9/11 media happenings

[Bob_the_lost]

Controlled demolition, dear fucking christ. Not this shit again.

There was a report attached to the King page written by a demolitions company. They ripped Jone's theory to bits. I've done much more irate versions of the same here as has King on that site in a much more measured manner.

Anyone who still thinks that there is any chance that the twin towers were demolished either managed not to read up on the topic or is an idiot.

If you've done any study of explosive demolition you can see that it's not a normal procedure (in fact it's pretty much the opposite of the normal way to demolish a building), that the time constratints are imense (thousands of tones of explosives, hundreds of people and then thousands more to hide the explosive charges) and that the things that jones describes as squibs are no such thing. If you've done any chemisty or worked with explosives you'd realise the danger (premature detonation), complexity (Every bloody floor?) and irrationality of the method that would have had to be used. If you read the articles and posts that are up you'd see that the jone's report is factually incorrect in manny of it's asertions (time to fall, damage to WT7, "squibs", that the towers fell straight down [they didn't], proof of cutting charges [none] etc.) and that many of it's claims are completely bemusing (ie thermite and HE cutting charges).

Thing is that most people haven't studied it, haven't thought about it and won't read the links. Hence why this Tom Clancy shite gets airtime.

 

[pocketscience]

Let me guess - you put up scaffolding?

Wrong, not half as exciting!
I work with this:
http://www.mscsoftware.com/products/msc_nastran.cfm?Q=396&Z=422
and this:
http://www.3ds.com/products-solutio...echanical_Design/?no_cache=1&cHash=5f60a38015

 

[e19896]

Controlled demolition, dear fucking christ. Not this shit again.

There was a report attached to the King page written by a demolitions company. They ripped Jone's theory to bits. I've done much more irate versions of the same here as has King on that site in a much more measured manner.

Anyone who still thinks that there is any chance that the twin towers were demolished either managed not to read up on the topic or is an idiot.

If you've done any study of explosive demolition you can see that it's not a normal procedure (in fact it's pretty much the opposite of the normal way to demolish a building), that the time constratints are imense (thousands of tones of explosives, hundreds of people and then thousands more to hide the explosive charges) and that the things that jones describes as squibs are no such thing. If you've done any chemisty or worked with explosives you'd realise the danger (premature detonation), complexity (Every bloody floor?) and irrationality of the method that would have had to be used. If you read the articles and posts that are up you'd see that the jone's report is factually incorrect in manny of it's asertions (time to fall, damage to WT7, "squibs", that the towers fell straight down [they didn't], proof of cutting charges [none] etc.) and that many of it's claims are completely bemusing (ie thermite and HE cutting charges).

Thing is that most people haven't studied it, haven't thought about it and won't read the links. Hence why this Tom Clancy shite gets airtime.

I do hold with this thought but the whole thing is suspect to say the least http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/09/350617.html and seems you have do some reading but please have a look at the link and the links within it makes you queston what did happen.

 

[editor]

I do hold with this thought but the whole thing is suspect to say the least http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/09/350617.html and seems you have do some reading but please have a look at the link and the links within it makes you queston what did happen.

So you'll ignore the overwhelming body of evidence from qualified engineers and academic institutions around the world in preference to something stuck up on indymedia?

I fucking despair, I really do.

 

[pocketscience]

So you'll ignore the overwhelming body of evidence from qualified engineers and academic institutions around the world in preference to something stuck up on indymedia?

I fucking despair, I really do.

Remember, both sides of the scientific arguement can only go on theoretical models!
As far as the structures go, and any subsiquent scientific study of them, the steel of the towers would have been the defining evidence. Unfortunatly the Govt decided it should be shipped to China and smelted rapidly.
Again, I'll say it: I'm not totally covinced of this controlled explosion theory but I certainly don't trust the Govts behaviour post 911 and they're not forthcoming with alot of answers. So you can hardly blame the public, especially those that have lost loved ones, asking questions.

 

[editor]

So you can hardly blame the public, especially those that have lost loved ones, asking questions.

I can when they're being led up the garden path by wildly inplausible yarms about invisible missiles and invisible explosives, invisibly installed by invisible operatives while good science is being ignored.

All this bonkers fruitloop shit just serves the government.
And gives a few nutters their moment in the sun too.

 

[pocketscience]

I can when they're being led up the garden path by wildly inplausible yarms about invisible missiles and invisible explosives, invisibly installed by invisible operatives while good science is being ignored.

All this bonkers fruitloop shit just serves the government.
And gives a few nutters their moment in the sun too.

I take it you're referring to Haliburton in the middle east

 

[goldenecitrone]

All this time and effort people are putting in to researching 9/11, they could have had PhD's in something really beneficial to mankind by now. But, no, still ploughing the same old pointless furrow.

 

[kyser_soze]

Funnily enough, it's the same old 'controlled demolition' and 'no interceptors' points AGAIN.

I won't bother with the CD stuff cos BTL has already addressed it (can any one of you find a witness or proof that the building/s had been wired? Have you ever watched the preparation that goes into controlled demolition of a building?), but on the subject of interceptor planes...

As has been discussed at length, a combination of budget cuts, incompetence and panic were the real reasons behind the failure of NORAD or it's east coast equivalent to respond. As was revealed after the 9/11 commission, the USAF had covered up the fact that the US internal radar nets were only switched on perdiodically - due to budget cuts. Also worth listening/reading are the ATC recordings, which show a combination of disbelief, failure to adhere to procedure and a sense of panic amoung ATC staffers - not surprising since this was, and still is, a unique event.

Yet none of you conspiracy types look at Bob Woodwards claim that Bush, Cheney and Rice were all briefed by the CIA chief and he told them that there was a major, definitely going to happen threat to US soil. The meeting took place (there's a record of it in an appointment diary) but no minutes were taken.

Now there's a real question mark, and even if you couldn't show conspiracy, you could certainly show dereliction of duty by the President and his staff to protect the US from all threats, foreign and domestic...

 

[pocketscience]

Yet none of you conspiracy types look at Bob Woodwards claim that Bush, Cheney and Rice were all briefed by the CIA chief and he told them that there was a major, definitely going to happen threat to US soil. The meeting took place (there's a record of it in an appointment diary) but no minutes were taken.

Now there's a real question mark, and even if you couldn't show conspiracy, you could certainly show dereliction of duty by the President and his staff to protect the US from all threats, foreign and domestic...

Too right.
Check out John O'Neills story. Gotta be the wierdest of them all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._O'Neill
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Yet none of you conspiracy types look at Bob Woodwards claim that Bush, Cheney and Rice were all briefed by the CIA chief and he told them that there was a major, definitely going to happen threat to US soil. The meeting took place (there's a record of it in an appointment diary) but no minutes were taken.

Now there's a real question mark, and even if you couldn't show conspiracy, you could certainly show dereliction of duty by the President and his staff to protect the US from all threats, foreign and domestic...

Exactly, the conspiracy fuckwits are so busy looking for lizards they ignore the real issues

 

[Dhimmi]

....and your views on finite element analysis?

Don't have time, still trying to get Elvis to answer his mobile.

 

[ZWord]

Elvis is supposed to have definitively left the building.

However, your previous post, presumably 4,555 annoyed me significantly with its reference to low post counts and real u75ers.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Elvis is supposed to have definitively left the building.

He's eaten everything else, but he's left the building.

 

[TheArchitect]

I am a structural design engineer, hence my interest in all information on this subject. If that makes me a conspiraloon in your books, then so be it.
Scientists will argue no doubt until well, probably the end of time, as to whether the buildings were demomished with explosives or not.
So, what qualifications do you have, may I ask, to believe the ones that think they weren't? Just your opinion I suspect, as others have their opinions.

Great news, because I am a qualified architect specialising in tall buildings. That should narrow it down to a handful of UK practices for you, assuming (as I suspect) that you're based over here. Usually work with Arups for the engineering advice, and I assume you'll know the crew there.

Where exactly do you think that the NIST/FEMA structural analysis of the failure goes wrong?

Look forward to your comments.

 

[editor]

Where exactly do you think that the NIST/FEMA structural analysis of the failure goes wrong?

Look forward to your comments.

Me too!

Perhaps he should also copy in his critique to Leeds and Sheffield universities in the UK and Tsinghua University in Beijing, who all confirmed the findings of the NIST account

 

[sparticus]

One of the main areas of dispute is the collapse mechanism ........

http://www.nceplus.co.uk/b_bank/search_results_details/?report_ID=6937&report_num=0&channelid=6

Consultant Arup has frequently criticised NIST’s analysis of the collapse mechanism.

http://www.nceplus.co.uk/fastsearch/ArchiveArticleAssetPT/?AID=21981

And this from Feb 17 2005 edition of NCE.

Lamont is due to speak at NCE's Fire Engineering Conference in London on 12 April and will challenge the finite element analysis (FEA) method used in the official report to model the collapse of the World Trade Center............

I did email ARUP and all the members of this community (http://www.steelinfire.org.uk/) to seek their views on Jones' paper and the questions raised and for their thoughts on the collapse mechanism but received no replies of any substance.

 

[Loki]

I did email ARUP and all the members of this community (http://www.steelinfire.org.uk/) to seek their views on Jones' paper and the questions raised and for their thoughts on the collapse mechanism but received no replies of any substance.

It's possible they binned your emails on sight because they had better things to do.

 

[editor]

I did email ARUP and all the members of this community (http://www.steelinfire.org.uk/) to seek their views on Jones' paper and the questions raised and for their thoughts on the collapse mechanism but received no replies of any substance.

Quite probably because they view Jones's view as being without substance, like just about everyone else who is remotely qualified to comment.

Those links you've included don't back up his 'theory' either or make even the slightest hint that invisibly installed explosives were involved.

Why do you think he's had so little support from the scientific community, Sparticus?

 

[sparticus]

Well doh of course that's possible. I also separately posted a DVD of Press for Truth and copy of Jones' paper so it wasn't just by email. The point is that critics of the official explanations have frequently been told to take our evidence and questions to the experts and seek their opinion. When this is done, there is no response.

 

[sparticus]

Why do you think he's had so little support from the scientific community, Sparticus?

Well of course I'm speculating here, but perhaps for the same reason I don't publicly voice my doubts in work circles: professional suicide. I'm an engineer (but not a structural or fire engineer before you ask). I work at a leading UK engineering institution and would love to use my professional contacts to raise awareness about 9/11 amongst engineers. Most engineers I know are still unaware of WTC7 collapse and the wider questions that surround 9/11. But I have family, kids and a mortgage and I know that if I widely spoke out about my beliefs, it would earn me a whole heap of grief probably resulting in the sack and for what?

 

[editor]

Well of course I'm speculating here, but perhaps for the same reason I don't publicly voice my doubts in work circles: professional suicide. I

Ah, that old chestnut.

So how would that apply to the UK and Chinese universities who have confirmed the findings of the report?

And what about the engineers and scientists all around the world who have read the report? Who and/or what is keeping them all silent, then?

 

[pocketscience]

Firstly editor, I'll repeat 8dens question:

8den: "Do you think the controlled demoltion argument has any merit?"
and I answered:
me: "Initially no, but I'm keeping an open mind on it nowadays. Nothing along
these lines would surprise me anymore, TBH."

So now, If I'm understanding this right editor, you're relentlessly trying to convince me (whilst I'm sitting here on a fence) of the official government line. (?)
Let me be clear here.
All I'm saying is, given the amount of eyewitness accounts of explosions that morning of repeated, short explosions around the lobby on the morning in question, I think it would have been prudent to have carried out a little more forensic reasearch in this direction, if only to dispell any CD claims.
The event is unprecedented in history. When I first saw it that day I had no doubt that the collapse was caused by the planes. However, as the eyewitness accounts came rolling in I thought I keep an open mind on it. As simple as that. Only four months later, when the New York Port Authorities stated to ship the steel (thisvital forensic evidence for a criminal investigation) to china for smelting, I couldn't help but think it was a little strange.

I've downloaded the FEMA/NIST reports and had a browse. One extract which I've found relevant is the "INVENTORY OF RECOVERED STEEL":

"A total of 236 recovered pieces of WTC steel were cataloged; the great majority belonging to the towers,WTC 1 and WTC 2. These samples represented a quarter to half a percent of the 200,000 tons ofstructural steel used in the construction of the two towers. The NIST inventory included pieces from the impact and fire regions, perimeter columns, core columns, floor trusses, and other pieces such as truss seats and wind dampers."

The Architect: No I'm not working in the UK and I've never had any dealings with Ove Arup. I have no experience of tall building structures either!
However, I do have alot of experience in stuctural engineering with other structures that were very relevant to that day!
Also I've mentioned that CATIA and Nastran are my daily bread. You may have heard of these tools. We do complete structural FEAs of very complex models/products. The FEA adds up to approx. 30 percent of the overall initial design process because we also run alot of post manufacture stress analysis (ultrasound stress gauges etc) and the data recovered from this always show the FEA models to have significant error margins, in specific areas.
IMO It's completely fair to say that FEAs are only approximations.
Therefore my personal view of the NIST/FEMA is, their models may look great on a screen but without re-simulating the events of 911 in a controlled environment (which is highly unlikely) we will just never know if the buildings fell purely from the Aircraft impact.
I'll leave it there.

