9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

What, somone who doesn't realise that free fall isn't a speed? It's a rate of acceleration for heaven's sake? And then thinks that a 30 to 60% reduction isn't very much?

Semantics. YOU were caught out on the free-fall issue. Yes, I've argued that 30% reflects little resistance. And NIST, whose analysis you worship, agreed with me, if you remember.

Someone who can't actually reliably quote articles or sources? Who links to articles which debunk his insane theory?

oh get lost.

Someone who pulls figures like 600% out of the air? Despite claiming to understand structures?

You haven't told us what the design load of the core is, although you require me to make calculations like that. Let's note you still seem to the think that the core couldn't stand on its own (utter baloney), nor have you confirmed whether you think it was impossible for the hat truss to redistribute loads from the perimeter to the core (they could).

This should interest you though

Original design claims

• "... inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities."
  
• For the perimeter columns ... "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."
  
• One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction."
  

-- All quotes from Engineering News-Record, 1964

source

Someone who claims that there was no fire in WTC2, despite photgraphs to the contrary?

I claim there is no evidence of 'inferno'.

Someone who accuses NIST of hiding evidence, but can't tell us what that evidence is?

There is a mass of photographic and video evidence that either NIST or FEMA are holding and refusing to release. Also, the datasets from the NIST model are not being made public, so we can have a proper look at it. Also, they aren't giving up any steel for independent testing - of course, someone might test it for explosives and settle the whole issue.

Someone who admits that his viewpoint is based on belief, not analysis?

That's the other side of the debate. It's claimed that we didn't need to look into the reports of the explosions, we don't need to test the steel for explosives, etc etc, because we just don't believe that such a crime could be possible in the first place. What the truth movement is saying is that that isn't the case - you've got to investigate and consider everything. This hasn't been done. That's why the call is to re-open the investigation.

 

[editor]

source
I claim there is no evidence of 'inferno'.

What's the relevant engineering qualifications of Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman, please?

 

[Crispy]

You haven't told us what the design load of the core is, although you require me to make calculations like that.

He did not specify absolute figures, but he did quote redundancy factors from 120% to 194% (or thereabouts. no higher than 200% anyway)

This should interest you though

Original design claims

"... inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities."

This is not a quantifiable statement. THere are no units for "calamaty"

For the perimeter columns ... "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."

The live load in question is wind loading.
When I have talked about 'live loads' I mean the dynamics of a falling 20-storey chunk of skyscraper, not wind load.

One "could cut away all the first story columns on one side of the building, and partway from the corners of the perpendicular sides, and the building could still withstand design live loads and a 100 mph wind from any direction."

That is one floor, with no fires, no damaged core columns and no damaged floors. A different situation, wouldn't you say?

 

[axon]

Original design claims
"... inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities."

Wouldn't controlled demolition by rogue governements be an "unforseen calamity" to the architects. Thus the WTC couldn't have been destroyed by CD. In fact as WTC has capacity to resist unforseen calamities this means that the towers are indestructible. So they must still be standing. Which means ground zero must be an elaborate hologram. Mystery solved.

 

[8den]

911 Media Non-Happening

So er, I somehow censored Loose Change this week.

It was supposed to be on RTE television in February. I sent a e-mail with some pdfs debunking the film, and some quotes from the film makers where they admit the film contains errors.

I really didn't want it censored I wanted it framed and in context with perhaps some discussion about it.

I got this today...

Your email of 24 January has been forwarded to me. I am responsible for the Programme-Makers’ Guidelines, the complaints processes, etc. Thank you for the information you have provided about the programme “Loose Change”. Our Programmes Acquisitions people who purchased the rights to the programme were aware of the controversy that surrounds many of the claims made in the programme. Their view was that the screening of the film with a suitable introduction which would place the programme in context would be of interest to viewers and would contribute to the debate around the events of 9/11.



I know that you have not requested that the programme be censored or removed from the schedule. However having considered the additional programming that might be required to place “Loose Change” in context RTÉ has decided that these cannot be justified for a programme with a transmission at around midnight and which is likely to be viewed by a very small number of people.



We have decided therefore not to broadcast “Loose Change”.

Bollocks I really am opposed to censorship in any form.

 

[detective-boy]

- you've got to investigate and consider everything.

No. You haven't. You have consistently misunderstood or ignored everything I have been saying on this subject right from the start.

A competent investigator is duty bound to keep an open mind and to consider all reasonable explanations until such point as they can be safely discounted.

You have never been able to demonstrate that the possibility of explosives being used / controlled explosion was not considered at some point. If it were, I would expect it to be rapidly eclipsed as a possibility by other, hugely well evidenced explanations. And, hence, never to make it as even a footnote to any report.

