9/11: Is this photo consistent with a progressive collapse?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Some photos of fire damage to steel framed structures:

http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/~apollock/earthfire/earthfire_m28.html

contrailscience.com_skitch_Terminus_Hotel_on_Market_Street_near_the_Ferry_20120423_102129.jpg


Cowell-Building.jpg


contrailscience.com_skitch_12_story_steel_frames_collapse_20120423_103318.jpg


Unprotected steel just does not do very well in a fire.
 
Last edited:
Actually you're forgetting some important details of (the) crime: the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. You support the official theory, which is that 19 arab hi-jackers directly commanded by Osama bin Laden and under the auspices of an organization by the name of 'al-qaeda' took control of four civil aircraft and the rest is history. They have effectively been prosecuted by pronouncement; but where is the evidence for that? This scenario was announced within hours of the attacks - an astounding bit of detective work - and it has been adhered to religiously ever since, often by people like you. But where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Where is the full and proper investigation? Please point me to it.


Why didn't they test for explosives? Do you agree with your mate that his video shows conclusively 'no' explosives? Despite the obvious problem inherent in that statement? Probably.

There was no need to test for explosives as there wasn't any reason to believe explosives were involved. We've been down this path before - why not check for earthquakes, flooding, robot cats, etc.?

If you want to compare this to a crime think of it this way: the official version is the decision by the court. If you wish to appeal, it is your responsibility to initiate the appeal and introduce any additional evidence not considered in the original decision.

Have fun, professor.
 
You support the official theory, which is that 19 arab hi-jackers directly commanded by Osama bin Laden and under the auspices of an organization by the name of 'al-qaeda' took control of four civil aircraft and the rest is history. They have effectively been prosecuted by pronouncement; but where is the evidence for that? This scenario was announced within hours of the attacks - an astounding bit of detective work - and it has been adhered to religiously ever since, often by people like you. But where is the evidence? Where is the proof? Where is the full and proper investigation? Please point me to it.

Al Qaeda have admitted to it. Does this count as proof?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Terrorism/story?id=1995630&page=1#.T5YN2LP9N8E
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32456
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html

If it was a controlled demolition undertaken by anyone other than Al Qaeda, then what motivation would Osama et. al. have for claiming responsibility?
 
Just a side note:

On September 11, 2001, I was at my workplace which happens to be a major TV station. In most of the rooms there were TV sets running with various broadcasts from CNN to BBC. I had CNN on mine and saw the second plane approaching LIVE ON THE SCREEN.

Nobody will be able to convince me that this did not happen.
 
Some photos of fire damage to steel framed structures:

http://ucblibrary3.berkeley.edu/~apollock/earthfire/earthfire_m28.html

contrailscience.com_skitch_Terminus_Hotel_on_Market_Street_near_the_Ferry_20120423_102129.jpg


Cowell-Building.jpg


contrailscience.com_skitch_12_story_steel_frames_collapse_20120423_103318.jpg


Unprotected steel just does not do very well in a fire.


One picture from the site you quote but three from your own website. Are all these large cut and pastes necessary? Are you bored or running out of ideas? Or desperate?

You announce: Some photos of fire damage to steel framed structures:

But what you forgot to add is that the pictures were taken in 1906. Before there was a standard for structural steel. The photographs you've presented are from the earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 where fires after the earthquake did a lot more damage than the earthquake. I think it was fractured gas mains initiating the fires that left about 75% of the population destitute; if I remember right. Desperate measures were taken by the army to arrest the firestorm, they tried explosives to blow up the areas around the fires to create fire-breaks; they even tried an artillery barrage for the same end. Most of the efforts to mitigate the fire only served to increase the damage.

Ironically perhaps, 1906 was a bit of a landmark year for structural steel.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51097898/33/Steel-before-1906

Have a look. It starts on the section, 'steel before 1906' and the next section is 'steel after 1906'. Your choice of year is quite apposite to the discussion, if a little out of date. Why are you posting great big pictures of 100-year-old, non-standardized, cheap-and-nasty steel used in the for-mafia-profit construction of San Francisco - what are you trying to prove? What a shelled, exploded, firestorm-ridden late nineteenth century city looks like? Where is the comparison to wtc's 1, 2 and not forgetting.....7?