I'd be glad to PM with you on the technical side of things, as I would with anyone.
If I get entwined in a technical debate, I'll have to give examples of my work and it'll become very obvious who I work for and I don't want that broadcast on U75 for various reasons. I hope you appreciate that.

 

[editor]

Well doh of course that's possible. I also separately posted a DVD of Press for Truth and copy of Jones' paper so it wasn't just by email. The point is that critics of the official explanations have frequently been told to take our evidence and questions to the experts and seek their opinion. When this is done, there is no response.

Perhaps if you didn't puff your unqualified, amateur speculation into such ludicrous mission statements such as "Press for Truth" you might find busy professionals more amenable to your wild and evidence-free theories.

 

[pocketscience]

Well of course I'm speculating here, but perhaps for the same reason I don't publicly voice my doubts in work circles: professional suicide. I'm an engineer (but not a structural or fire engineer before you ask). I work at a leading UK engineering institution and would love to use my professional contacts to raise awareness about 9/11 amongst engineers. Most engineers I know are still unaware of WTC7 collapse and the wider questions that surround 9/11. But I have family, kids and a mortgage and I know that if I widely spoke out about my beliefs, it would earn me a whole heap of grief probably resulting in the sack and for what?

Same boat

 

[editor]

All I'm saying is, given the amount of eyewitness accounts of explosions that morning of repeated, short explosions around the lobby on the morning in question, I think it would have been prudent to have carried out a little more forensic reasearch in this direction, if only to dispell any CD claims.

Start reading here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445994
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#more-explosions

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Incredibly, the progressive collapse of the Twin Towers has been left out of the computer models used: "The global models of the towers extended from several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." [4] Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers.

Incrediblly? Of course they were, once they start collapsing there is no way on earth that the floors below would stop them. What it would mean is a massive increase in computer and manpower needed to model it. Wasted for no reason other than to disuade conspicy theorists who, let's face it, wouldn't have been disuaded anyway.

Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST
from trying to explain the symmetricality of the collapses

They weren't fucking symetrical, how many times is this shite going to be circulated?

Again and again there is mention of "demolition like features, THERE AREN'T ANY i already went into that above. Then it bitches that there are no pictures of the collapse model, despite already acknowledging that it was a report that was published under heavy time pressure. I'm sure our FPA expert can comment on how much time and money would be needed to create graphical models when using a program that had to be rewritten just for it.

Summary of complaints:
Didn't model floors below the impact.
Didn't publish images of simulation.

Summary of flaws:
Refers to demolition like features where there were none.
Claims that the towers fell vertically, when they did not.
The complaint that the simulation stops at the point of collapse is flawed, i don't know of a single case where a building has had roughly a third of it's masscollapsing and has not suffered complete destruction.
Selective and misleading quoting of the NIST report

That critique is quite simply a waste of time.

 

[pocketscience]

Start reading here:

http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_of_explosions.html
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445994
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change-3#more-explosions

I also agree with the counter-claims of the links editor. Thats why I also wrote:

I think it would have been prudent to have carried out a little more forensic reasearch in this direction, if only to dispell any CD claims.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

All I'm saying is, given the amount of eyewitness accounts of explosions that morning of repeated, short explosions around the lobby on the morning in question,

Eyewitnesses don't know what they are talking about. Find those eyewitness reports, then try to work out what sort of "explosive" is at work. The ones i've heard of were fireballs, the sort you'd get from kerosene vapour blasts being channeled down the lift shafts.

NOT from HE, thermite reactions, Cutting charges or anything else. Even a cursory bit of reading would tell you (Edit: and more importantly the authors of the articles) that. However you have not researched the claims, merely accepting sites like prisonplannet to get their facts right.

 

[pocketscience]

I'm sure our FPA expert can comment on how much time and money would be needed to create graphical models when using a program that had to be rewritten just for it.

An all inclusive model would take decades for thousands of *engineers/ scientists in my humble opinion.

E2a: *from further afield than just structural engineers. i.e matalurgists, Chemistry, aviation, demolition etc, etc, etc............ Whether they'd beable to liaise their findings to a definite result is doubtful if only for the cost of such a program.