Re: My 9/11 threads ... a study in NLP ... enjoy!

by What-A-Coincidence 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Caedes
    Caedes
    No way in hell could these massive columns collapse by jet fuel uniformly and simultaneously.

    Earlier you were claiming the columns had been vapourised? Which is it?

    Are you asking me to disbelieve everything I have ever read regarding the strength of steel at high temperatures?

    I did a small amount of research on the two experts you noted, one is theologian and the other is a discredited Nuclear Physics professor, are they the best you have? What qualifies either to talk about engineering or building demolition?

    I see you didn't want to answer my question regarding how the buildings were wired for demolition without anyone noticing. How telling.

  • golf2
    golf2

    Caedes, are you listening? I said, my contention from the outset was, these inner core columns could not have collapsed uniformly and simultaneously. Is it that difficult for you to understand? FEMA said that some of the specimens of steel were "rapidly corroded by sulfidation" (FEMA 2002 Appendix C)This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. Fema appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the NEW YORK TIMES CALLED "PERHAPS THE DEEPEST MYSTERY UNCOVERED IN THE INVESTIGATION." (Killough-Miller, 2002)

    Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, Dr. Jonathan Barnett, said, "fire and structural damage...would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated" (Glanz, 2001)

    How were the buildings wired? Did you know that Marvin Bush, the brother of George was one of Securacom's company directors? Their cousin Wirt Walker 111 was the CEO (Burns, 2003) None of this info was in the evening news nor mentioned in the 911 Commission report. Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust, reported "On the week-end of (Sept 8-9, 2001), there was a "powder down" condition in the ...south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up...The reason given by the WTC for the powder down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded...Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors (while) many, many "engineers (were) coming in and out of the tower. Ben Fountain quoted in People Magazine 2001, said, "...the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated " a number of times"

    The ONLY source you have provided was NIST, a government funded report!!!!! You keep saying, I'm avoiding your questions, or is it, your using diversionary tactics so you will not answer my previous points. Your totally desperate and trying to save face under the guise of me not knowing my subject matter and discrediting every source I throw your way, which were many by the way, compared to your NIST report! Are you a government employee?

    What gets me the most is, you discrediting Engineers and Architects, your own kind, what a laugh!!!! You will save face at all costs!!!!!!!! Your impressive in your own mind!



  • shamus100
    shamus100
    you discrediting Engineers and Architects

    Doctors also disagree on cancer treatments.

    I see no outcry from all the engineers and architects of the world.

  • Caedes
    Caedes
    Caedes, are you listening? I said, my contention from the outset was, these inner core columns could not have collapsed uniformly and simultaneously. Is it that difficult for you to understand?

    Listening to what? This is your first post where you have actually said anything rather than just posting links.

    FEMA said that some of the specimens of steel were "rapidly corroded by sulfidation" (FEMA 2002 Appendix C)This report is significant, because sulfidation is an effect of explosives. Fema appropriately called for further investigation of this finding, which the NEW YORK TIMES CALLED "PERHAPS THE DEEPEST MYSTERY UNCOVERED IN THE INVESTIGATION." (Killough-Miller, 2002)
    Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, Dr. Jonathan Barnett, said, "fire and structural damage...would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated" (Glanz, 2001)

    But FEMA are a government funded agency, later on in your post you suggested that government funding must mean that an agency is implicated in your conspiracy? Is this agency exempt because you think they are saying something that supports your case?

    Going straight to the people who analysed the metal...

    The as-fabricated microstructure consisted of a hot worked banded structure of ferrite and pearlite. In severely "eroded" regions where the thickness had been reduced to less than a 1/16 of and inch significant decarburation was observed. In addition, some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate that steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 8508C.
    An examination of the "slag" that formed on the surface of the steel found iron oxides and iron sulfides. It appeared that the "slag" was liquid at high temperature and easily attacked the grain boundaries. A eutectic microstructure was seen within the "slag" of iron oxides and iron sulfides. If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 9408C. It appears that the severe "erosion" was due to the sulfidation and oxidation (i.e. hot corrosion) of the steel followed by the liquid "slag" attack of the grain boundaries.

    http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html

    Sample 1:
    The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 degrees C (1,800 degrees F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel...