Here's a secret: standards have changed a little since then. When I say standards I mean Standards. They even have their own capital letter; it's a Proper Noun! Things have moved on a bit, honestly. They'd moved on quite a bit by the mid-sixties. Changes are made to building regs (codes) on a near daily basis where I come from; certainly since 1906, when the first standard for steel used in construction was created.

What's next? More big pictures and/or copy and pastes from your own sites? Oh good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There was no need to test for explosives as there wasn't any reason to believe explosives were involved. We've been down this path before - why not check for earthquakes, flooding, robot cats, etc.?

If you want to compare this to a crime think of it this way: the official version is the decision by the court. If you wish to appeal, it is your responsibility to initiate the appeal and introduce any additional evidence not considered in the original decision.

Have fun, professor.

No-one reported flooding as far as I am aware; no-one reported robot cats, I'm almost 100 per cent on that; no-one reported an earthquake - although it may have been used as a simile. Lots of people present reported explosions, lots. There was definitely an attack of some kind happening, terrorists apparently - don't they sometimes use....explosives? I know it's controversial.


If you want to compare this to a crime

What?! It is a crime. How is it not a crime?

the official version is the decision by the court

What?! What court? There was no court. If there was, please show me what I missed. Thank you.
 
Would just like to throw in here a couple examples of steel buildings collapsing because of fire.

One is the The McCormick Place fire in Chicago in 1967. This was, at the time, the worlds largest exhibition center. It, like the Twin Towers, used a steel truss system to create large open areas to eliminate columns. A small electrical fire started and the building collapsed 30 minutes later.

The other was the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania in 1997. It too was constructed much the same way as the towers, with steel trusses to create large open areas. It collapsed because of fire. The spray on fire proofing that was on the steel was knocked off during renovations of the stage floor.
 
Al Qaeda have admitted to it. Does this count as proof?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Terrorism/story?id=1995630&page=1#.T5YN2LP9N8E
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32456
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16990-2004Nov1.html

If it was a controlled demolition undertaken by anyone other than Al Qaeda, then what motivation would Osama et. al. have for claiming responsibility?

Ok. Hitler and his lot claimed responsibility for the Reichstag fire - thing is they claimed it on behalf of the communists, who didn't do it - Hitler and his lot did it! Crafty eh?

Al-qaeda?

"I first heard about Al-Qaida while I was attending the Command and Staff course in Jordan. I was a French officer at that time and the French Armed Forces had close contacts and cooperation with Jordan . . .

"Two of my Jordanian colleagues were experts in computers. They were air defense officers. Using computer science slang, they introduced a series of jokes about students' punishment.
"For example, when one of us was late at the bus stop to leave the Staff College, the two officers used to tell us: 'You'll be noted in 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' which meant 'You'll be logged in the information database.' Meaning 'You will receive a warning . . .' If the case was more severe, they would used to talk about 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Meaning 'the decision database.' It meant 'you will be punished.' For the worst cases they used to speak of logging in 'Al Qaida.'
"In the early 1980s the Islamic Bank for Development, which is located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, like the Permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Conference Organization, bought a new computerized system to cope with its accounting and communication requirements. At the time the system was more sophisticated than necessary for their actual needs.
"It was decided to use a part of the system's memory to host the Islamic Conference's database. It was possible for the countries attending to access the database by telephone: an Intranet, in modern language. The governments of the member-countries as well as some of their embassies in the world were connected to that network.
"[According to a Pakistani major] the database was divided into two parts, the information file where the participants in the meetings could pick up and send information they needed, and the decision file where the decisions made during the previous sessions were recorded and stored. In Arabic, the files were called, 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' and 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Those two files were kept in one file called in Arabic 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat' which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word Al Qaida which is the Arabic word for "base." The military air base of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is called 'q eidat 'riyadh al 'askariya.' Q eida means "a base" and "Al Qaida" means "the base."
"In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database located in computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference's secretariat.
"In the early 1990s, I was a military intelligence officer in the Headquarters of the French Rapid Action Force. Because of my skills in Arabic my job was also to translate a lot of faxes and letters seized or intercepted by our intelligence services . . . We often got intercepted material sent by Islamic networks operating from the UK or from Belgium.
"These documents contained directions sent to Islamic armed groups in Algeria or in France. The messages quoted the sources of statements to be exploited in the redaction of the tracts or leaflets, or to be introduced in video or tapes to be sent to the media. The most commonly quoted sources were the United Nations, the non-aligned countries, the UNHCR and . . . Al Qaida.
"Al Qaida remained the data base of the Islamic Conference. Not all member countries of the Islamic Conference are 'rogue states' and many Islamic groups could pick up information from the databases. It was but natural for Osama Bin Laden to be connected to this network. He is a member of an important family in the banking and business world.
"Because of the presence of 'rogue states,' it became easy for terrorist groups to use the email of the database. Hence, the email of Al Qaida was used, with some interface system, providing secrecy, for the families of the mujaheddin to keep links with their children undergoing training in Afghanistan, or in Libya or in the Beqaa valley, Lebanon. Or in action anywhere in the battlefields where the extremists sponsored by all the 'rogue states' used to fight. And the 'rogue states' included Saudi Arabia. When Osama bin Laden was an American agent in Afghanistan, the Al Qaida Intranet was a good communication system through coded or covert messages.
Meet "Al Qaeda"
"Al Qaida was neither a terrorist group nor Osama bin Laden's personal property . . . The terrorist actions in Turkey in 2003 were carried out by Turks and the motives were local and not international, unified, or joint. These crimes put the Turkish government in a difficult position vis-a-vis the British and the Israelis. But the attacks certainly intended to 'punish' Prime Minister Erdogan for being a 'toot tepid' Islamic politician.
" . . . In the Third World the general opinion is that the countries using weapons of mass destruction for economic purposes in the service of imperialism are in fact 'rogue states," specially the US and other NATO countries.
" Some Islamic economic lobbies are conducting a war against the 'liberal" economic lobbies. They use local terrorist groups claiming to act on behalf of Al Qaida. On the other hand, national armies invade independent countries under the aegis of the UN Security Council and carry out pre-emptive wars. And the real sponsors of these wars are not governments but the lobbies concealed behind them.
"The truth is, there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al Qaida. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But there is a propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the 'devil' only in order to drive the 'TV watcher' to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this propaganda is the US and the lobbyists for the US war on terrorism are only interested in making money."

