What is a conspiracy theorist?

[beachnut]

Is the force of gravity so powerful that it can only be trumped by a nuclear bomb?

You are saying the falling towers, each equal in energy to 248 TONS of TNT, is not big enough for you. Did you even check the energy? You question the facts, what facts do you bring?

Do you understand? 248 TONS of TNT. That is 248 2000 pound bombs. I know of no weapon that packs 248 tons of TNT, as in each tower, then the fire equal to hundreds of tons of TNT, and the fuel of the planes each equal to 315 tons of TNT heat energy. 1100 TONS of TNT plus the WTC contenst fire, puts the total energy at the WTC over 1500 TONS of TNT and the only weapon of this magnitude is a SMALL NUKE. You have once again shown why you are a CTer and not a man of Facts.

When reading the intro to a FR Greening paper he says that the collapse of the towers are unusual and appear to have been demolished.

You have just failed at trying to make up stuff. He means the CT idiots use the look of the WTC to make up lies. Got You!

Greening is making the comment that CTers are idiots but he puts in a nice light for the CT dolts:

"In fact, the dramatic demolition like “take-down” of each tower has
prompted some conspiracy-minded observers to suggest that explosives must have been
used to initiate each collapse /1/."

You can not even present the facts in a factual way.

Why are you so challenged when it comes to 9/11? Got facts?

 

[Without Rights]

Quit trying to explain technical things when an equation frightens you int abandoning a thread.

What equation frightened me?

They did. See "Scale Model" above. What part do you not understand?
Thermal expansion is a function of length. It is measured in
(in/(in*degree)) Length is the one dimension that is linear betwen a scale model and the real thing.
So, if a scale model give a thermal expansion of 3 inches, than the real thing will have 3" times the scale factor. In this case, their scale model would have been 1/14 the actual size.

They don't say the steel expanded 3" they said it warped 3". Explain how thermal expansion will increase the sag in a steel truss. Where did you get your info that says the scale was 1/14 of actual size? Are you just saying that because it fits in with their computer model?

The rest of your post is just a re-hash of the recycled alfalfa we whave been over a few dozen times, but which the cter always hopes we have forgotten. Look it up in this sub forum.

No. I can't argue my point against nobody. State your rebuttal or don't respond at all.

 

[rwguinn]

What equation frightened me?

They don't say the steel expanded 3" they said it warped 3". Explain how thermal expansion will increase the sag in a steel truss. Where did you get your info that says the scale was 1/14 of actual size? Are you just saying that because it fits in with their computer model?

No. I can't argue my point against nobody. State your rebuttal or don't respond at all.

Sigh...
You couldn't get a point into WR's head if you drilled and blasted.
Maybe if we yell?
THERMAL EXPANSION IS LINEAR AND LENGTH DEPENDENT! 3x14=42. 3 and 42 are your numbers. 14 would be the scale that is required to turn a 3 into a 42.
Amazing how that math stuff works, huh.
Anone else want to take a shot? WR's heading for "Ignore" rather quickly, I fear

 

[Without Rights]

Sigh...
You couldn't get a point into WR's head if you drilled and blasted.
Maybe if we yell?
THERMAL EXPANSION IS LINEAR AND LENGTH DEPENDENT! 3x14=42. 3 and 42 are your numbers. 14 would be the scale that is required to turn a 3 into a 42.
Amazing how that math stuff works, huh.
Anone else want to take a shot? WR's heading for "Ignore" rather quickly, I fear

Ok i get it now, you fit the math around your theory. Uhm. I didn't know that's how it worked, sorry. The experiment showed a 3" sag of the trusses, the computer model shows a 42" sag of trusses. How did they come up with a multiplier of 14? rwquinn clarified it for me. You just do algebra. 3X=42.

Are you serious? Get off daddies computer and go to school. You are utterly ignorant.

 

[Without Rights]

Circular quotes- This site uses americanfreepress.com as a source.
Site 1 references site 2, which claims site 1 as its source.
The old self-chasing tail. Not a dog in sight.

No, it is a video. Paul Isaac in the flesh and blood.

And Paul was less than stellar as an engineering critic.

According to whom?

First of all--the device is large and obvious--go look it up. Therm ite/ate will inded cut shapes from steel, if properly applied and ignighted. But, it burns following gravitational potential.
It requires a device to cut horizontally--and there is absolutely no evidence that the device (which was discussed at length elsewhere in these threads) can be used to cut vertical steel as thick and as wide as was used in the tower main structure...