    Sample 2:
    Temperatures in this region of the steel were likely to be in the range of 700 to 800 degrees C (1290 - 1470 degrees F).

    http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

    So that would be the sort of temperatures seen in the fire then, what a surprise!

    An interview with professor Barnett after the investigation into the collapse (the quote you referenced was before), it would be interesting to know if you still hold his opinions in such high esteem since he actually disagrees with you?

    Hi,

    I am no specialist. However, the thermite theory does not stand alone on its own. Over 100 firefighters, as well as many others (including media people) have testified to have heard, seen or experienced multiple explosions just prior to the collapse of the buildings. The WTC 1-2 were practically pulverized into very thin dust which shot out horizontally at the time of the collapse, a phenomenon not seen in buildings' collapse. Several employees in the WTC testified to explosions that took place in the basement of one of the buildings (or both) prior to collapse. I wonder why have has all of this evidence been ignored in the official studies. Isn't the role of experts to include ALL evidence into account, not just that which fits a predetermined theory?

    Elias
    2 January 2007
    None of this was ignored. But having looked at the debris myself, I saw no sign of an explosion or explosions. The collapse of towers 1 and 2 occurred exactly as one would expect from a fire.....I don't know what else to say. Finally, there was no predetermined theory. As you know I was part of the original investigation and a group leader. Neither I nor anyone else in the process went into the investigation with predetermined ideas. In fact, as this was the first collapse of a protected steel structure due to a fire, we were very open in our conversations as we looked for the truth.

    [Jonathan]
    2 January 2007

    http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/2007/04/professor-jonathan-r-barnett.html

    How were the buildings wired? Did you know that Marvin Bush, the brother of George was one of Securacom's company directors? Their cousin Wirt Walker 111 was the CEO (Burns, 2003) None of this info was in the evening news nor mentioned in the 911 Commission report. Scott Forbes, who worked for Fiduciary Trust, reported "On the week-end of (Sept 8-9, 2001), there was a "powder down" condition in the ...south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approximately 36 hours from floor 50 up...The reason given by the WTC for the powder down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded...Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors (while) many, many "engineers (were) coming in and out of the tower. Ben Fountain quoted in People Magazine 2001, said, "...the weeks before 9/11, the towers were evacuated " a number of times"

    http://911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

    I particularly like the photos taken of a ticket stub from someone visiting the WTC on the day this supposed complete power down took place but then it seems this story wasn't entirely accurate anyway...

    Interview with Scott Forbes

    GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

    SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

    SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

    GW: When did it end?

    SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.

    http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

    So not for 36 but 26 hours and not for floors 50 and up but floor 90 and it didn't affect the observation decks and we are still talking about one tower only!

    How long does it take to wire a building of that size btw?

    The ONLY source you have provided was NIST, a government funded report!!!!! You keep saying, I'm avoiding your questions, or is it, your using diversionary tactics so you will not answer my previous points. Your totally desperate and trying to save face under the guise of me not knowing my subject matter and discrediting every source I throw your way, which were many by the way, compared to your NIST report! Are you a government employee?

    No, I work for a private company in the UK.

    Saving face? Where have you managed to contradict anything I have said? I have discredited your sources, the only criticism you have made is that I quoted a govt funded report which coming from someone who evidently forgot that he quoted a different govt funded report at the start of the post is a bit laughable.

    What gets me the most is, you discrediting Engineers and Architects, your own kind, what a laugh!!!! You will save face at all costs!!!!!!!! Your impressive in your own mind!

    Well, If you are talking about architects and engineers for 911truth (a subset that doesn't include all engineers and architects, a not very subtle distinction that may be beyond you) I thought it was interesting to find them listed on a pro-911 conspiracy blog under the heading '"Outrageous Conspiracy Theories" and their proponents' . So your cherished group is thought of as crazy and outrageous even by other conspiracy theorists. Have you signed up to the group? Have you claimed to be an 'engineer'? You clearly subscribe to outrageous conspiracy theories.

    I won't expect a sensible reply from you.