French officer Maj. Pierre-Henri Bunel


A former British Foreign Secretary and former human being, Robin Cook wrote this in the London Guardian the day after the 7/7 London bombings and a month before his death.

"Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."

from this article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,15238...
 
Would just like to throw in here a couple examples of steel buildings collapsing because of fire.

One is the The McCormick Place fire in Chicago in 1967. This was, at the time, the worlds largest exhibition center. It, like the Twin Towers, used a steel truss system to create large open areas to eliminate columns. A small electrical fire started and the building collapsed 30 minutes later.

The other was the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania in 1997. It too was constructed much the same way as the towers, with steel trusses to create large open areas. It collapsed because of fire. The spray on fire proofing that was on the steel was knocked off during renovations of the stage floor.

http://nfpa.typepad.com/conference/...at-chicagos-mccormick-place-then-and-now.html

Fire protection at Chicago's McCormick Place: then and now

November of 1960, it was the largest exhibition center in the United States, housing nearly 1.2 million square feet of space for exhibitions, performances, conferences, and support facilities.

An article from Time magazine stated: “…Chicago outdid itself by building McCormick Place, an edifice along Lake Michigan that ran the size of six football fields… McCormick Place cost $35m to build, and one boast was that it would be 'more durable than the Colosseum.'”

But in the early hours of January 16, 1967, a tragic fire occurred. According to an NFPA Journal® report on the fire, “Within 30 to 45 minutes after the first alarm, the roof trusses started to buckle at the center, pulling the roof loose from the columns at the walls. The interior columns canted and the major portion of the roof collapsed. The fire in the upper level subsided only when the fuel was consumed.”

Do I really need to post a picture of this building to show how unlike any high rise, steel and concrete structure it is? Blimey
 
Just a side note:

On September 11, 2001, I was at my workplace which happens to be a major TV station. In most of the rooms there were TV sets running with various broadcasts from CNN to BBC. I had CNN on mine and saw the second plane approaching LIVE ON THE SCREEN.

Nobody will be able to convince me that this did not happen.

Has anyone tried to convince you that what you did on 9 11 2001 didn't happen?
 
One picture from the site you quote but three from your own website. Are all these large cut and pastes necessary? Are you bored or running out of ideas? Or desperate?