All you have been able to vaguely wave your hand towards is the speed with which scrap metal was removed from the site, taking the fact that every inch of every girder was not swabbed for explosives as being proof positive that there was an incompetent investigation. It isn't.

Your understanding of professional investigative procedure and practice is as deep and as accurate as your understanding of building engineering ...

 

[Lock&Light]

No, I was just trying to start a fight.

All who know you, flimsy, will know that for once you're telling the truth.

Sorry about that.

No you're not. You never have been.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

What are you trying to do with that post cocknshite?

 

[laptop]

Bollocks I really am opposed to censorship in any form.

That's not censorship.

It's a decision not to spend money on the extra programming that would be required in order to show LC in a responsible manner.

Which seems reasonable.

 

[editor]

What are you trying to do with that post cocknshite?

Enough. This is one of the very few 9/11 threads that has actually produced a half-decent debate and I'd hate to see it sidetracked with you two hurling names at each other.

Please take your spat to another thread or, even better, to PM.
Or use the ignore function.

 

[nonamenopackdrill]

He runs in with "flimsy" runs off again and you quote my post in telling us off.

Would you like to search for how many times he's done that on different threads, without being provoked? And then warn him about it. I've bit once out of a large number of times and that's the one you intervene on. Thanks for that. Him arse-licking seems to pay off at the moment.

I'll leave it just because I was actually enjoying this thread and I do wish I hadn't posted shite when I'd had a couple of drinks earlier in the thread.

 

[editor]

He runs in with "flimsy" runs off again and you quote my post in telling us off.

Don't be so paranoid. My post was clearly addressed to the both of you.

Him arse-licking seems to pay off at the moment.

Again. Don't be so paranoid and trite.

Note to the both of you: if you continue disrupting this thread with your off-topic spats and childish name calling you will be banned for 24 hrs. No need to reply to this.

 

[Jazzz]

A competent investigator is duty bound to keep an open mind and to consider all reasonable explanations until such point as they can be safely discounted.

exactly what didn't happen on 9/11.

You have never been able to demonstrate that the possibility of explosives being used / controlled explosion was not considered at some point. If it were, I would expect it to be rapidly eclipsed as a possibility by other, hugely well evidenced explanations. And, hence, never to make it as even a footnote to any report.

I don't have to demonstrate it - you can simply read the NIST report, which makes absolutely no mention of all the reports of explosives, or no mention of the pools of molten metal which could be observed weeks later, etc etc. No-one ever considered it. In fact they explain away the molten metal in their FAQ here, with this extraordinary statement... and you think I'm 'hand-waving'...

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. "
source

All you have been able to vaguely wave your hand towards is the speed with which scrap metal was removed from the site, taking the fact that every inch of every girder was not swabbed for explosives as being proof positive that there was an incompetent investigation. It isn't.

- errr - not a single inch was tested for explosives. And also they couldn't confirm from their tests that a single piece of steel had reached a temperature where it would have significantly weakened. I wonder why that was!

 

[editor]

e steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. "
[/I] source

And, once again, could you list the relevant engineering qualifications of this Jim Hoffman person, please?

I'd like to know why you're placing his lone opinion over those of hugely qualified professionals.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

eyou can simply read the NIST report, which makes absolutely no mention of all the reports of explosives, or no mention of the pools of molten metal which could be observed weeks later, etc etc.

You haven't read it, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW THERE IS NO EXPLANATION?

Idiot.

Time and time and time again you've been caught out talking utter bollocks, each time it's been an "oh, thanks" and then you ignoring that you've been talking utter shite. What happens when i prove you wrong again this time? You wander off yet again only to spout the same lies/deceptions/mistruths in a month or two?

This is why i can't be bothered to discuss the issue with you in a civilised manner most of the time.

 

[axon]

I love this thread, it makes me smile

I don't have to demonstrate it - you can simply read the NIST report, which makes absolutely no mention of all the reports of explosives, or no mention of the pools of molten metal which could be observed weeks later, etc etc. No-one ever considered it. In fact they explain away the molten metal in their FAQ here, with this extraordinary statement... and you think I'm 'hand-waving'...

Awaits Jazzz comment that the FAQ is not the same as the actual report, therefore the towers were brought down by controlled demoliton

 

[Bob_the_lost]

... also they couldn't confirm from their tests that a single piece of steel had reached a temperature where it would have significantly weakened. I wonder why that was!

Liar liar pants on fire.

We know that steel was found that was heated to several hundred degrees (the exact figure escapes me and unlike some i am not willing to make one up). We also know that steel loses stength when heated to that temperature.

If i show you talking shite again what will you do?

 

[TheArchitect]

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire (part 2)

Jazz,

I fear that your ability to recall posts accurately once again fails. Let's have a wee look.

Semantics. YOU were caught out on the free-fall issue. Yes, I've argued that 30% reflects little resistance. And NIST, whose analysis you worship, agreed with me, if you remember.

Actually you said that that the collapse was at near free fall speed and that there should have been sufficient resistance in the lower structure, leading to a markedly slower collapse time.

I pointed out that 30 to 60% was a substantive slowing and challenged you to show differently. In particular I drew your attention to Frank Greening's paper, a point you have never responded to (although i anticipate you will be googling away immediately you read this).

You haven't told us what the design load of the core is, although you require me to make calculations like that. Let's note you still seem to the think that the core couldn't stand on its own (utter baloney), nor have you confirmed whether you think it was impossible for the hat truss to redistribute loads from the perimeter to the core (they could).

Jazz, you MADE UP the claim that the core should have a 600% safey factor. You have provided no evidence or sources. All you are trying to do is deflect attention away from the fact that you were caught.

I provided figures for safety factor which vary but are generally less than 200%. However safety factors aren't as straightforward as this: a beam may will have been designed to deal with certain loads, and hence (say) a transverse bending moment on a beam designed for to primarily deal with vertical loadings will be a completely different kettle of fish.

Of course if you understood basic structures, you'd know this.

The other two things you consistently fail to do are:

1. Explain the effect of the damaged core columns on your untenable argument that the core should have stood. Given that over a third were badly damaged or completely severed, and the structure would not have been designed to catilever loads to the remainder, how would it have stood up? Sky hooks?

2. Prove your unsubstantiated assertion that the hat truss could transmit all loads to the central core anyway. After all, it's not what it was designed to do. The NIST structural model explains how some of the loads may have been transferred (I've referred to it before); I'd love to see your detailed calculations for the remainder.

There is a mass of photographic and video evidence that either NIST or FEMA are holding and refusing to release. Also, the datasets from the NIST model are not being made public, so we can have a proper look at it. Also, they aren't giving up any steel for independent testing - of course, someone might test it for explosives and settle the whole issue.

And what is this mysterious evidence, apart from the "dataset"? Or is this like the missing evidence you an't tell us about either?

That's the other side of the debate. It's claimed that we didn't need to look into the reports of the explosions, we don't need to test the steel for explosives, etc etc, because we just don't believe that such a crime could be possible in the first place. What the truth movement is saying is that that isn't the case - you've got to investigate and consider everything. This hasn't been done. That's why the call is to re-open the investigation.

Judy Wood claims it was a death ray, and there's about as much evidence for that as there is for CD. Should we investigate her claim too? Should we check whether it was space aliens? Small scale nuclear devices?

The fact is that you have failed to produce any evidence which would lead us to the view that there was a meaningful chance of CD. Case in point - you're misrepresentations about the fire (78th floor my a***, no smoke or flames my a****).

I notice with considerable amusement that you continue to ignore my challenge for you to tell US what YOU think happened. Know what? You've been debunked on every point you've posted, and I reckon you know it'll happen again if you're asked to put your money where your mouth is.

 

[TheArchitect]

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire (part 3)

I don't have to demonstrate it - you can simply read the NIST report, which makes absolutely no mention of all the reports of explosives, or no mention of the pools of molten metal which could be observed weeks later, etc etc. No-one ever considered it. In fact they explain away the molten metal in their FAQ here, with this extraordinary statement... and you think I'm 'hand-waving'...

1. Actually Jazz, there are no reports of explosives. There are people claiming they heard explosions - we dealt with that in an earlier post - but no-one saying they saw explosives. If you know different, then do give us a link.

If you don't know the difference, then you have a greater problem than anticipate.d

2. Source for the pools of molten metal? Particular point you wish to make? Why could these only have been caused by explosives? Calculations?

 

[TheArchitect]

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire (Part 4)

... also they couldn't confirm from their tests that a single piece of steel had reached a temperature where it would have significantly weakened. I wonder why that was!

Need I remind you that YOU posted a paper which confirmed that fire failure was reasonable?

Need I remind you that Fire Engineering had no problem with the failure due to fire?

Need I draw your attention to the Sheffield Univeristy, Edinburgh University, and Arup reports - all of which include detailed calculations - which confirm that the fires would have been sufficiently intense to cause collapse?

Need I ask you why a normal office fire is sufficiently intense to lead to failure of unprotected steel and yet WTC which suffered an explosion, dispersal of jet fuel accelerant, then an office fire would be magically intact?

Need I remind you that every time you post links, quotes, or calculations we find them to be wrong?

 

[Blagsta]

Why is this thread still going?