  • Big Tex
    Big Tex

    The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. Yes, it was the loss of fireproofing and subsequent fires that collapsed the building but if it were not for the construction, a total collapse may not have occurred. Ironically, the construction also saved many lives by letting the towers stand as long as they did. This site goes into much more detail:

    http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

    "Tube in a Tube"

    The designers coined the term "Tube in a Tube" to describe the buildings’ construction. The design was an innovation of its day. Thick steel columns ran up the middle of the building. This housed the elevators, stairwell, electrical conduits, water, sewer and other services which ran up and down the length of the buildings.

    For you to understand the collapse, you will have to remember four main elements.

    • Core columns
    • Perimeter columns
    • Floor Trusses
    • Fire proofing

    The columns of the building normally found evenly spaced out on a given floor became the outer wall of the building. This left large open areas for renting. A good explanation of this can be found here:

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/minutes/q_2907.html

    This is an 87 second video from NOVA. Basically what the video says is that WTC used what was considered to be an innovative design, much different than the typical skyscraper. Instead of using evenly spaced support columns as do traditional skyscrapers, the WTC moved most of the support columns to the outer wall. Steel trusses were used to connect the outer wall to the main inner core. However, i nstead of encasing each column in heavy concrete, (normal fire proofing) the designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing with a 2 hour rating to protect the load bearing columns and trusses from fire. Please note: 2 hours.

    Each WTC tower was essentially bolted together like an erector set. Each average floor had 376 5/8" bolts, 188 Truss seats, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 gusset plates. There was a 3 to 4 inch layer of concrete on the average floor. There were reinforced concrete floors in the core as well. Contrary to what some conspiracy theorists say, the core walls were NOT concrete reinforced.

    So let's look at this for a moment. A building constructed so that most of its support lies on the outer steel columns, and uses steel trusses with sprayed on asbestos is hit by a 767 traveling 500 mph with nearly a full load of fuel, that then blasts off the fire retardant across multiple floors.

    The NOVA video has an excellent video showing how those steel trusses weakened, and bent, but did not vaporize. Nor did they turn into molten steel. They bent and they were weakened.

    Realize the tremendous amount of weight those broken columns and weakend trusses were supporting, under temperaturs approaching 1,000 degrees. Frankly I'm amazed those buildings held up as long as they did.

    No hidden bombs. Simple physics, mathematics and gravity did the trick. You saw it with your own eyes.

    You guys remind me of that old Richard Pryor routine -- "My girlfriend caught me in bed with another woman. I jumped out of bed and told her 'Who you gonna believe, ME or your lyin' eyes!"

    Who you gonna believe? I think I already know the answer.

    Chris

  • golf2
    golf2

    Tuesday Sept 2, 2008 I had a fine labor-day week-end,I hope you did too. Upon my return, I clicked into my computer and went dead. I returned the machine for the second time and I'll have to await another 15 days before I received it, supposedly fixed. I'm using my son's machinery for now. Upon my return, I noticed two posts dealing with the WTC. I will make a short reply because I have other things to take care of.
    Big-Tex, As I said, this topic is down my alley, and in NO WAY I'm I backing down. I'm more than willing to read other material such as you presented, and I encourage others to do the same thing, why? So they can get the full picture and they will decided for themselves which view to accept. To read government funded reports and base your conclusion on their reports should make independent thinkers to think twice about these funded reports.
    Apparently you didn't read David Ray Griffin's comments. The link once again is (http://review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html_ I'm going through this material once again along with Steven Jones material. (http://physics911.net/stevenjones)
    There are a number of points that make Mr. Griffin's presentation very interersting, one is, how did did Mayor Giuliani know in advance the colllapse of building 7? How is it that this buikding collapse without an airplane crashing into it? Why is it that only these three buildings (in history) came down by fire when NO other building collpased in a fire, NEVER!
    Another point, why was the oral history of witnesses have to take a court order to be released? It was partially released in 2005. At least 500 witnesses give their account of the tragedy and it was kept under lock and key. Enough said for now.


    Golf

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Golf,

    Didn't feel you could answer? No surprise there!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit