[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

[pomeroo]

You could not be more wrong.
I have more family in America than you do, I am quite adequately educated and I am right with regard to 175 Not hitting the south tower.
I have said this many times, show the one piece of positive evidence that the plane that attacked tower 2 was 175. If the FBI can identify a van from the bacl axle as at OKC, then there must be a myriad of serial numbers on plane engine - one will do. As will the disclosure of so much more evidence connected with 9/11.

I, and everyone else who has made the same observation, could not be more correct about your conspicuous lack of critical thinking skills. You appear to be uneducable.

You are hopelessly wrong about Flight 175 not hitting the South Tower. The people on that plane died when it was hijacked by well-trained, highly motivated jihadists and flown into a building. The remains of many of the passengers were identified by forensic examiners not part of your imaginary conspiracy. Pieces of the plane have been identified and transcripts of conversations between air traffic controllers show clearly what was happening.

 

[A W Smith]

I say the photo is a total fake. I accept that you don't necessarily know this.
Apart from such a set of circumstances being ludicrous. You could never heat steel up to bending point without seeing off that beam hours sooner - never.
I know it is a fake for any number of other reasons. No one would build a property in such a way. You build in timber or you build in steel. You dont mix and match. There are other reasons, such as planning permission would never be granted etc. It's a fake, a joke. I hope that you can now see this.

I state for a fact the photo is real and not fake. I saw that photo over 25 years ago in a building trades publication at a library I used to visit before the Internet. Only a fool would assert it is fake with no proof.

Edited by Darat: 

Moderated thread

 

[gumboot]

My point is suspicion.
Who resheduled the exercises?
As it happens, they were traditionally sheduled for October.
They were held in October for every year up to 2000.
In 2001, they were changed to September.
In 2002, they were changed back to October and have been in October ever since. In all the years these exercises have been going on, they were held in October.
Except in 2001, when they were held in Sept.
I'm not asking for bells ringing just yet, but perhaps the slightest clink.

This is not true. Global Guardian is always held in the Fall, but not always October. The 2001 exercise, for example, was originally scheduled for November. The 1999 exercise piggybacked a US Navy FIX (Field Exercise) called "Global" which started in early September.

I would like to know what you think the relevance of this exercise is? It is a CPX (Command Post Exercise - simulated) not a FIX (Field exercise - live). USSTATCOM have no part in the NORAD Air Sovereignty mission (their peacetime operations).

NORAD's own CPX, Vigilant Guardian, which accompanies Global Guardian, did not start until September 10th. According to Richard Meyers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) These two CPXs improved the response to the attack. He should know - Vigilant Guardian is a "Vigilant Overview" type exercise, which means it was sponsored by him.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

You could not be more wrong.
I have more family in America than you do, I am quite adequately educated and I am right with regard to 175 Not hitting the south tower.
I have said this many times, show the one piece of positive evidence that the plane that attacked tower 2 was 175. If the FBI can identify a van from the bacl axle as at OKC, then there must be a myriad of serial numbers on plane engine - one will do. As will the disclosure of so much more evidence connected with 9/11.

The NTSB provided support to the FBI's investigation, and they positively identified each of the four aircraft involved in the attacks.

-Gumboot

 

[Belz...]

I would say headachey rather than unconscious after one days work.
After a week, I think people would be totally exhausted and fainting in the stale air.

And you say this because ... ?

chimney has a hole in the top.

So did 2 WTC after the crash, remember ?

I say the photo is a total fake. I accept that you don't necessarily know this.
Apart from such a set of circumstances being ludicrous. You could never heat steel up to bending point without seeing off that beam hours sooner - never.

Of course, and it was.

This is my last post on this topic.

Why ? Because admitting that you're wrong about the smoke colour at the WTC would be a sign of weakness ? I've known since I was five that colour had to do with material. It's never too late to learn.

The photo is a fake. All the poster need do, is to provide the necessary references to refute my claim.

You're not too big on the whole burden of proof thing, are you ?

Wood burns, steel does not.

No, indeed. Steel melts, wood does not. But hey, why don't you just check with a fire professional or a construction engineer ?

Such steel as that thickness would require a good few hours of intense flame, right at the place where the wood is.

Actually, metal conducts heat, remember ? I also learned this early on.

 

[Belz...]

My point is suspicion.
Who resheduled the exercises?
As it happens, they were traditionally sheduled for October.
They were held in October for every year up to 2000.

Uh-huh. How is that suspicious, again ? The response times were not affected by these, so how could it possibly be suspicious ?

Having to keep the whole building air conditioned, even if occupancy was partial was one of the reasons they had become 'white elephants'.

I don't think you understood what he meant. Besides, aren't ALL tall buildings air conditioned ? Are they ALL white elephants ?

Before you start, all of that information is no longer available on the web.

Ooh... conspiracy!

There's more, but that's more than enough for me.

The fact that there were building code problems in thw WTC is enough for you to believe they were demolished ? You watch too much Columbo.

We agree that there were huge holes that let air in.
However, there were no huge holes in the roof to let air out

You DO know that air and come in AND out of the same hole ?

I am quite adequately educated and I am right with regard to 175 Not hitting the south tower.

I'm sorry, but that's the claim we're trying to verify, the last 54 pages. So far, the outlook is not good.

If the FBI can identify a van from the bacl axle as at OKC, then there must be a myriad of serial numbers on plane engine - one will do.

Aw, come on. Do you really expect people to get a clear snap shot of 175 up close when they didn't even expect it to enter the frame ?

 

[Dave_46]

This answer is really for the peanut gallery.

The discussion is about the photograph in this post

How is this insulting your intelligence? That was certainly not my intent. Also, you did not answer the question. Could you explain why this is ridiculous and "beneath your dignity"? Or, could you just answer the question? Or explain the following:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_158424671578650477.jpg[/qimg]

My reply is to this post.

You'll have no difficulty finding some references for it then, will you?

Your reading skills could do with honing. It was obvious from my post "I first saw this photograph, or one very like it about thirty years ago" that I had no documentary evidence of the origin of the picture. Or perhaps you did work that out and that is why you asked for it.

I was merely adding a small piece of evidence (anecdotal) to the generally accepted fact in the fire community that timber can perform better than steel under the right circumstances. I joined the Timber Research And Development Association thirty five years ago to work in their fire testing section. It was there that I was shown the photograph that I posted about. I was shown that photograph to demonstrate to me what timber could do in a fire (I was doubtful as I had no previous experience in the field).

In nineteen years in that job, and fifteen working for the Fire Research Station of the Building Research Establishment I did not meet anyone who would have disputed it.

Dave

 

[Kage]

I know it's a long thread, but speaking for myself, I would catch up somewhat before I joined in. I have already answered this question. The last time I posted the same answer a number of times, I was warned about 'spamming'.
At the risk of being warned again, my answer to how they breathed is "with great difficulty". That's why so many jumped or got shaken off when the basement expolsions took out the base of the core.
You can witness the basement explosions here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-tieJFVGY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_DDi1wq1Bc
Then, the floor explosions took out the floors and the people in them, over 1,000 vapourised bodies still to be accounted for, as you can see here,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx1E2B5oAEs&mode=related&search=
Vid 1 is the North tower, vid 2 is the south tower.
There is no doubt, none at all and people like me, will not be going away.

I actually have read every post in this thread. In fact, I read the part I missed over the weekend before posting this. You have been wrong so many times it boggles the mind. Sometimes, it takes a while for a post to get posted, partly because I take the time to read what others (even you) have written. In these cases there are redundant posts from multiple people, and yes, my point about the huge gaping holes had already been made. You haven't answered the question. Also, the density I described has gone down.

We realize you wont be going away. We wont either. Sick fascination really. Every time I believe there is a left hand bound for wrongness, people like you drive right through it. We know that you will never cease to believe this rubbish. We know that you do not understand burden of proof, occam's razor or falsifiability. We just keep posting for entertainment value only.

If there is no such a thing as free fall.
Then how can this be correct, in your words,
"...the WTC fell slower than free fall..."

Wow. I just answered your foolish question. Freefall is an acceleration, not a speed. I never said there was no such thing as freefall. I made the assertion that you do not understand how gravity works and how this relates to the medium an object falls in. You have proven me correct on this point. Were the buildings to have collapsed in freefall (being generous and gowing from the top instead of from the impact), it would have taken between 9 and 10 seconds. Instead, it took over 16. Slower than free fall.

 

[Metullus]

Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?
Page 55 says in the heading NONSTRUCTURAL.

My mistake - I was referring to page 55 of the PDF which is page 43 of the document. There are lots of standard details showing steel supported by timber elements.

 

[H'ethetheth]

We agree that there were huge holes that let air in.
However, there were no huge holes in the roof to let air out, to set up a through flow of air.
A through flow of air is required to feed oxygen to the fire.