Why, because you say so? I am sure in internet land you have many degrees but I am going to need a source on that. Especially coming from Mr Algebra.

 

[uk_dave]

http://www.amrc.org.hk/4712.htm
"The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. Overhead walkways linking the four buildings that composed the factory complex had not been approved under the Building Control Act."

You're still spinning.

Where did you get the idea that the steel in the Kader building was not up to the mythical standard set by the infamous UL?

Who gives you your information? STOP TRUSTING THEM, they make you look silly.

Think about what you just quoted. The building violated building codes on account of walkways linking the buildings. What has this got to do with the performance of the steel frame in a fire?

You misunderstood the function of the concrete floors when you proposed a scenario whereby they could be destroyed by explosives (totally pointless) and now you misunderstand why the Kader building failed.

Take a deep breath and reflect on the fact that you know very little about steel structures or the performance of steel in a fire, and what you do think you know is wildly inaccurate.

Do some proper research. Look into building codes and find out about fire protection to steelwork. Once you understand that concept you will have no problem understanding the failure of the towers.

 

[Without Rights]

You are saying the falling towers, each equal in energy to 248 TONS of TNT, is not big enough for you. Did you even check the energy? You question the facts, what facts do you bring?

What makes this fact? Show me a source. Show me the math.

and the fuel of the planes each equal to 315 tons of TNT heat energy.

Most of the fuel was burned up in the collision. And the kerosene was supposedly the fuel source of the fire, meaning no explosion of kerosene so you can't measure it as a destructive force when all of it's energy was burned up in the fires.

1100 TONS of TNT plus the WTC contenst fire, puts the total energy at the WTC over 1500 TONS of TNT and the only weapon of this magnitude is a SMALL NUKE. You have once again shown why you are a CTer and not a man of Facts.

You are greatly confused, fire is not an explosive force. You don't measure fire in TNT tons. You measure explosive force in TNT tons. The downward force of the upper floors is all you got, and I see nothing that would briing you to that number.

You have just failed at trying to make up stuff. He means the CT idiots use the look of the WTC to make up lies. Got You!

Nope.

You can not even present the facts in a factual way.

Better than you.

Why are you so challenged when it comes to 9/11? Got facts?

I am still waiting for your fact mustache to appear.

 

[Without Rights]

UL 263 Document Information:
Title
UL Standard for Safety Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials
Underwriters Laboratories Inc.
Publication Date:
Apr 4, 2003
Scope:

These fire tests are applicable to assemblies of masonry units and to composite assemblies of structural materials for buildings, including bearing and other walls and partitions, columns, girders, beams, slabs, and composite slab and beam assemblies for floors and roofs. They are also applicable to other assemblies and structural units that constitute permanent integral parts of a finished building.

They don't test building materials for fire safety?

 

[uk_dave]

They don't test building materials for fire safety?

ASSEMBLIES

They don't test individual elements such as a steel beam, but they do test fabrications and the fireproofing of those fabrications.

A steel beam, cold or hot rolled, is a single entity and there is a wealth of knowledge available to predict how it will behave in a fire. That is why (in the UK) the building regulations has standards for fireprotection of steel members based upon the cross sectional size of the member and its surface area. Bare steel is seldom considered acceptable unless the size merits it.

Assemblies have the added variation of connections and members of different sizes. Therefore, to certify an assembly means testing it in a given situation to ensure that the fire protection specified will in fact protect it for the minimum time period required.

A large section steel member (such as a column) may not fail, but if that column is dependant upon a smaller steel member for restraint, then that member could fail and the column would in turn fail by no longer being restrained as the original design specified.

So, where did you get your information that the steel in the Kader building hadn't been certified by UL?

 

[Pardalis]

I can prove that a building CAN be brought down in the same manner seen on 9/11 with explosives.

Still waiting.

 

[Anti-sophist]

You don't measure fire in TNT tons.

You could, easily, if you were measuring energy.

You measure explosive force in TNT tons.

Actually, no. You measure energy in TNT tons, not force.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And the kerosene was supposedly the fuel source of the fire

No it wasn't, it was the ignition source of the fire. The fuel source was the shattered office funishings.