You announce: Some photos of fire damage to steel framed structures:

But what you forgot to add is that the pictures were taken in 1906. Before there was a standard for structural steel. The photographs you've presented are from the earthquake in San Francisco in 1906 where fires after the earthquake did a lot more damage than the earthquake. I think it was fractured gas mains initiating the fires that left about 75% of the population destitute; if I remember right. Desperate measures were taken by the army to arrest the firestorm, they tried explosives to blow up the areas around the fires to create fire-breaks; they even tried an artillery barrage for the same end. Most of the efforts to mitigate the fire only served to increase the damage.

Ironically perhaps, 1906 was a bit of a landmark year for structural steel.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51097898/33/Steel-before-1906

Have a look. It starts on the section, 'steel before 1906' and the next section is 'steel after 1906'. Your choice of year is quite apposite to the discussion, if a little out of date. Why are you posting great big pictures of 100-year-old, non-standardized, cheap-and-nasty steel used in the for-mafia-profit construction of San Francisco - what are you trying to prove? What a shelled, exploded, firestorm-ridden late nineteenth century city looks like? Where is the comparison to wtc's 1, 2 and not forgetting.....7?

Here's a secret: standards have changed a little since then. When I say standards I mean Standards. They even have their own capital letter; it's a Proper Noun! Things have moved on a bit, honestly. They'd moved on quite a bit by the mid-sixties. Changes are made to building regs (codes) on a near daily basis where I come from; certainly since 1906, when the first standard for steel used in construction was created.

What's next? More big pictures and/or copy and pastes from your own sites? Oh good.

The pictures were all from the site referenced. I just rehost them to avoid broken links in years to come.

Steel loses strength and starts to creep when it heats up. That's the bottom line. There's photos from 1906 and photos from 2005 (Windsor Tower). There's plenty of photos in-between. They show the same thing. Sure, steel is better now, but it's still steel. Loaded steel creeps and bends when you heat it up.

See this experiment, a beam is heated by burning kerosene. Within four minutes the beam has failed in just the same way as the 1906 beams and the 2005 beams.

contrailscience.com_skitch_Playback_20120425_155600.jpg

contrailscience.com_skitch_Playback_20120425_155443.jpg


 
Last edited:
The pictures were all from the site referenced. I just rehost them to avoid broken links in years to come.

Steel loses strength and starts to creep when it heats up. That's the bottom line. There's photos from 1906 and photos from 2005 (Windsor Tower). There's plenty of photos in-between. They show the same thing. Sure, steel is better now, but it's still steel. Loaded steel creeps and bends when you heat it up.

See this experiment, a beam is heated by burning kerosene. Within four minutes the beam has failed in just the same way as the 1906 beams and the 2005 beams.

Trying to see things from your perspective, I'm beginning to think making buildings with steel is a bad idea. It's amazing people still do it really. Why would you want to present it that way? Why are you presenting it that way?
 
Trying to see things from your perspective, I'm beginning to think making buildings with steel is a bad idea. It's amazing people still do it really. Why would you want to present it that way? Why are you presenting it that way?

It's not a bad idea. But steel needs fireproofing. If it does not have fireproofing, or it's stripped off by impact or explosion, then steel is very vulnerable to fire.

[ex=http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=457]Obviously, structural steel is a non-combustible material; however, the high-sustained temperatures of a fire can severely damage unprotected steel. Structural steel will lose approximately 50% of its load carrying capacity as temperatures approach 1100°F. Fireproofing works by encasing the steel and insulating it, keeping the steel temperature below the point where design strength is compromised.[/ex]
 
anyway, we're here because you closed one thread and banned me for what was it again? oh yes, failing to answer a question to your satisfaction in three attempts; you then created this thread on my behalf, which you have now banished to the 'off-topic' section for unproductive and rambling threads, you say?

night
 
anyway, we're here because you closed one thread and banned me for what was it again? oh yes, failing to answer a question to your satisfaction in three attempts; you then created this thread on my behalf, which you have now banished to the 'off-topic' section for unproductive and rambling threads, you say?

night

I can see why this thread was moved here. Back on post 318 you said:

Most of the fuel exploded at impact, a visible fireball; fires burning only office furniture, carpets, screens etc would not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel to point of failure (definitely not in one hour!)

You have been shown many different examples of this very thing happening to steel buildings but you refuse to accept this evidence and proceed to move the goal posts.
 
