

 

[leopold]

They should have admitted that this test showed that the theory of floor truss sagging causing collapse was not reproduceable and thus had little validity if any.

frankly i don't see how a sagging floor could cause the collapse.
the floors in WTC 1 and 2 were basically "hung" between the perimeter wall and the core columns

governments dont need support from its citizens to got to war.

anyone who thinks this is having pipe dreams.

true, but a government that acts in such a manner is taking one hell of a gamble.