WTC Collapses

then you have surely seen how some of those columns were butt jointed together. this type of joint is not exactly the strongest there is.
it doesn't take much effort on my part to question the entire construction.

in one of the links you posted the firemen were asking for a blue ribbon investigation for that very reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This post is in response to Cyperium's post 199 in this thread.

Actually, the top of one of them -did- tip but then disintegrated in mid air.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe you're referring to this page:
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

In any case, while Manning is definitely right that the official 9/11 investigation was a half baked farce, they're mistaken on the cause of the collapses. 9/11 Research, in its article 7 Wrold Trade Center- Mysterious Levelling of Building 7, puts it this way:
*************************
WTC 7 fell straight down, which necessitated that all of the load-bearing columns be broken at the same moment. Inflicting such damage with the precision required to prevent a building from toppling and damaging adjacent buildings is what the science of controlled demolition is all about. No random events, such as the debris damage and fires envisioned by the official reports, or explosions from fuel tanks proposed by some, could be expected to result in such a tidy and complete collapse.
*************************

I suspect that the case is much the same in the case of the twin towers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

even though videos that exhibit the characteristics of the WTC 1 and 2 collapse cannot be found?
even though there is photographic evidence of butt joints (one of the weakest joints known) being used in the steel core columns?
they are mistaken????

 

I use to braze steel and aluminum. Aluminum has a pale yellow color when first melted. Then it cools to a hard silvery mass. I know this because we use to melt it into forms for fun. On the south tower where the rivers of molten metal are running out is the area where a large chunk of jet stopped. you will see molten streams of that high yellow color and of an orange yellow color which is the color of melting steel. Mix the two together and you have a yellowish orange flow.

 

You are being obtuse. If those that built the towers were found to be negligent in their duties then potentially the families could try legal action against them.

There are people who have been held responsible for the collapse and there is a long trail of evidence which points to Al Queda members.

Even though many steel structures have collapsed from fire alone……

More silly speculation .. He investigated the steel and made his conclusions that no explosives were involved.

You don't have any insight as to what the professor is thinking. He has made his position clear though and you should accept it and move on.

Of course it is significant!

Okay so explain to me what part of “When the collapse started the first floor was pounded. With each floor the collapse gained momentum and the force increased, crushing each as it went” is wrong and why.

I think you are referring to pancaking being the cause of the collapse. I am not specifically talking about that I am talking about the collision of the floors on the ones below.

Watch a video of the collapse.

No that something of a dodge. You can't refute defend your stance so you post links. I'm not interested in spending a lot of time trying to analyze the mess that is truther physics.

You avoided the point again. Your expert was claiming that the building wasn’t moving fast so there isn’t much force involved.

As to your architects and engineers, I have shown you that those numbers have been filled out with irrelevant professions. Check the site.

If they really are qualified then they should be able to do their own investigation and flood the engineering journals with peer reviewed papers. Strangely this doesn’t seem to be happening. Hrm.

You have heard that from people who are after a modern religion, not the truth.

No you are still being obtuse. Explosives don’t just magically turn concrete to dust unless they blast it. Where are the blasts? Where are the waves of force? There aren’t any. The dust is seen as the floors pound on each other.

Don’t even think about trying to bring up your usual distortions of witness testimony.

The investigation was probably far from perfect. However this doesn’t imply that bombs were involved. Barnett’s team did not find any evidence for explosives or any evidence for ridiculously high temperatures. Maybe you can read through their report and search for the word tentative.

Ok, I’ll admit that was pretty funny.

Oh you weren’t joking.

Scott you seem too ready to believe everything 911research says. If you were actually interested in evidence you would read the rebuttals or visit the debunking sites to get both sides. I have actually read both sides of the story. Can you say the same? You just want to maintain the 911 religion and spread the word.

 

After your proclamation that the evidence points to a missile hitting the pentagon or your theorizing that nuclear devices may have been involved in 9/11 I don’t have much confidence in your analysis.

The ‘something’ is a human fascination with conspiracy theories. People want to believe in them just as people want to believe in ESP, religion and alien visitation. The evidence isn’t there but that doesn’t stop people believing in it.

You don’t want to preach to the converted, you want to proselytize.

You don’t get your information from here. You bring information here to defend your story.

Apparently it is. I swore I saw aluminum on the page when I read it. I have posted other pics of aluminum being pored and will find them when I respond to Headspin

You are again being intellectually dishonest but I am used to you playing dumb. There is ample evidence that the office fires went well over 250C and none of it is questionable. You just ignore the evidence you don't like and pretend you never saw it.

I will see if I can find a better photo.

I’m still not sure about that one. When I looked at the video I thought it was sunshine on orange dust. I asked someone else and they said the same. Due to all the dust around the video is probably after one or both of the collapses and that probably isn’t WTC1 or 2. If that is molten material, why would the truck just drive over it? No there are some problems with that claim.

A better test than that before declaring the matter solved.

You are referring to the test when they poured a little of the aluminum off the top and declared it didn’t mix. That also doesn't simulate the river of molten material flowing out of WTC.

It is not an easy test to simulate.