It's not a bad idea. But steel needs fireproofing. If it does not have fireproofing, or it's stripped off by impact or explosion, then steel is very vulnerable to fire. [ex=http://www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=457]Obviously, structural steel is a non-combustible material; however, the high-sustained temperatures of a fire can severely damage unprotected steel. Structural steel will lose approximately 50% of its load carrying capacity as temperatures approach 1100°F. Fireproofing works by encasing the steel and insulating it, keeping the steel temperature below the point where design strength is compromised.[/ex]

Steel is not 'very vulnerable to fire' by any measure. Compared to what? Let's hear it. The absurdity of your position is epic.

'But steel needs fireproofing', does it really? Steel is fireproofed in a number of ways - are you familiar with any of them?

Oh yes, and here is a sample of explanation from someone who broadly agreed with your position on the event, but completely contradicts what you've said just recently about the construction of wtc as compared to the Windsor tower, re: concrete and steel - have a nibble on this:
External Quote:
Also unique to the engineering design were its core and elevator system. The twin towers were the first supertall buildings designed without any masonry. Worried that the intense air pressure created by the buildings’ high speed elevators might buckle conventional shafts, engineers designed a solution using a drywall system fixed to the reinforced steel core
Go figure.
 
I can see why this thread was moved here. Back on post 318 you said:

Most of the fuel exploded at impact, a visible fireball; fires burning only office furniture, carpets, screens etc would not burn hot enough or long enough to weaken steel to point of failure (definitely not in one hour!)

You have been shown many different examples of this very thing happening to steel buildings but you refuse to accept this evidence and proceed to move the goal posts.


The goal posts have not been moved one inch. I stand by that post 100 percent. So what's changed? What 'many different examples' have I been shown that I have not refuted with a sound argument?
 
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make lee. Surely everyone agrees that steel can fail in a fire? And that fireproofing can improve the resistance of steel to fires?

That's why there are extensive standards for fireproofing structural steel.

[ex=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel#Fire_resistance]
Steel loses strength when heated sufficiently. The critical temperature of a steel member is the temperature at which it cannot safely support its load. Building codes and structural engineering standard practice defines different critical temperatures depending on the structural element type, configuration, orientation, and loading characteristics. The critical temperature is often considered the temperature at which its yield stress has been reduced to 60% of the room temperature yield stress.[SUP][6][/SUP] In order to determine the fire resistance rating of a steel member, accepted calculations practice can be used,[SUP][7][/SUP] or a fire test can be performed, the critical temperature of which is set by the standard accepted to the Authority Having Jurisdiction, such as a building code. In Japan, this is below 400°C[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]. In China, Europe and North America (e.g., ASTM E-119), this is approximately 1000–1300F[SUP][8][/SUP] (530-810C). The time it takes for the steel element that is being tested to reach the temperature set by the test standard determines the duration of the fire-resistance rating. Heat transfer to the steel can be slowed by the use of fireproofing materials, thus limiting steel temperature. Common fireproofing methods for structural steel include intumescent, endothermic and plaster coatings as well as drywall, calcium silicate cladding, and mineral or high temperature insulation mineral wool blanket[SUP][9][/SUP].

Concrete building structures often meet code required fire-resistance ratings, as the concrete thickness over the steel rebar provides sufficient fire resistance. However, concrete can be subject to spalling, particularly if it has an elevated moisture content. Although additional fireproofing is not often applied to concrete building structures, it is sometimes used in traffic tunnels and locations where a hydrocarbon fuel fire is more likely, as flammable liquid fires provides more heat to the structural element as compared to a fire involving ordinary combustibles during the same fire period. Structural steel fireproofing materials include intumescent,endothermic and plaster coatings as well as drywall, calcium silicate cladding, and mineral or high temperature insulation wool blankets. Attention is given to connections, as the thermal expansion of structural elements can compromise fire-resistance rated assemblies.
[/ex]

And what are you suggesting regarding the drywall? Do you think they mean it was attached to steel reinforced concrete? They only say reinforced steel core.
 
Steel loses strength and starts to creep when it heats up. That's the bottom line. There's photos from 1906 and photos from 2005 (Windsor Tower). There's plenty of photos in-between. They show the same thing. Sure, steel is better now, but it's still steel. Loaded steel creeps and bends when you heat it up.


