Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[BigAl]

RedIbis - answer my question, please. Why aren't there any pops or bangs just before the collapse?

I believe the the 1993 WTC bomb was clearly heard from the street. It was 1,500 pounds and came nowhere near to causing the collapse. I suspect that for those anywhere near WTC, there was no doubt that an explosion had happened. None of these "pop pop pop" stuff.

 

[OneRedEye]

Hello, Dr. Griffin.

 

[RedIbis]

Hello, Dr. Griffin.

You guys have finally figured it out. Yes I'm Dr. Griffin, and I'm Pete Doherty (a bit of a junkie, but I have a really hot wife), and I'm Dylan Avery but I prefer Bob Dylan), and I'm Richard Gage. I'm Twoofzilla, the polycephaly.

Just kidding I'm really Paul Thompson, I mean Jim Hoffman, I mean Sanders Hicks.

 

[RedIbis]

Now I'm sure you're stalling.

Perhaps this will fit your requirement for a "major claim." If not, I'm moving on.

Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.

Granted, others have made note of that besides Griffin, but it is a major claim and it is true. For some reason it's not troublesome to you guys.

We are all eagerly awaiting NIST's explanation of how a hydrocarbon such as diesel, caused fires that heated the steel in WTC 7 enough to cause its "implosion." I use FEMA's word here.

If only they had used biodiesel instead of fossil diesel. The flashpoint is much higher. Then, Giuliani's C&C Center would still be standing, as well as offices occupied by the CIA, DOD, IRS, Secret Service and SEC.

Your friend, David Griffin Doherty Hicks Hoffman Jones Thompson Avery Gage

 

[DGM]

We are all eagerly awaiting NIST's explanation of how a hydrocarbon such as diesel, caused fires that heated the steel in WTC 7 enough to cause its "implosion." I use FEMA's word here.

So am I to believe that you think that the diesel fuel fires were the only source of fuel in the building?

 

[RedIbis]

So am I to believe that you think that the diesel fuel fires were the only source of fuel in the building?

I wouldn't assume anything.

There are theories that the diesel fuel stored in the building was the source of the catastrophic fire, which combined with debris damage caused WTC 7 to collapse into what FEMA calls " a small debris field as the facade was pulled downward, suggesting an internal failure and implosion."

I used the FEMA quote only to describe the collapsed building. They describe a hypothesis based on a diesel fuel fire as having only " a low probability of occurence."

 

[uk_dave]

Perhaps this will fit your requirement for a "major claim." If not, I'm moving on.

Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.

Oh. My. God.

That's it? That's the only thing you can find of which you're confident enough to claim that griffin got it right?

Seriously?

And you put your faith in his work?

Think about that.

 

[RedIbis]

Oh. My. God.

That's it? That's the only thing you can find of which you're confident enough to claim that griffin got it right?

Seriously?

And you put your faith in his work?

Think about that.

Goodness gracious, you guys have a real way of putting words in people's mouths. Did I say that was the "only thing" I could find?

I was asked for a major claim. I provided one. Is Griffin's claim true or false?

Setting the conditions for your challenges and then reconditioning them is a weak position from which to debate.

 

[DavidJames]

I was asked for a major claim. I provided one. Is Griffin's claim true or false?

I'm surprised you didn't post something like he claimed the event occurred on 9/11, which is equally compelling.

But like all CTists, your selection isn't a claim of facts or evidence directly supporting your CT. Instead it's an implication, a suggestion based on what you perceive is an omission from a report. Why is that? I know the answer, it's because DRG, like all of your kind, don't have any real evidence of your CT.

Will you be proven technically correct, maybe. Does you response add any support to your CT, not in the least.

 

[beachnut]

Goodness gracious, you guys have a real way of putting words in people's mouths. Did I say that was the "only thing" I could find?

I was asked for a major claim. I provided one. Is Griffin's claim true or false?

Setting the conditions for your challenges and then reconditioning them is a weak position from which to debate.

You picked a piece of nothing which proves nothing, which has noting to do with nothing. DRG says nothing, he repeats what other people say. You picked out a statement which is proof of nothing. Why are you unable to find substance in DRG stuff? If you do not understand the statement you picked does not have substance, then you are the target audience for his tripe.

Go ahead tell us what it means for 9/11? What does DRG want the idiots who read his stuff to think?

 

[DGM]

I used the FEMA quote only to describe the collapsed building. They describe a hypothesis based on a diesel fuel fire as having only " a low probability of occurence."

This of course would be a reasonable thing to say considering that the diesel was only one of the factors.

BTW, nice cherry pick.

 

[CHF]

Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.

Right. Cuz the report focussed on the buildings attacked. That's a pretty lame example, RedIbis.

You might as well have cited DRG claiming that the 9/11 occurred in 2001.

 

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps this will fit your requirement for a "major claim." If not, I'm moving on.

Griffin Claim: "The 9/11 Commission...did not devote a single sentence" to the collapse of WTC 7.

Granted, others have made note of that besides Griffin, but it is a major claim and it is true. For some reason it's not troublesome to you guys.

