Split Thread WTC7 collapse (again) - split from: How did you rule out that 911 was an insid

[Garb]

MM, are you accusing NIST of being unethical?

1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

d. Engineers shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise
e. Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm
f. Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

3. Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.

a. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current...

...c. Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.

4. Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.

a. Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

b. Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from more than one party for services on the same project, or for services pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.

c. Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection with the work for which they are responsible.

d. Engineers in public service as members, advisors, or employees of a governmental or quasi-governmental body or department shall not participate in decisions with respect to services solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice.

e. Engineers shall not solicit or accept a contract from a governmental body on which a principal or officer of their organization serves as a member.

5. Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts.

b. Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.

1. Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of honesty and integrity.

a. Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
b. Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.


c. Engineers shall not accept outside employment to the detriment of their regular work or interest. Before accepting any outside engineering employment, they will notify their employers.


d. Engineers shall not attempt to attract an engineer from another employer by false or misleading pretenses.


e. Engineers shall not promote their own interest at the expense of the dignity and integrity of the profession.

3. Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice that deceives the public.

a. Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.

http://www.nspe.org/ethics/eh1-code.asp

 

[Jono]

For years the diesel fuel available in WTC7 has been used to bolster the Official Story very hot 'fire fuel argument'.

NIST, by having this major point removed from their working hypothesis have certainly strengthened the argument against a fire collapse cause.

MM

What is to be noted on additionally is that, for example, the WTC7 had some 10 transformers on street-level, another 12 transformers on the 5th level and then 2 transformers on the 7th floor.
Here's an experiment showing just how notable an explosion of a transformer can be;
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/E...rmer-Explosion

So, keep in mind that the aformentioned buildings had a bunch of these, in the midst of a fiery inferno. There would hardly be any need for pre-set bombs or what have you, would there?
Simply imagine 20+ of these transformers blowing up, naturally it does add more than a tad fire. You see, transformers like the ones in the WTC buildings were filled with oil, like most are and in the video you can see oil spewing out of the transformer (that spray which looked like a fire hose, was in fact oil). Furthermore, on internal arcing of transformers, it will produce a gas called acetylene, this helps the transformer to go boooom, which not only sounds loudly explosive (this might explain why some people heard loud booms) but also that a lot of extra fuel was added to the fire to boot.

This is without considering the two 6,000 gallon tanks which supplied the 5th floor generators, of course.

 

[Miragememories]

What is to be noted on additionally is that, for example, the WTC7 had some 10 transformers on street-level, another 12 transformers on the 5th level and then 2 transformers on the 7th floor.
Here's an experiment showing just how notable an explosion of a transformer can be;
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/E...rmer-Explosion

So, keep in mind that the aformentioned buildings had a bunch of these, in the midst of a fiery inferno. There would hardly be any need for pre-set bombs or what have you, would there?
Simply imagine 20+ of these transformers blowing up, naturally it does add more than a tad fire. You see, transformers like the ones in the WTC buildings were filled with oil, like most are and in the video you can see oil spewing out of the transformer (that spray which looked like a fire hose, was in fact oil). Furthermore, on internal arcing of transformers, it will produce a gas called acetylene, this helps the transformer to go boooom, which not only sounds loudly explosive (this might explain why some people heard loud booms) but also that a lot of extra fuel was added to the fire to boot.

This is without considering the two 6,000 gallon tanks which supplied the 5th floor generators, of course.

Maybe you might start by asking yourself; "how likely is a de-activated transformer to "go boom"?

MM

 

[Jono]

Maybe you might start by asking yourself; "how likely is a de-activated transformer to "go boom"?

MM

You mean by itself in a secured area or one, if still filled with oil and not completely dried out, in the midst of an rampant fire?

 

[Miragememories]

You mean by itself in a secured area or one, if still filled with oil and not completely dried out, in the midst of an rampant fire?

Courtesy of Wikipedia;

"Transformer oil is usually a highly-refined mineral oil that is stable at high temperatures and has excellent electrical insulating properties."

"Prior to about 1970, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) was often used as a dielectric fluid since it was not flammable. "

"Today, nontoxic, stable silicone-based or fluorinated hydrocarbons are used, where the added expense of a fire-resistant liquid offsets additional building cost for a transformer vault. Natural or synthetic Esters are becoming increasingly common as alternative, to Naphthenic mineral oil too. Esters are non toxic, readily biodegradable, and have higher flash points than mineral oil."

I really can't follow where your comments are meant to lead?

Are you suggesting the transformers were blazing like furnaces, and design engineers both deliberately, and thoughtlessly, placed transformers at locations where structural columns would be most weakened by the savagery of transformer fires?

MM

 

[JimBenArm]

I really can't follow where your comments are meant to lead?

MM

This is shocking!

 

[slyjoe]

Courtesy of Wikipedia;

"Transformer oil is usually a highly-refined mineral oil that is stable at high temperatures and has excellent electrical insulating properties."

"Prior to about 1970, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) was often used as a dielectric fluid since it was not flammable. "

"Today, nontoxic, stable silicone-based or fluorinated hydrocarbons are used, where the added expense of a fire-resistant liquid offsets additional building cost for a transformer vault. Natural or synthetic Esters are becoming increasingly common as alternative, to Naphthenic mineral oil too. Esters are non toxic, readily biodegradable, and have higher flash points than mineral oil."

I really can't follow where your comments are meant to lead?

Are you suggesting the transformers were blazing like furnaces, and design engineers both deliberately, and thoughtlessly, placed transformers at locations where structural columns would be most weakened by the savagery of transformer fires?

MM

And what is the flash point of high temperature oil used in transformers?

(Hint: it's a lot lower than the temperature of office fires).

 

[Totovader]

How is quoting your own words- only a few posts apart I might add- spin?

You most certainly have not explained the differences- you completely ignore them and then try to get away with a lie to resolve the contradictions.

You were caught. Deal.

Now see if you can resolve that contradiction without lying or dodging the question. This entire thread was made for you to do that and you have not.

Hello, MM?

 

[Miragememories]

Hello, MM?

Originally Posted by Totovader
How is quoting your own words- only a few posts apart I might add- spin?

You most certainly have not explained the differences- you completely ignore them and then try to get away with a lie to resolve the contradictions.

You were caught. Deal.

Now see if you can resolve that contradiction without lying or dodging the question. This entire thread was made for you to do that and you have not.

Well Toto I've posted on this subject in the past. You seemed to be there at the time but maybe not.

I'm ignoring nothing unless it's meaning isn't clear.

People certainly like calling people liars here. Apparently that form of dishonesty is so commonplace that only people like myself feel it is very insulting and disrespectful.

I will gladly attempt to resolve any apparent contradictions in my statements if you can show them to me.

I will not attempt to explain contradictions created through misinterpretation of my statements.

You are welcome to steer the topic wherever you wish, but I am not obliged to follow.

MM

 

[Totovader]

Well Toto I've posted on this subject in the past. You seemed to be there at the time but maybe not.

Oh you've posted on the subject- what you have not done is answer the question.

I'm ignoring nothing unless it's meaning isn't clear.

Ironic.

People certainly like calling people liars here. Apparently that form of dishonesty is so commonplace that only people like myself feel it is very insulting and disrespectful.

What's far more commonplace are conspiracists who think an appeal to pity is an adequate response to a question. You were proven to be a liar with your own comments. Your only response to that has been to pout.

I will gladly attempt to resolve any apparent contradictions in my statements if you can show them to me.

Already have- several times. You just avoid them and pretend they aren't there.

See above.

I will not attempt to explain contradictions created through misinterpretation of my statements.

Again, you're attempting a strawman, here. By claiming that Jowenko confirms your assertions, you are contradicting yourself. You cannot ignore claims made by Jowenko just because you don't like them if you think he's an expert. It's contradictory.

You are welcome to steer the topic wherever you wish, but I am not obliged to follow.