This is where you are making an enormous leap of faith. You see molten material so it must be iron. All the accumulated evidence points to temperatures near 1000C. There has yet to be any evidence of molten steel/iron. There have been many claims but none appear to be reliable.

I know.

Yes but not caused by temperatures of 1500C+.

Because the evidence that the structural damage and the fires could do it is overwhelming. Several steel structures have collapsed due to fire alone and they did not need bombs, megathermite, jet fuel or 757s colliding with them. The fact that WTC buildings were taller than these other examples is irrelevant. In fact you could say that the taller buildings are more prone to collapse. Either way it is clear that these buildings did not need help to come down.

Then there is the problem of the evidence for ultrasupermegathermite. All you have is Jones’ who has already made stupid, incorrect or dishonest claims so far. Now he is claiming that there is a chemical signature of an incendiary, but he is not taking into account that the materials in the building could be responsible, nor is he able to prove that the signature wasn’t caused by the clean up or even the construction. When you look at his body of 9/11 work it is clear that he is not applying a strict methodology to his work and is led by belief not evidence.

 

You don't suppose the word "floating" tells you more about that thing than the "steel framed" does, do you?

psik

 

And that shouldn't be allowed?

Actually, there's such a lack of evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind it that the FBI never put it on his list of crimes.

 

I've already dealt with that argument here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2094359&postcount=78

 

He tentatively concluded that the fires were 'most likely' due to fire, then "resigned from the investigation team put together by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Society of Civil Engineers because he didn't agree with the group's decision to keep findings secret until the initial inquiry was complete." Not very promising. But hey, atleast people in high places aren't getting sued. This seems to be of paramount concern to you...

How would you know? You talk to him recently? I feel that my reasoning on his thought process may be valid. I've emailed him in an attempt to ascertain his viewpoint with more certainty, but as I've mentioned, I received no response.

He has certainly stated that he doesn't believe in alternative conspiracy theories. However, he has also apparently mentioned things like vaporized steel. This is a logical conjecture based on the New York Times article I have mentioned previously. It would be swell if he would make a statement as to whether or not he told the reporter that steel had vaporized, but for whatever reason, despite being asked to clarify his position by me and perhaps others, he hasn't.

 

According to who? You and GeoffP?

 

It should be -you- trying to prove that this in fact occured. The official story isn't innocent until proven guilty. If they're going to try to pin the blame on some Al Qaeda operative, they've got to -prove- their case beyond a shadow of a doubt. So prove to me that 'when the collapse started the first floor was pounded' (by pounded I assume you mean collapsed) and that the building pancaked all the way down.

Despite the collapse being symetrical, most of the debris didn't actually go straight down in the case of the twin towers; rather, it exploded outwards. The arguments that NIST has used in order to justify its hopelessly flawed conclusion that the floors pancaked themselves are lame and Steven Jones has made that clear.

 

I responded to that post at the time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Perhaps you could summarize how you think you have "dealt with the argument".

 

I took a look at this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss&feature=related

I must admit that it doesn't -really- start exploding outwards until it's a little bit in. Perhaps they were extra careful with the explosives at the initial point before going whole hog (as has been mentioned, it's much easier to bring a building down with an over abundance of explosives then just the right amount).

 

You are still completely misrepresenting what he said. I am getting sick of it Scott.

The word ‘tentative’ was used when giving a detailed explanation of the cause of the collapse. It was not used when describing if the fires were responsible.

He said

"I certainly don't buy into any of the conspiracy stuff," he says. "Those are lightweight buildings," he adds. "There was no need for explosives to bring them down”

How clear does it need to be?

” Mr. Astaneh-Asl's says he felt the agreement violated his academic freedom”

I don’t give a damn who gets sued.

How old are you Scott?

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that you know what he is thinking. Is that what you are saying?

He probably thinks you are an annoying crackpot.

He was not quoted saying that and you know it. Stop being dishonest.

It wouldn't matter what he said. If he said it didn't vaporize you wouldn't believe him.

He has clarified his position!

 

Sigh.
Is that your attempt at being clever? You should probably stick to being the cheerleader for headspin and psikeyhackr Scott.

It did not fall at free fall. It may have been close to free fall but it didn't fall at free fall. I can't even be bothered explaining to you why that is important.

 

I have seen no response to that post. I find it interesting that you haven't cited your response.

My post was really rather short. But since you seem to be too lazy to click on the link, here are the pertinent points:
1- A steel framed high rise is a steel structure, but it is a -subset- of the possible steel structures, one that is much more robust then a steel warehouse, as 9/11 Research made clear. A steel framed -high rise- has never collapsed due to jet initiated fires and the towers were designed to withstand the impact of an airliner anywhere in the building.

2- It's extremely unlikely that -any- steel framed high rise would completely collapse due to fire, plane initiated or not. On 9/11, 3 steel framed high rises completely collapsed. The government would like us to believe that fires did the trick every time, but many don't buy it.

Here's a more honest computer simulation of the twin towers' core:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ11i6fi7KQ&feature=related

 

How convenient. That way you can simply ignore my argument that the difference is irrelevant.

 

I could have described it as a "barge", but before you know it, one of the conflabulators around here would have redefined it as a "canoe". I'm sure you know how it works.