We are all eagerly awaiting NIST's explanation of how a hydrocarbon such as diesel, caused fires that heated the steel in WTC 7 enough to cause its "implosion." I use FEMA's word here.

If only they had used biodiesel instead of fossil diesel. The flashpoint is much higher. Then, Giuliani's C&C Center would still be standing, as well as offices occupied by the CIA, DOD, IRS, Secret Service and SEC.

Your friend, David Griffin Doherty Hicks Hoffman Jones Thompson Avery Gage

The 9/11 commission did also not make a single mention of the 1 Billion Gold under the WTC, did it?

Did it mention the other buildings that were damaged by the debris of the WTCs, and if so, in what context.

WTC7 was not a target of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It came down as a result of the falling debris from buildings that were targeted, and uncontrolled fires.

The commission was to look into the events of that day as RELATED TO THE ATTACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

ONLY IN THE MINDS OF THE PARANOID CTists, IS WTC7 RELAVENT TO THE ATTACKS OF THAT DAY.

TAM

 

[uk_dave]

Yeah, what David James, beachnut, DGM, CHF & TAM said.

 

[BeAChooser]

NIST did not report core column temps exceeding 250C. "Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)"

You are being deceptive.

First of all, the computer fire models indicated that temperatures on perimeter column panels shouldn't have exceeded 250 C. Thus, the fact they didn't measure any that did is actually validation of the computer model results.

Second, the test used to measure temperatures on the two core columns required there still be paint on the steel. This limited the max temperature that could be measured to about 250 C. Columns that saw higher temperatures would lose that paint.

Third, the two core samples came from locations in the core which the computer fire models indicated would not see temperatures above 250 C. Thus, the measurements again validate the computer model results. In fact, the section of the report you took those quotes from states quite clearly that "these analyses indicated some zones within WTC 1 where the computer simulations should not, and did not, predict highly elevated steel temperatures." That *911truthers* ALWAYS fail to note these facts is why *911truthers* are not to be trusted.

Fourth, NIST did not get samples of every column in the structure at the level of the fire. In fact, the paragraphs you quoted stated that "the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors." Combine that fact with the difficulty in figuring out which piece of steel in the debris field came from which location in the structure, and its not surprising that NIST failed to find a sample from the core columns that saw the highest temperatures.

Finally, the computer fire models (which reflect the state-of-the-art in determining maximum temperatures in complex fire situations and which have been validated against many different fire problems and found to yield numbers within 5-20% of the real values) indicate that temperatures in many regions of the fire floors exceeded 900 C for extended periods of time. And the models say some regions should have seen temperatures of nearly 1100 C.

 

[RedIbis]

Since the Commission Report was supposed to provide the fullest possible account, I'd expect them to cover the sudden collapse of Giuliani's C&C center, as well as the field offices of the agencies I mentioned.

Wow, quite a score for the terrorists to get that additional bldg to fall as well. Forgive my skepticism.

 

[uk_dave]

Since the Commission Report was supposed to provide the fullest possible account, I'd expect them to cover the sudden collapse of Giuliani's C&C center, as well as the field offices of the agencies I mentioned.

Wow, quite a score for the terrorists to get that additional bldg to fall as well. Forgive my skepticism.

Then you would also expect them to account for the damage caused to the other buildings in the wtc complex? Though you haven't mentioned this.

Does it only apply to buildings which collapse on the day, not the ones which had to be demolished afterwards?

Just what is the point of wtc7 with regard to the terrorist attacks? I believe the term is 'collateral damage' isn't it?

 

[Pardalis]

Everybody knows WTC7 was brought down for humanitarian reasons... Duh!

 

[beachnut]

Since the Commission Report was supposed to provide the fullest possible account, I'd expect them to cover the sudden collapse of Giuliani's C&C center, as well as the field offices of the agencies I mentioned.

Wow, quite a score for the terrorists to get that additional bldg to fall as well. Forgive my skepticism.

OMG, they left out the other buildings too, what does it mean. Please, you better get a list of all building that had to be redone, cause it means the Commision Report ignored them. What does it mean? wooooooo

They rebuilt building 7. What does that mean? There were a lot of building that were damaged on 9/11. What does it mean? Why did they need to talk about WTC7 a fire not fought, a building damaged by the towers? What does WTC7 have to do with anything? Only the idiot truth movement mentions WTC7 for some goofball reasons. Why is it a big deal, gee only real dumb people like Rosie would fall for the tripe about WTC7. No rational person can be fooled with the WTC7 junk ideas. You need to read the report again they did mention Tim McVeigh, that could be a smoking gun, don't you think? They mention Tim but not WTC7. Why did they mention Tim and leave out the most important building whose fires were not fought and it fell? Did they mention Tim to give you a smoking gun for some strange 9/11 truth idea yet to be released?

They mentioned fire 289 times, but that includes firearms. Why?

 

[uk_dave]

Anyway, we seem to have established that griffin got one thing right in his book.

Money well spent, no doubt.