Look at the footage and photos. There's smoke pouring from a very large number of holes. All of these represent the outflow.

 

[Kage]

Why is anyone trying to convince this guy about anything? He has no power. He has no authority. He is a doubting Thomas without shred of substance to his outrageous claims. If he wants to present something of value, then great. Otherwise, trying to convince him that the EBC is correct is a waste of time and effort. Let him live in his delusions.

Entertainment. People realized very quickly that this guy was never changing his mind, but it is hard to stop when this guy is so wrong.

 

[slyjoe]

You'll have no difficulty finding some references for it then, will you?

Nope, no problem at all. It is from the book "Modern Carpentry" ISBN O-87006-274-3.

Now, will you provide references or evidence for ANYTHING you have said?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I use the term 'sealed' with regard to the fact that for normal working circumstances, the building is reliant upon air conditioning. I did read somewhere that a building that was reliant upon air conditioning was classed as 'sealed'. I think the term is used loosely and not as with the likes of a submarine. Using the word 'sealed' loosely, would you agree.
If not, then let us both simply agree that the building was dependant upon air conditioning. In other words, no air conditioning = no (health and safety type) certificate. I do know that two such certificates had been refused and then temporary extensions allowed.

So you admit that the Twins were in no way, shape or form "sealed." Thank you.

I refer you to my previous post, with the addition of one word - ASBESTOS.
are you aware of any connection between the twins and ASBESTOS?

I prefer you leave the goalposts right where you place them to begin with, thanks again.

 

[Travis]

Nope, no problem at all. It is from the book "Modern Carpentry" ISBN O-87006-274-3.

Now, will you provide references or evidence for ANYTHING you have said?

Wait a second I think I have a copy of that book.

...

Just checked it has the same title but is ISBN 0-87006-648-X and no bent steel pictures. Dang.

 

[Dave_46]

Nope, no problem at all. It is from the book "Modern Carpentry" ISBN O-87006-274-3.

Now, will you provide references or evidence for ANYTHING you have said?

Thank You.

Dave

 

[tacodaemon]

Nope, no problem at all. It is from the book "Modern Carpentry" ISBN O-87006-274-3.

Just a quick note, that should be a 0 (zero) at the beginning of the ISBN rather than a letter O. Looks like the book's out of print but you can order it used...

 

[slyjoe]

Wait a second I think I have a copy of that book.

...

Just checked it has the same title but is ISBN 0-87006-648-X and no bent steel pictures. Dang.

Travis: The one I have is from 1979; previous versions were from 1968, 1973 and 1976.

Dave_46: No problemo.

tacodaemon: Sorry about the leading "O" - I was in a hurry and didn't proof my text.

Malcom: I will defer to Dave_46 in the future for answers to your "questions" or misunderstandings about steel, wood, fire, and their behaviors.

That's what intelligent people do when they aren't the most qualified to respond to questions and suppositions. Of course, that may leave you out of any and all discussions - will you be returning to bald face lies and groundless assumptions now?

 

[Metullus]

You show a beam on a pillar. Built like that for cost effectiveness.
The fake photo shows steel beams on a wooden beam.
In order for the steel to bend as shown, it would have to be heated at the point of contact with the wooden beam. Such steel as that thickness would require a good few hours of intense flame, right at the place where the wood is. That makes it impossible, because wood burns and such intense flame for so long would have seen off the wood long before.
Now find some references for the authenticity of that fake photo. Showing mixes of steel and wood doesn't affect the authenticity or falsehood of that photo. Kindly stop prevaricating and find some references for that photo.

Ifound it here...

 

[SOMERLED]

I, and everyone else who has made the same observation, could not be more correct about your conspicuous lack of critical thinking skills. You appear to be uneducable.

You are hopelessly wrong about Flight 175 not hitting the South Tower. The people on that plane died when it was hijacked by well-trained, highly motivated jihadists and flown into a building. The remains of many of the passengers were identified by forensic examiners not part of your imaginary conspiracy. Pieces of the plane have been identified and transcripts of conversations between air traffic controllers show clearly what was happening.

Is there anything at all about 9-11, that youfind suspicious?

 

[SOMERLED]

I state for a fact the photo is real and not fake. I saw that photo over 25 years ago in a building trades publication at a library I used to visit before the Internet. Only a fool would assert it is fake with no proof.

Edited by Darat: 

Moderated thread

You will have no difficulty proving the photo is genuine then, will you?