I love the way you still present yourself as an authority on steel as a structural element in construction, it's definitely not scientific any more though, is it?
One of the many positive things about steel as a construction material is its ability to deflect, or bend. It's flexible. It naturally bends under load and deflection will increase under greater loading. Intense and sustained heat will cause further deflection and eventually weaken steel to the point of failure, ofcourse. But one needs to look at the context; the actual physical characteristics of the structures; the actual characteristics of the fire and the impact damage.
If you really want to understand the context of the event better you can study the engineer's designs for the buildings.
The floor trusses failing is cited as a major factor in the instantaneous destruction of both towers - wtc 7 was a different kettle of fish altogether, a classic implosion of the controlled variety, no question - but the floor trusses were to blame for the towers, apparently. This is quite clearly incorrect. The buildings were built out of two tubes effectively, an inner (the core) and the outer (the perimeter). These inner and outer tubes were tied together via the floors' steel beams, steel decking and r/c floors 4-5 inches thick. The floors themselves were 33 inches thick in total. Every third floor was a special case with additional shock resistance built in. The outer tube of perimeter steels were interlocking over several floors and tied together via spandrels - the gaps between the steels were just 22 inches, very much unlike most glass-dominated modern high-rises. The loads were borne primarily by the perimeter net of steels, and it was designed in such a way as to easily transfer the load from one area to another because of the tight-knit array of steel that made up the whole. Punctures to the net would have been met with a bridging effect as the steel above the affected area would increase its share of load just as that of a bridge over a river. The core was a beast of a thing - a three dimensional steel fortress of immense proportions - this was there to provide solidity to the structure and services to the users (lifts, air-con etc).
Anyway, wasting breath on you lot - you couldn't see it if Richard Perle himself told you personally he did it, you'd try to tell him how wrong he was. Oh well, each to their own.
 
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make lee.

And what are you suggesting regarding the drywall? Do you think they mean it was attached to steel reinforced concrete? They only say reinforced steel core.


More large cut and pastes, if I was you, I'd edit you - wikipedia, eh? What would you do without them?

You're not sure what point I'm making? Is that right? lol!

Are you here for a reason? If so, what reason is that?
 
The core was a beast of a thing - a three dimensional steel fortress of immense proportions - this was there to provide solidity to the structure and services to the users (lifts, air-con etc). .

It still seems like you are just using the argument from personal incredulity: the WTC was super strong, so there's no way it would ever fall.

But the NIST report gives a perfect reasonable sequence of events. The vast majority of engineers and architects across the world agree with the NIST assessment. Specifically section 6.14 of NCSTAR-1, which is more or less found in presentation form here:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/upload/6McAllister2.pdf

Maybe instead of simply marveling at how strong the building is, you could explain what is wrong with the NIST account?
 
But the NIST report gives a perfect reasonable sequence of events. The vast majority of engineers and architects across the world agree with the NIST assessment. Specifically section 6.14 of NCSTAR-1,

Nist gives a perfectly reasonable sequence of events, does it? No, it does not - Nist will not release the data they say they have, the data they input in their computer to come up with their conclusion. It's laughable - and so are you for holding them up as an example when they are obviously being dishonest. And so are you.

'The vast majority of engineers and architects across the world agree with the Nist assessment'. Do they? Where's the data for that? Where is the poll taken? The truth of it is that the vast majority of architects and engineers have not looked at the evidence - slightly ironic that Nist, who you apparently think unimpeachable, would not let them see their 'evidence' even if it was asked for. It's a common Faith-based fallacy and oft repeated, that the majority of this that and the other support the official version. That is what is known as bollocks. It's a lie, a fabrication - you made it up because it suits your position.

Your assertion above sounds very much like the one you made about the 911 Commission Report - so, are you ok with the fact that some of the evidence contained within that report was garnered through torture?


Why don't you actually answer that one? Let's understand what sort of person we're dealing with here.
 
I'm totally against torture. I don't think it's effective, and even if it was, I don't think it's something we should be doing. It's inherently evil, and detrimental to our standing in the world. I support the efforts to get the SSCI report released unredacted.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/04/26/tell-the-senate-release-the-real-book-on-torture/

I'm supportive all all transparency in government. However I recognize that many feel it would jeopardize national security, and I understand that there's going to be limits to the access granted to any public investigation.
 
But none of the evidence allegedly gained through torture has anything to do with the physics of why the towers fell. We are discussing physics here. No engineers or architects were tortured.
 
But the NIST .... NIST .... Specifically section 16.4 of NCSTAR-1

.... the NIST account?