 

[Horatius]

When reading the intro to a FR Greening paper he says that the collapse of the towers are unusual and appear to have been demolished. Then he shows his bias by stating that this caused "conspiracy minded people" to question whether bombs were used. He discounts demolition from the start because basically he is not a "conspiracy minded" person. He acknowledges the anomalies that would naturally warrant suspicion and then discounts the suspicion as being held only by conspiracy theorists. That is a contradiction born out of the bias belief that conspiracies are fictional.

You have just failed at trying to make up stuff. He means the CT idiots use the look of the WTC to make up lies. Got You!

Nope.

Let's just quote Greening directly, shall we?

The tragic events that took place in New York City on September 11th, 2001 have raised a number of questions about the destruction of the buildings comprising the World Trade Center (WTC) but especially the remarkable collapse of the landmark “Twin Towers”. Questions range from the emotionally charged – “Who could have done such a thing and why?” - to the more pragmatic: “Why, after appearing to survive two aircraft impacts, did the Twin Towers crumble in a progressive pancake-type collapse of successive floors?” In fact, the dramatic demolition like “take-down” of each tower has prompted some conspiracy-minded observers to suggest that explosives must have been used to initiate each collapse.

And leave it to others to decide who is misrepresenting him.

 

[The Almond]

Another thing I would like to mention. NIST built a small scale structure to simulate WTC

I'm going to assume you're talking about Underwriter's Laboratories' scale structure of the floor trusses. So that's two things wrong and your sentence and you're not done yet.

and started fires around it to see if warping would occur and they found that it did.

Actually, what the found is written on pages 142 and 143 of NCSTAR 1. You'll notice that warping is not something they talk about.

The structure warped 3 inches.

Warped? Deflected? Where are you getting this result? There are numerous deflections listed in NCSTAR 1 and 1-6. Page 33 of NCSTAR 1 shows the inward buckling of columns around the south face of WTC 1. Deflections range from 0 to 55 inches.

In the computer model also put out by NIST to prove a progressive collapse

NIST's computer model is part of the evidence for the collapse initiation state, not for progressive collapse.

the variable used to represent the warping was 42". They don't explain how they got this number.

Can you provide a citation for this?

Their own experiment produced only a minimal fraction of warping compared to what they show in the computer model. Why would they do this? Why not use the variables that the experiment showed they should use.

I can think of a good reason..

In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces.

Then again, you would have known that had you read the NCSTAR.

Also the sequence of failed trusses leading to the "pull-in" of the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained by simulation.

So, exactly what happens to a floor truss connected to a column that is buckling nearly 4 feet? Does it pull in the direction of the buckling? Why do they have to simulate this?

Collapse theory relies on the assumption that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse" which need not be the case.

Perhaps you can be the first truther to prove that the WTC towers had the capacity to arrest collapse once it began.

Also NIST says;

The entirety of the National Construction Safety Team Act is reprinted starting on page 231 of NCSTAR 1. Please outline for me the section requiring NIST to simulate or study the collapse of the WTC towers beyond collapse initiation.

They only practice brevity when they try to explain the collapse. As outlined by Kevin Barrett

So, when explaining the largest engineering disaster of the 21st century, Kevin Barrett feels that NIST was too thorough. They wrote too many words! Do you honestly think this is a valid criticism?

Probable is the keyword, not certain but probable.

Yes, probable as in, far more probable than any other collapse scenario. But then again, truthers have a lot of trouble with induction.

And they admit they have no data to conclude that once collapse initiation has occured that global collapse is inevitable.

They admit that they didn't study it, but it is your job to provide evidence that the towers had the capacity to arrest collapse once it began. You can be the first conspiracy theorist to do that, too.

NIST starts with a presumption and attempts to prove that assumption. They hide the fact that they cannot prove a global collapse senario by doing no tests to prove the theory but only stating that global failure is inevitable.

Read the NCSTA, NIST is hiding behind nothing.

They refuse to publish computer models, they only explain the results.

When you're copying and pasting from other conspiracy theorists, make sure you have up to date information.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/broll_anim_links.htm

NIST asserts that fires raged in WTC 1 & 2 without any evidence to support it. Evidence exists that says different, such as the pictures of people standing in the gash waving for help.

This is astounding. No evidence to support raging fires? What caused the columns to buckle and for the top of the tower to lean 8 degrees of plum?

The effect of thermal conductivity is ignored.

NCSTAR 1-6 section 2.6, page 31. Start there and do your homework.

The upper section of floors falling on the lower section of floors is said to create the downward force that initiated the collapse sequence but the upper floors initially leaned over.

What caused the floors to lean over? Oh, right, that fire there is no evidence of.

This leaning contradicts the downward force (piledriver) theory, clearly some of the force was lost in the lateral movement of the upper floors.

Tilt a book 8 degrees, then drop it. What direction does it travel?

Natural events produce random results.

Yes, the flowering of the rosebud is a random result. Why in the world did I spend the time planting those darn things? And why do the planets keep following elliptical orbits? Oh, and why do positive ions attract negative ones?

Tall buildings are more likely to fall over like a tree than to collapse straight down.

So, the fact that it's tall is what determines how it will fall? Your random pronouncements are doing nothing to help your argument.

The NIST report has a lack of reproducibility, claims are made that WTC is a special case because of the unique construction.

No, it claims that the WTC was a unique case because they are the only buildings that had 767s crash into them at 500 mph. But then again, you were never keen on properly representing NIST's research.

Outright lies are told such as

Is the force of gravity so powerful that it can only be trumped by a nuclear bomb?

So, where does NIST claim this? Page number and section if you please.

Structural steel removed very quickly instead of intense analysis that it deserved.

Please tell me what analysis you would have performed and how it would have helped you determine the cause of the collapse. Remember your analysis would have to be relevant for all of the steel in the WTC towers, not just the steel that was saved and taken to NIST's Gaithersburg campus.

Small steel samples obtained by FEMA show High sulpher and iron in the samples. Dr Jones obtained a sample and found the same elements as well. Sulpher and iron are byproducts of a thermate reaction.

Wait, wait! So, Dr. Jones found iron in steel, and concluded that thermite was the culprit? What a goofball!

Any other explainations are welcomed, I can't find this explained in the NIST report using the search function.

Perhaps you should read and educate yourself. NIST address the thermite question in the FAQ. The amount of thermite required to destroy the towers would be on the order of thousands of pounds.

NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.

 

[rwguinn]

They don't test building materials for fire safety?

You are less than the brightest bulb in the chandelier, aren't you?
Go back and read my post:

Still stupid as ever, I see. Refusal to learn is not ignorance, which is curable.
UL does not, will not, and never has, set the standards for steel or any building material.
For proper and legal definitions, look up ASTM, ANSI, or MIL-HDBK-5J.
ASME, ASCE, AIAA, SAE, and the archetects bunch all use them to define materials
UL does qualify fireproofing, however.

reading comprhension is merely one of you demonstrations of brain cell deficiency, boy.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The Kader building where most of the deaths occurred was illegally constructed. It was made with cheap steel, not the UL standard steel used in modern steel structures like WTC.

""UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

" http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Kevin-R-Ryan22nov04.htm

"Merely being affiliated with a company such as UL does not make one immune to becoming a conspiracy theorist. In any event, Ryan was not directly employed by UL; he was an employee of Environmental Health Laboratories, which is not, as he claimed, a division of UL, but merely affiliated with UL (as many companies are). UL released a public statement saying that they do not certify the steel materials for buildings, and that Ryan was fired for making his absurd and inaccurate comments. No credence should be given to anything Ryan said in his letter. "
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/...up#The_UL_Claim

"Kevin Ryan is not an “expert” in the matters about which he spoke. Kevin Ryan is merely a “chemist” who was employed to study “water” at a division of Underwriter's Laboratories. [This and other easily verified facts ought to be mentioned in any subsequent articles about “loose change”]

Kevin Ryan committed deception and was justifiably fired. Kevin Ryan falsely asserted:
“We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.”

Apparently, because it did not suit his DECEPTIVE PURPOSES, Dylan Avery did not bother to look up what the ASTM E119 standard actually is. ASTM E119 does NOT test “steel” nor “steel components” per se as Mr. Ryan had implied. Rather, ASTM E119 time-temperature tests evaluate whole building assemblies that include fire-proofing or fire-resistance:

“ASTM E119, Standard Test Method for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials, is used to determine the fire resistance of a complete assembly. For example, a wall system fire rating is measured by constructing a 10 foot by 10 foot section of a total wall system: framing, cavity insulation, sheathing, siding, gypsum wall board, etc. The wall section is installed vertically on a gas furnace, and the wall is exposed to a standard temperature curve for the time period for which a rating is desired, i.e., one, two, three, or four hours. Failure points during time of fire exposure are:

“• Flame penetration through the wall section;
“• An unacceptable temperature increase on the unexposed side of the assembly;
“• Structural failure or collapse of the assembly.

“Therefore, a one hour fire resistance rating is taken to mean that a structure incorporating the tested wall construction will not collapse, nor transmit flame or a high temperature, while supporting a design load, for at least one hour after a fully developed building fire.” http://www.pima.org/technical_bulletins/tbull105.html

The chemical and physical or thermal properties of the framing steel members are standardized and known, or are tabulated in catalogues, and determining such are not the object of the ASTM E119 testing. Rather, it is the functionality of the fire-proofing or fire-resistance of the whole assembly that is tested. After you crash an airplane into a building, the ASTM E119 test results become totally irrelevant, because you have changed the structure, at least by removing the fire-proofing or the fire-resistant wall and ceiling materials. [Accordingly, UL spokesman Paul M. Baker stated, "UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns, and trusses used in the World Trade Center"] The ASTM E119 certification is intended to estimate how long the structural steel WILL BE PROTECTED FROM EXPOSURE to temperatures around 2000F.
" http://www.apfn.net/MESSAGEBOARD/08-15-06/...ion.cgi.88.html

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What makes this fact? Show me a source. Show me the math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
Height (m) 417
Height (ft) 1,368
Stories 110
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf Section
2.2.1.1
American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north face of WTC 1 approximately between the 94th and
98th floors
2.2.1.5
Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4x10^11 joules of potential energy over the
1,368-foot height of the structure. Of this, approximately 8x10^9 joules of potential energy were stored in the
upper part of the structure, above the impact floors, relative to the lowest point of impact.
2.2.2.1
United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south face of WTC 2 approximately between the 78th and 84th
floors.

For WTC 1, the top 12 floors of the tower translates into 8x10^9 joules of the total 4x10^11 joules. So, the top ~10.9% of WTC 1 contained ~2% of the entire PE of WTC 1. Extrapolating this on to WTC 2 (since the above mentioned report does not specify the amount PE contained above the WTC 2 impact point) we get the following:
WTC 2 => top 26 floors => ~23.6% of WTC 2.
If ~10.9% of WTC 1 translates into 8x10^9 joules PE
Then ~23.6% of WTC 2 translates into N joules PE
Therefore 10.9/8*10^9 = 23.6/N
=> 10.9*N/8*10^9 = 23.6
=> 10.9*N = 23.6*(8*10^9)
=> N = 23.6*(8*10^9)/10.9
=> N = 17321100917.431192660550458715596
=> N = 17.3*10^9 joules PE
=> ~34.7% of the entire PE of WTC 2
What does this mean? It means for WTC 1, that ~2% (8x10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 94-98. It means for WTC 2, that ~34.7% (17.3*10^9 joules) of PE was converted to KE almost instantaneously upon structural failure at floors 78-84.

Most of the fuel was burned up in the collision.

2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid
pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.

The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.
The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and
did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed
in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself. source (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf) Pgs 21 & 22

 

[Gravy]

This is a patent filed with the US patent office, please debunk it for me.
Here's another quote from the patent
So as you can see, these thermite charges can be shaped to the desired shape, not like the thermite of the old days.

No evidence exists that any such devices were manufactured. No such devices were found in the debris that was sorted and sifted by NYPD detectives and FBI investigators at Fresh Kills. No cuts made by any such devices are evident on a single piece of steel from the WTC site. No reports of unusual cuts to steel were made by any of the engineers who examined it. Zero.

This is a video of Paul Isaac.

Here's what Mr. Isaac told me (printed with his permission).

Hello Mark,

If its the wingtv article its ********. They slandered me last year when I read them the riot act about their behavior.

The article "Fireman admits again 9-11 was an inside job" is slander.

The article written by randy lavello is also slander as he has me saying that woolsey former CIA Director Woolsey was passing a gag order down the rank and file of the FDNY. That statement was never made in that context, It was said in humor ,and as a matter of fact that so-called reporter was fired by Alex Jones for making **** up on alot of people. The only reason I didn't go through the legal channels is because lawyers cost to damn much.

So the true statement was the that I heard Explosions not bombs as I couldn't tell what the sounds were as I was blocks away and can not confirm what the noise was. As I was aproaching City Hall the North Tower began the collapse I heard what sounded like thunder just prior to the collapse then the Popping as the tower fell. I had my radio scanner and there were reports of explsions within the conplex over the PD and PAPD frequencies. As I made my way closer I could pick up on the FD Handie Talkie frequencies and it sounded like hell. No one new what the was going to happen next but when the second tower began its fall there were what sounded like loud popping coming from the tower as well as a sucking sound like reveres air pressure.