I'm trying to steer the topic to the OP, why you would choose not to follow that is obvious. You cannot resolve the contradiction without lying. Last time you tried, you were caught injecting statements that Jowenko did not make. Now you're trying to use that to avoid the question altogether. It's painfully transparent, and I'm confident that no sane person will buy it. Your only option is to answer the question, or admit that Jowenko is no source.

This entire thread is a perfect example of the cherry-picking, quote-mining, and flat-out lying necessary to be a conspiracist.

You represent your movement quite well.

 

[Miragememories]

Well whatever you say about this thread Toto, it certainly doesn't lack from your echoing rhetoric.

Your asking me to agree that because 'WTC7 + Jowenko' produces a disagreement with his opinion on WTC 1 & 2, that somehow that negates his WTC7 opinion?

MM

 

[Totovader]

Well whatever you say about this thread Toto, it certainly doesn't lack from your echoing rhetoric.

Are you crying?

Your asking me to agree that because 'WTC7 + Jowenko' produces a disagreement with his opinion on WTC 1 & 2, that somehow that negates his WTC7 opinion?

I'm asking you to be consistent. It's a long-shot, I know.

Seriously, stop pretending that this is new to you. This entire thread was created for you to resolve this contradiction.

Your audience waited long enough. My money is on you running away yet again.

 

[Jono]

I really can't follow where your comments are meant to lead?

Are you suggesting the transformers were blazing like furnaces, and design engineers both deliberately, and thoughtlessly, placed transformers at locations where structural columns would be most weakened by the savagery of transformer fires?

MM

The point was that the transformers certainly are variables in any flash-scenario as well as providing feed to explosive noises, thus subsequently adding to an already fiery scenario. They aren't needed as a variable to explain the collapses, however to suggest that they would be intact and safe in a raging fire is not probable considering the circumstances, despite measurements usually used to make it less flammable of course. Burning transformer oil is not an oddity, especially not under those extreme circumstances.

Also, if you have an up n running transformer and theres problem with the electric-feed, this can happen.
http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm#Blowup

Transformer vault (also called manhole) explosions are fairly common place in Manhattan, especially during wet weather. They're highly visible and normally generate numerous telephone calls to the Central Office. We didn't think this one was going to be any different. When Engine 10 advised us by radio they had a working fire in the Trade Center, we thought the transformer vault was located within the basement of the complex. Not a routine event, but still, it's only a transformer vault we thought.

http://www.fdnewyork.com/wtc.asp

 

[beachnut]

I am in agreement with Danny Jowenko in his statement that the collapses of WTC 1 & 2 did not appear similar to the collapse of WTC7.

His point was that the twin towers were a top down demolition and that WTC7 was a typical bottom down demolition.

He never stated that a top down controlled demolition was impossible.

His opinions on WTC 1 & 2 had had a good deal of time settle in in a way that was best for Jowenko's business interests.

With WTC7, I agree that he was caught by surprise and as a result spoke honestly without realizing the potential risk to future business contracts.

In a telephone interview with him in the spring of this year, Danny acknowledged that he had studied WTC7 extensively since that early interview and that his opinion was still the same.

He also acknowledged in the same interview that he was not surprised that demolition experts in the U.S. were not in agreement with him, as they risked future contracts if they failed to agree with the government's point of view.

MM

This is the weakest spin I have seen yet, you now are trying to say WTC1 and 2 are the same as WTC7, CD, but look different.

One wrong CD expert, and few hearsay followers of 9/11 truth. Sad, has education failed, or have they failed education?

Wow, at the end about risking jobs, is the biggest pile of BS I have seen. One of the dumbest statement I have seen, and not even original to you and the weak CD expert from where? A faulty rationalizing CD expert and you. Both wrong. No facts, just hearsay. (are you 16 or something – I contend still a grade school education is all hat is needed to see 9/11 truth is making up lies on 9/11? )

You and a failed idea CD expert. This is your evidence. No sounds of explosives during the collapse, and this is your story. A building burned all day. I bet you use Dan Rather's first words too.

Keep up the good work, you seem to be winning in your own mind. That spin was cute (wtc1 and 2...). I think you forgot about CD looks like a gravity collapse due to the fact the primary source of energy in CD is GRAVITY. But then you are not using that part of your brain or you would not be a 9/11 truther. Why are you fact less on this WTC7 stuff? I have not found any evidence to support your ideas yet, why is that? I will go back and check each post and add up the real evidence you have provided.

 

[Pardalis]

This is the weakest spin I have seen yet, you now are trying to say WTC1 and 2 are the same as WTC7, CD, but look different.

You got that right.

Jowenko completely rejects the idea that WTC 1&2 might have been CDed.

Most ridiculous attempt at a spin, ever.

 

[Miragememories]

The point was that the transformers certainly are variables in any flash-scenario as well as providing feed to explosive noises, thus subsequently adding to an already fiery scenario. They aren't needed as a variable to explain the collapses, however to suggest that they would be intact and safe in a raging fire is not probable considering the circumstances, despite measurements usually used to make it less flammable of course. Burning transformer oil is not an oddity, especially not under those extreme circumstances.

Also, if you have an up n running transformer and theres problem with the electric-feed, this can happen.
http://205.243.100.155/frames/longarc.htm#Blowup

Well I think you make points worth careful consideration WhiteLion.

You haven't really addressed the question of whether the building's design engineers would have been so neglectful as to not take measures to reduce any fire and explosive risk from those transformers?

MM

 

[Totovader]

Well I think you make points worth careful consideration WhiteLion.

You haven't really addressed the question of whether the building's design engineers would have been so neglectful as to not take measures to reduce any fire and explosive risk from those transformers?

MM

Nice dodge- designers do take measures, MM- but when catastrophic events occur, there's not much that can be done... that's sort of why they're called catastrophic.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I though that i read somewhere that the TX vaults were taken off line just before WTC 1 collapsed (which would have caused the emergency generators in WTC 7 to start up).

There was also the fuel in the generator day tanks. I wonder what would have happened in there was a fire directly below a full or partially full day tank.

I can see a room full of deisel fumes igniting in a bang.

 

[Jono]

Well I think you make points worth careful consideration WhiteLion.

You haven't really addressed the question of whether the building's design engineers would have been so neglectful as to not take measures to reduce any fire and explosive risk from those transformers?

MM

It's been a hectic day so I missed addressing it. However, there is little for me to say other than it might be possible that;
A)the transformers, some or most of them were originally placed in other sections and replaced/moved less than elementary so to speak.
B)the problems with potential the damage from loads of debris coming off the higher, collapsing buildings were not taken into consideration.
C)the interior fire and the subsequent 10-story whole within the WTC, enabling it to pick up some verve, was not taken into consideration.
D)the transformers were indeed placed as well as they could have been, and didn't put the building's entire integrity at risk even in extreme-case scenarios.

 

[Miragememories]

It's been a hectic day so I missed addressing it. However, there is little for me to say other than it might be possible that;
A)the transformers, some or most of them were originally placed in other sections and replaced/moved less than elementary so to speak.
B)the problems with potential the damage from loads of debris coming off the higher, collapsing buildings were not taken into consideration.
C)the interior fire and the subsequent 10-story whole within the WTC, enabling it to pick up some verve, was not taken into consideration.
D)the transformers were indeed placed as well as they could have been, and didn't put the building's entire integrity at risk even in extreme-case scenarios.

First of all, keep in mind that Bruce Lee was 33 when he died mysteriously.

Sometimes it's wise to pick your plateau.

Regarding your further response to the influence of WTC7 transformers WhiteLion, din lista över kommentarerna blandar inte lätt till ta menande från.

Where is it reported that debris fall from other buildings like WTC1, has not been taken into consideration. Much has been said here about the gouge and corner damage. No good proof has been provided that this damage was a factor in the style of WTC7's collapse.

Again the building fire and the 10-story gouge have been taken into great consideration.

You might like to visit this extremely thorough thread on the subject. It only lives on because for many here, it "preaches blasphemy in the temple".

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2225055#post2225055

MM