 

[TheArchitect]

What's the relevant engineering qualifications of Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffman, please?

Ah yes, Kevin Ryan. The man who thought it was acceptable to send a personal view - unsupported by any evidence or substantiation - on office time, on office headed e-mails, to a 911 woowoo group and then wondered why he got fired?

Great source. Got any real experts, Jazz?

 

[TheArchitect]

Why is this thread still going?

1. Because Jazz doesn't know when he's beaten?

2. Because any fence sitters who visit the site will see what a crock the 911 woowoo arguments really are?

 

[Augie March]

http://mindprod.com/images/nohead.jpg
<image filename indicative of content - you know the rules - FM>

Christ, wtf has that got to do with debating the collapse of the WTC?

 

[Aldebaran]

These type of threads are always amusing to read.

Seen the demonstration of still enfolding madness of the Bush Clan and my personal experiences with it I should have more reason to believe in "conspiracy theories" then anyone else posting here.

How come I don't believe them?
I use my brains.
1. No government in the world could cover up such a deliberate massive slaughter of a large amount of its own citizens and foreigners. Let alone in a society where - despite massive USA=nr.1 brainwashing and despite many US'ers having not much of an idea of "the world outside the USA - there is indeed a right to free speech and hence incentive to private- or organized investigation of no matter what.
One can argue that every government in the world manages to cover up its crimes, but I could argue that "you ain't seen nothing yet" if you think the USA has the leading position on that. They are not. They cannot write (better said: re-write) their own history for longer then a limited period of time.

2. I have no doubt that ingoring incoming intelligence reports -especially those coming fomr countries in my part of the world, since we were (still are, in fact) deemed retarded and thus insignificant anyway - has something to do with the succes of the 9/11 attacks. Yet to claim that was *deliberately* done withouth having any solid proof for this assertion, is in my opinion the mark of the consiracy loon who desperately wants to make his case looking plausible.

3. I read publications on the architectal structure of the WTC buildings (in which one of my friends lost his life) and found no reason to doubt the explanations as to why they could come down. I am not an architect, but you don't need to be one to understand some technical explanations, especially when touching the choices made to build as it was build, deviating from the original plans to create more inner space, thus inevitably weakening the whole of the building's strenght. I asked architects who teach at universities about these details and it seems to me that when original plans are overruled by economical factors, that means taking risks one should not take.
Hence if anyone - other then the attackers- is responsible for the collapses, these are the people the conspiracy loons should go for.

salaam.

 

[TheArchitect]

Christ, wtf has that got to do with debating the collapse of the WTC?

Diverts attention from the fact that Jazz's arguments and evidence keep getting trashed by about 4 of us on this forum.

It's like debating with a teenager!

 

[Techno303]

I love this thread, it makes me smile


Awaits Jazzz comment that the FAQ is not the same as the actual report, therefore the towers were brought down by controlled demoliton

Fucking classic!

 

[Jazzz]

God I am so pissed off with you lot I am going to wait before addressing the current round of mud-slinging.

But here's my claim about not a single piece of steel being tested and confirmed to have reached a tempetature where it would weaken backed up:

NIST developed a method to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members using observations of paint cracking due to thermal expansion. The method can only probe the temperature reached and it cannot distinguish between pre-and post-collapse exposure. More than 170 areas were examined on the recovered perimeter column panels; however these columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns of the floors involved in fire and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors. Only three locations had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250C. These areas were:

(blah)

Annealing studies on recovered steel established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized. These microstructures show no evidence to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

Similar results, i.e. limited exposure if any above 250 C, were found for the two core columns recovered from the fire-affected floors of the towers, which had adequate paint from analysis. Note that the perimeter and core columns examined were very limited in number and cannot be considered representative of the majority of columns exposed to fire in the towers

typed from http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf - page xli

So in summary, they looked at 170 pieces of steel but only found three pieces that had hit 250 C. And they aren't saying that those three pieces got much hotter than that. They explain away the problem by saying that they didn't test enough steel, well perhaps that was because most of it was quickly chucked away. And TA wonders why Fire Engineering said that the investigation was a 'half-baked farce'!

 

[Jazzz]

Christ, wtf has that got to do with debating the collapse of the WTC?

It was to highight the activities of people in the USG when it comes to slaughtering innocents, as a response to detective-boy.

 

[Jazzz]

Ah yes, Kevin Ryan. The man who thought it was acceptable to send a personal view - unsupported by any evidence or substantiation - on office time, on office headed e-mails, to a 911 woowoo group and then wondered why he got fired?

Great source. Got any real experts, Jazz?

It was a letter to Frank Gayle of NIST. In his official capacity. What you are referring to is a 'leak'.