Its seems the people at 911Truth have some problems with credibility as I had approached them on this issue for clarification. No need to say they never returned my messages.

They are tools of the trade.

Take care
Paul

I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the application, with particular note as to what materials the device is made out of, and then ask how many such devices would have been found in the rubble, if they had been used.

The rubble was sorted and sifted for evidence. Individual teeth were found in the rubble. Buttons were found in the rubble. Incendiary devices were not found in the rubble.

Also the sequence of failed trusses leading to the "pull-in" of the exterior columns is central to NIST’s theory but not explained by simulation.

You clearly haven't read the NIST report. Please do so.

Collapse theory relies on the assumption that "collapse initiation" automatically leads to "global collapse" which need not be the case.

I'm sure you've seen calculations by Bazant, Greening, and others that demonstrate why global collapse ensued. You disagree. Show us your calculations.

Fair enough?

They say the sagging trusses pulled the exterior columns in, but video shows verticle columns being blown outward in excess of 500ft.

No steel columns were found in excess of 500 feet away from the towers. AFTER the collapses ensued, steel and aluminum were thrown over a wide area. If you claim that shouldn't have happened, explain why.

..NIST asserts that fires raged in WTC 1 & 2 without any evidence to support it. Evidence exists that says different, such as the pictures of people standing in the gash waving for help.

​

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building,and that was the reason on the handy talkyI gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower.Source

Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30." Source

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia: "I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."

FDNY firefighter Kevin Gorman: "Guys were giving us water, wet rags to put on our head, and we were standing there, and there was a cop I knew who came by and gave me a drink of water, and then as he was standing there, he said, "Aviation just reported that the north tower is leaning." I said, "Which way is it leaning?" He said,"This way." So we started to turn around walking. John Malley, who was right behind me, I turned around for him, because he was doing something, either putting his coat on or something, and as I was looking at him I heard the explosion, looked up, and saw like three floors explode, saw the antenna coming down, and turned around and ran north.
Q. About how long would you say it was from when the police officer told you it was leaning?
A. Within 30 seconds."

NYPD Aviation Units: Minutes after the south tower collapsed at the World Trade Center, police helicopters hovered near the remaining tower to check its condition. "About 15 floors down from the top, it looks like it's glowing red," the pilot of one helicopter, Aviation 14, radioed at 10:07 a.m. "It's inevitable."

Seconds later, another pilot reported: "I don't think this has too much longer to go. I would evacuate all people within the area of that second building."Source

Federal engineering investigators studying the destruction of the World Trade Center's twin towers on Sept. 11 said New York Police Department aviation units reported an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed, a signal they were about to fall.

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the pending collapse of the building,'' said Sivaraj Shyam- Sunder, who heads the institute, at a press briefing in New York. "Any time that information could have been communicated faster to the emergency responders in the buildings, it would have helped save lives."

According to Shyam-Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towers opposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said. Source


From “102 Minutes” by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn

Around 9:15, Drohan heard DeMartini over the walkie-talkie.
"Any construction inspector at ground level."
Drohan acknowledged that he was on the street.
"Can you escort a couple of structural inspectors to the 78th floor?" DeMartini asked.
DeMartini had seen something in the steel–Drohan was not sure what–that he did not like. The drywall had been knocked off parts of the sky lobby, exposing the elevator shafts, and revealing the core of the building. That had prompted his first radio alert, warning that the elevators might collapse. Now DeMartini wanted inspectors from a structural engineering firm to come up to the 78th-floor sky lobby and take a look. (Page 147)

An engineer from the Department of Buildings reported that the structural damage appeared to be immense. The stability of both buildings was compromised. In particular, the engineer was worried about how long the north tower would stand. ("102 Minutes," page 203)

Structural Engineer Al Masetti: At some point, 
perhaps when I was down around the 20th floor (north tower), there was a very clear and 
distinct radio message: "...structural instability...." It seemed 
obvious to me that some lightly dressed and unencumbered fireman had reached 
the scene of the impact, was able to evaluate what was there, and was able 
to report what he saw. Source

FDNY Lieutenant Robert Bohack: With that as soon as I said that the building [north tower] made a groan like steel twisting. I didn’t have to tell those guys twice. We just started making line for West Street or the western side, the entrance we came in.