Do you think that Nist should allow their calculations to be seen and scrutinized and peer reviewed, or do you agree with Nist that they should remain in their computer and we should take their word for it?
 
But none of the evidence allegedly gained through torture has anything to do with the physics of why the towers fell. We are discussing physics here. No engineers or architects were tortured.


No, we're discussing a crime. A massive crime which has lead to a succession of even greater ones. You agree with the Commission Report and all versions official - you've gone to great lengths to do just that. You implicitly support torture, no matter your weasel words above, the fact remains.
You speak of 'our' standing in the world? What does this 'our' refer to? The US?
 
I'd prefer it if they released all their data. But I don't see it as a big impediment to the proposed sequence of events being reasonable.

Again, what specifically is wrong in section 16.4?

You seem to be 100% certain that it's wrong. So what exactly is wrong?
 
No, we're discussing a crime. A massive crime which has lead to a succession of even greater ones. You agree with the Commission Report and all versions official - you've gone to great lengths to do just that. You implicitly support torture, no matter your weasel words above, the fact remains.
You speak of 'our' standing in the world? What does this 'our' refer to? The US?

How does "I'm totally against torture." translate as implicit support for torture. Let be be very clear: I explicitly do not support torture.

"Our" refers to the US. I'm a naturalized US citizen.

Part of this discussion is about the physics. Torture has nothing to do with the physics. Please stay on topic.
 
Let be be very clear: I explicitly do not support torture.

"Our" refers to the US. I'm a naturalized US citizen.

Part of this discussion is about the physics. Torture has nothing to do with the physics. Please stay on topic.

Torture is also part of the discussion now - that's what happens in a discussion. Crime is also a discussion here, isn't it? Evidence from witnesses - is that all physics? People expressing what they heard, thought, felt; people who were there.

Let be be very clear: I explicitly do not support torture.
What you say and what you do are contradictory. You ask how I can infer from your previous statement that you implicitly support torture? Well, it wasn't inferred from the statement, it was inferred - as was your implicit support etc. - from your explicit statement about having read the Commission Report and that it was a 'very reasonable account of what happened that day' according to you. It's really not so difficult to see the contradiction.

I'm totally against torture. I don't think it's effective, and even if it was, I don't think it's something we should be doing. It's inherently evil, and detrimental to our standing in the world

I think you should take a good hard look at this statement of yours.

I'm supportive all all transparency in government

Except when you aren't.
 
So why is it all right for Nist to hide their calculations; refuse peer review and present their 'paper' in a press conference?

Like I said, I would prefer it if they released all their data.

Refuse peer review? There were about two hundred scientists working on that report - which I think fulfills the pre-publication goal of peer review. It's been publicly published, so it's totally open to subsequent peer review.

Now, what specifically are you talking about why you say that NIST "hid their calculations"? And what uncertainty does this introduce exactly?
 
I'd prefer it if they released all their data. But I don't see it as a big impediment to the proposed sequence of events being reasonable.

Again, what specifically is wrong in section 16.4?

You seem to be 100% certain that it's wrong. So what exactly is wrong?


And right here is where you lose the argument. It is not reasonable in any language; it is the very opposite of reasonable in the very important circumstances. You cannot accept that it is totally wrong for a 'scientific' endeavour to be conducted in such a way. Presumably you know but make excuse for the fact that a law was passed just before Nist's whitewash saying that an order could be placed to stop information being released if it was deemed to possibly 'jeopardize public safety' - and guess what? That's what Nist say about the input into their simulations! They won't release them in case they might 'jeopardize public safety'.

What exactly is wrong? What is wrong? Are you serious? Yes, I am 100 percent certain that it is wrong.
 
Let be be very clear: I explicitly do not support torture. What you say and what you do are contradictory. You ask how I can infer from your previous statement that you implicitly support torture? Well, it wasn't inferred from the statement, it was inferred - as was your implicit support etc. - from your explicit statement about having read the Commission Report and that it was a 'very reasonable account of what happened that day' according to you. It's really not so difficult to see the contradiction.

I'm talking about the physical events. I'm talking about the planes flying into the buildings, and the building collapsing. I think the NIST report is a very reasonable account of THAT. The physical events. Torture has nothing to do with that.

I'm not talking about who the hijackers were, and who funded them. That's a different topic, and not one that I'm familiar with, if you want to talk about that, then start a new thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top