Official story: why believe it?

[Max Photon]

Architects: never admit you know nothing about the structural design of buildings

A little of topic, but something I thought I would add. I was having Dinner with my father over Christmas about the WTC (don't remember how it came up). For a long time he was Donald Trump's head architect and has extensive experience in large buildings/towers. He was telling me how when he saw the 2nd plane hit (on TV of course) that he knew immediately that not only was that building going to come down, but that that one would come down first because of the way it hit the building.

As one of the top architects in the country at one time, he laughs at the notion of people thinking there was a CD.

You don't say...one of the county's top architects?


Let's listen in on Newtons Bit for a second...

"I'd probably say that he's [Richard Gage] an above average to good architect, as far as the business side of making money for yourself and for your company and doing buildings that work. However, he makes an incredibly bad mistake that most architects know to avoid, and that is to admit architects know nothing about the structural design of buildings."

Source

 

[FactCheck]

Peteweaver, it seems two modes of controlled demolition were possible:

• cutting (explosive or thermal)
• heat-weakening

Bazant, Blanchard, Jones, (Gravy), all have in common that they only address demolition-by-cutting.

Yet I know of no properly credentialed professional or group that has considered demolition-by-heat-weakening (with the exception of Apollo20's speculative AP model).

Do you know if the Steel-In-Fire crew has ever considered demolition by heat-weakening, and if so, how they ruled it out?

Once again a little critical thinking will rule out your mythical heat weakening.

1) How many buildings have ever been demolished by "Heat weakening".

2) If the evidence shows the building could have collapsed the way it did without "heat weakening" then this mythical collapse mechanism would have made the building collapse FASTER than it did.

3) There is no evidence of heat weakening or any other rationalization you can dream up. Please stick with collapse hypothesis using the scientific method. Not just possible methods of collapse that don't have a shred of evidence behind them.

 

[beachnut]

His father is LOL at your ideas and 9/11 truth.

You don't say...one of the county's top architects?


Let's listen in on Newtons Bit for a second...

"I'd probably say that he's [Richard Gage] an above average to good architect, as far as the business side of making money for yourself and for your company and doing buildings that work. However, he makes an incredibly bad mistake that most architects know to avoid, and that is to admit architects know nothing about the structural design of buildings."

Source

Yes Max, he was laughing at your lack of facts and ignorance 9/11. His father things your ideas on 9/11 are just pure BS junk.

 

[lisabob2]

Facts are facts? Yet you make claims about the NIST report which prove you didn't read it because your claims about it are quotes from CT web sites which are incorrect.

But since facts are facts, can you please explain this scientific method Jones used when he submitted a supposedly melted peice of steel from WTC as proof of a demolition, yet the steel had unburned pieces of paper imbedded in it? Can you please show us what kind of scientific method Jones used in explaining paper that doesn't burn in temperatures hot enough to melt steel?

You also didn't answer my question about how the primary material left from thermite which you claim Jones has proven to be correct was found to be 0%? And how about how the ingredient you claim is is factual about that he used to make his claim was found in far too much abundance to support his claim? Maybe it's in one of his peer reviewed papers about finding Jesus in early America?

I mean coming form someone who is claiming all the other scientists are wrong, yet provides no proof of such, you should have no problem answering these questions right? Maybe you could include the errors in the NIST report.

"But since facts are facts, can you please explain this scientific method Jones used when he submitted a supposedly melted peice of steel from WTC as proof of a demolition, yet the steel had unburned pieces of paper imbedded in it? Can you please show us what kind of scientific method Jones used in explaining paper that doesn't burn in temperatures hot enough to melt steel? "

Please explain where Jones does this.

"You also didn't answer my question about how the primary material left from thermite which you claim Jones has proven to be correct was found to be 0%? And how about how the ingredient you claim is is factual about that he used to make his claim was found in far too much abundance to support his claim? Maybe it's in one of his peer reviewed papers about finding Jesus in early America?"

Where do you get 0%? I said Jones says calcium was not found with the sulfur so the sulfur was not from calcium sulfate.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You don't say...one of the county's top architects?


Let's listen in on Newtons Bit for a second...

"I'd probably say that he's [Richard Gage] an above average to good architect, as far as the business side of making money for yourself and for your company and doing buildings that work. However, he makes an incredibly bad mistake that most architects know to avoid, and that is to admit architects know nothing about the structural design of buildings."

Source

Actually he is also an engineer. But it's funny how in your mind when an Architect, and one that if far more accomplished than Gage doesn't support a conspiracy (and laughs at such claims) you seem to think that Architects are not qualified. But when it comes to claming a conspiracy, they are. Pretty hypocritical. But the point of my post wasn't to claim he was qualified, but thanks for pointing out your intellectual dishonesty.

It pretty much proves that CT qualifiers are simply whether someone tells them there is a conspiracy and not really their work experience of research.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Please explain where Jones does this.

Is there a reason you put a quote after an identical quote?

Did you not look at Jone's work? Go check out the links you provided for everyone. Since that's all you will offer for your arguments are generic links, you get the same. Jones and the entire scholars group presented the pictures of the compressed steel sample form the WTC as evidence of melted steel. Only problem was that it wasn't melted, it was compressed. However that didn't stop these con artists from trying to use it to peddle their bogus thermite claim.

Where do you get 0%? I said Jones says calcium was not found with the sulfur so the sulfur was not from calcium sulfate.

I got it form Jone's paper. And I am not talking about Calcium sulfate (which is also incorrect, I am referring to Barium Nitrate which makes up 21% of thermite. And none was found. Instead he focuses on the sulfur which makes up about 3% I believe. Again, he looked for individual components and not the signature of thermite. This is what you call LACK of scientific method.

Please just be honest and admit that the only reason you believe people like Jones is because you simply want there to be a conspiracy theory. You justify your beliefs in saying they are qualified, yet dismiss everything presented from people far more qualified than them.

PLEASE ANSWER THIS**************

Please cite the specific parts of this "official story" which violates the laws o physics. Don't just make an empty claim, back that claim up. This is about the 5th time you have been asked and have ignored the question based on YOUR claim.

 

[twinstead]

Please explain where Jones does this.

This is a joke, right? Isn't your job as an 'investigator' to know what the evidence is on both sides?

 

[twinstead]

Please cite the specific parts of this "official story" which violates the laws o physics.

Is laws o physics some kind of Irish thing?

 

[rwguinn]

Once again a little critical thinking will rule out your mythical heat weakening.

1) How many buildings have ever been demolished by "Heat weakening".

2) If the evidence shows the building could have collapsed the way it did without "heat weakening" then this mythical collapse mechanism would have made the building collapse FASTER than it did.

3) There is no evidence of heat weakening or any other rationalization you can dream up. Please stick with collapse hypothesis using the scientific method. Not just possible methods of collapse that don't have a shred of evidence behind them.

Actually, FactCheck, 3 buildings in NYC were demolished by heat weakening.
Seems some Islamic fundies flew fuel-laden jet aircraft into them at very high speed (above the maximum "we can still reuse the airplane" speed), and the damage killed the fire suppression system, as well as the thermal blankets around the steel. It also damaged them is such a way the fire Department couldn't reach the fires.
As a result, 2 of them burned uncontrolled for near an hour, and the crash set off fires in the 3rd one.
The heat weakened the structure of the building to the point it could not support the structure above the damage and fires, and gravity reclaimed the potential energy stored in the buildings.
During this process, the 3rd building was also structurally damaged, and the fires raged out ofd control for severral hours, eventually bringing that building down also.
Later a building somewhere overseas also caught fire, and the heat weakened its steel and collapsed the steel parts of the building.

 

[lisabob2]

just because skilling is robertsons boss doesnt mean skilling was cheif engineer for the project, if it was robertsons project it was robertsons project

Jones showed pictures of damaged columns and said scientific testing could prove what damaged them, he made no claims that he knows columns were damaged from CD.
And as articles and book from the period of construction of the twin towers prove John Skilling was chief engineer during construction of twin towers.

"In City in the Sky, Robertson is called the “rising young engineer with Skilling's firm” (p. 159). In Men of Steel, Robertson is referred to during the design phase as “one of the up-and-coming engineers on [Skilling’s] staff,” Skilling’s “young associate,” whom Skilling “assigned… to help him prepare a proposal” to the Port Authority’s board. Skilling’s firm was named Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson. Clearly, Skilling was a senior partner at the firm and Robertson was his subordinate."

maybe you can check the sources listed for the truth, does it really make sense that the lead engineer would give his companies biggest project ever to somebody below him? Skilling was world renowned for his work. Robertson was his assistant as proved by articles & books listed above. With a little research you can find Skilling worked very closely on all phases of construction with the Architect(Minoru Yamaski ) who designed the twin towers. In all articles of the time of construction (mostly 60's) Skilling is the Chief engineer and Robertson is part of his team.
Even in most articles you find post 2001 it says Robertson & Skilling were engineers during construction of twin towers. But a carefull review of the facts show Skilling was the chief engineer.

 

[twinstead]

But a carefull review of the facts show Skilling was the chief engineer.

Sorry, but 'a careful review of the facts' does NOT describe your approach to 911 one iota.

 

[lisabob2]

This is a joke, right? Isn't your job as an 'investigator' to know what the evidence is on both sides?

Please explain where Jones does this.
"This is a joke, right? Isn't your job as an 'investigator' to know what the evidence is on both sides?"

By asking for clarification I am pretty sure it is obvious I don't think Jones has done what you claim. Thats why I ask you to specify where Jones has done what you claim.

Again please explain where Jones does this.? or can you ?

 

[lisabob2]

Sorry, but 'a careful review of the facts' does NOT describe your approach to 911 one iota.

opinions are opinions. if you care to address something specific I will respond.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

opinions are opinions. if you care to address something specific I will respond.

Once again, your claim that this "official story" (which I can only assume you mean the NIST report) violates the laws o physics. Show us specifically where this happens and how.

 

[twinstead]

opinions are opinions. if you care to address something specific I will respond.

Jones is your God. It has been shown that his evidence is suspect.

For starters, what I would like you to address is what evidence you have that the 'thermite cuts' he describes aren't the cuts made by welders after the collapse.

Because THAT, my ideologue friend, is the very beginning of understanding what Jones is all about. This little deception sets the stage for every single piece of 'evidence' he presents.

So. This is the first 'something specific'.

 

[lisabob2]

I showed you Jones making up a lie, you covered it up and said he was not. I showed you his failed ideas on 9/11, you covered it up and failed to realize he made up thermite after 4 years. He just got up one day and made it up cause he was upset with the war in Iraq. He will not even tell you why he is making up lies. He does not even make a valid conclusion now.

You can not even tell me what he says about 9/11.

I have shown he columns he tried to imply were cut by thermite. He shows more than one. He is making it up. He has no valid ideas on 9/11, you have failed to provide what he said, or what it means.

You said broke the laws of physics! What broke them?

You said Skilling was the chief, I told you Robertson was. I told you Robertson, the chief structural engineer, supports IMPACT and FIRE, as the cause of the WTC failure. That makes Jones ideas false, since Jones has never built a 110 story building. The expert agrees with THOUSANDS of experts! You have a few people with nut case ideas on 9/11 and you do not even know it!

with a little research you will find:
"John Skilling, speaking after the basement bombing in 1993, “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 – DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour [about its maximum speed]. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact…. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.”

Seattle times article in 1993
Again in 1993 it was known that Skilling was chief engineer during construction of trade center, thats why People wanted his opinion after the 93 bombing

 

[Jonnyclueless]

with a little research you will find:
"John Skilling, speaking after the basement bombing in 1993, “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 – DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour [about its maximum speed]. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact…. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.”

Seattle times article in 1993
Again in 1993 it was known that Skilling was chief engineer during construction of trade center, thats why People wanted his opinion after the 93 bombing

Robertson who was the actual chief engineer said 180mph, not 600mph.

Let's see the calculations he used to determine that 600mph. Please give us a link.

 

[twinstead]

with a little research you will find:
"John Skilling, speaking after the basement bombing in 1993, “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 – DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour [about its maximum speed]. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact…. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.”

Interesting. Perhaps the WHOLE quote would have been more honest:

“[Building designer] John Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”[4]
“The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made.

 

[DGM]

with a little research you will find:
"John Skilling, speaking after the basement bombing in 1993, “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 – DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour [about its maximum speed]. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact…. There would be a horrendous fire [but] the building structure would still be there.”

Seattle times article in 1993
Again in 1993 it was known that Skilling was chief engineer during construction of trade center, thats why People wanted his opinion after the 93 bombing

The Titanic was unsinkable too.

 

[twinstead]

Well, with just a little more research one would have discovered the Titanic was indeed unsinkable.

Inside JOB!!!!!111111!!!