With that we ran out the front. There was, I think, a Chief’s aide sort of as a lookout saying “come on come on come on.” we stopped at the entrance as soon as he waved us on we go. We get to him. He was maybe 50 yards ahead of us, in front of us. On West Street I get to him and he says, “look at the building, Lou. The other one collapsed and this one is collapsing.” He showed me, about 20 stories up you see crack in the building. I look, “holy ****, the other buildings gone.”

FDNY Lieutenant George DeSimone: After that, I got out of there as quick as I could because the building was decaying. I mean, there was fire coming out of it, fire dropping down, and at that point I think we started to notice bodies dropping from the buildings.

Thomas Bendick, FDNY EMT: At that point I could actually visually see the top floors of the north tower starting to give way and that began to collapse. At that point we all began to run north.

FDNY Firefighter Hugh Mettham: We reached the sixth or seventh floor and are met by many firefighters coming down the stairs, informing us that the upper floors are collapsing and that there’s a heavy odor of gas and fuel.

PAPD Detective Edward Rapp: While I was on the phone with Stacy at the Police Desk we all of a sudden heard metal creaking. I looked up and saw the North Tower buckling from the top. It looked like the north and west sides of the building were twisting and then separating like a banana peel.

"At 9:37, a civilian on the 106th floor of the South Tower reported to a 911 operator that a lower floor-the "90-something floor"-was collapsing." 9/11 Commission Report, pg. 304

PAPD Inspector Timothy Norris: Just at this time, another firefighter began to yell to us from across the street. He was looking up at the Towers and yelled for us to hurry up since he thought the second Tower was about to fall. The two firefighters and myself again picked up the injured man and managed to walk three of four steps when we felt extreme vibration and an incredible noise “like a thousand freight trains.” I knew instantly that the Tower was falling down.

PAPD P.O. Barry Pikaard: I was standing there about 15-20 seconds when Inspector Fields ran up to me and said the building was going to come down.

FDNY accounts here. PAPD accounts here
Further reference: NIST Structural and Fire Protection Damage Due to Aircraft Impact.

Care to reconsider your statements?

Structural steel removed very quickly instead of intense analysis that it deserved.

Nine months.

Small steel samples obtained by FEMA show High sulpher and iron in the samples. Dr Jones obtained a sample and found the same elements as well. Sulpher and iron are byproducts of a thermate reaction. Any other explainations are welcomed, I can't find this explained in the NIST report using the search function.

Here you go: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1907756&postcount=605
WPI Microstructural Analysis of the Steels from 7, 1, 2 WTC Biederman/Vander Voort/Sullivan/Sisson

You might also want to consider why Steven Jones repeatedly lies in his papers.

Now, I am not saying any of this proves demolition so nobody quote me as saying that. I am saying that there is enough doubt to warrant critism of NIST's report.

Seems as though your questions have already been answered. It's really not hard to find those answers: you just have to care.

Therefore it is unfair to use terms such as woo-woo when describing people who question it.

If you choose to ignore the explanations provided, or to claim that they are unsatisfactory without explaining why, you are on the woo-woo choo-choo.

I think that no matter what, people who imply that conspiracy theories do exist will automatically be labelled insane and ridiculed. It is the ultimate weapon of the people on this site and of the media and government agencies.

All aboard! Your claim is false, your little lecture, absurd. Here, we deal with specific claims and evidence. We take the time to do our homework. You need to present evidence that equals or exceeds the quality of the "official" version evidence. It's that simple. Since you cannot provide any evidence to back your claims, I won't hold my breath waiting for the truther revolution.

ETA: I forgot this:

A fire rating of two hours was determined from the Aug. 19 test with the “as-installed” (19 millimeters) fireproofing thickness. This matches the 1968 New York City building code rating for floor systems in Construction Class IB buildings (the designation assigned to the WTC towers when they were built). A fire rating of 45 minutes was determined from the Aug. 25 test with the “as-specified” (13 millimeters) fireproofing thickness.

One question raised by the data from the four tests is whether or not a fire rating based on the ASTM E119 performance of a 5-meter floor system is “scalable” to a larger floor system—such as the WTC towers assemblies that were 11-meter (35-feet) and 18-meter (60-feet) lengths. This was identified when one of the larger-scale tests in Canada had a lower fire resistance rating than the smaller-scale test in Illinois. http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

The full scale (35-foot, restrained, with intact fireproofing) rating was 1.5 hours. No 60-foot sections were tested because no testing furnace was large enough. More information: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm