Another Question for Heiwa : Amazing Fireproof Steel

[Furcifer]

"Boats Float And So Should The WTC" -Heiwa

Eureka! I finally understand where Heiwa's obsession with density comes from.

Maybe consider the WTC damage and the fire like holes in a boats hull. If left unchecked the boat will no longer float. In the same way a boat relies on relative density to remain afloat, a building relies on structural integrity to remain standing. A small compromise in a boats hull doesn't change the density, but it leads to it. Now think of the holes in a boats hull like fires in a building. The fires compromise the structures strength and lead to its collapse. I'm not particularly fond of this analogy, but perhaps it will help you understand better as a longshoreman.

 

[sts60]

The constant of gravity G is about 0.06673 m3/kg s²

Really? You're absolutely sure about that? You don't think you might have it wrong by nine orders of magnitude?

Tell me! What is the constant of gravity G. Only three decimals is required. Note than I use kilograms and cubic meters.

6.76259*10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2. Source: AIAA Design Engineer's Guide, 3rd ed.

Yep. You're off by nine orders of magnitude.

Nobody knows its exact value.

Irrelevant. It is known with sufficient accuracy. Handwaving about its "exact value" does not rescue your claims.

It seems some people mixed it up with gravity force F (= m a) and gravity acceleration g on the surface of the Earth (the latter not being constant as shown above).

Not me. I understand the differences full well. Physics undergrad, practicing space engineer, all that.

 

[beachnut]

So, how can you make calculations in physics if gravity is not a constant? Don't you use 9.81m/s^2?

He can not admit he made an error, his ship will sink.

Yep. You're off by nine orders of magnitude. /quote] It is funny when you say the right thing but for the wrong reason; but funnier when you make a giant error in the right part that was wrong in the first place. What do you call an order of magnitude off by an order of magnitude (as 9 times is very close to)? Is that a order of maximusmagnitude off.

He reminds everyone, I think by mistake, that gravity does depend on the masses. But for the gravity collapse of the WTC it is worthless point. It is interesting as he messes up the very point. Just when you think the poster is trying to make an educational point he misses the boat. Do his ships suffer from sinking at rapid rates, or fly into space. I hate to check out what the error in the constant does to mother nature.

 

[Architect]

He can not admit he made an error, his ship will sink.

It was sunk, you fool!!!! And they murdered the survivors to cover it all up !!!!! Haven't you read his website?!?!?!!?!

 

[DGM]

It was sunk, you fool!!!! And they murdered the survivors to cover it all up !!!!! Haven't you read his website?!?!?!!?!

And nobody takes him seriously on that one either. Exceptionally sad considering that's his field.

 

[beachnut]

It was sunk, you fool!!!! And they murdered the survivors to cover it all up !!!!! Haven't you read his website?!?!?!!?!

Yes, I found his web site a while back. CTsRUS

 

[Heiwa]

0.0000000000667 m³/kg^.s²
ETA: one hundred millionth of what you posted earlier.

Right. Plenty of zeros that I missed among all other zeros on this forum.

 

[funk de fino]

Right. Plenty of zeros that I missed among all other zeros on this forum.

[Edited]

Please attack the arguer not the argument. Civility.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[westprog]

Also, I should like to point out that this conversation about Heiwa's credentials would be an ad hom argument, if it were not the case here that Heiwa used his qualifications as a support for his argument. If he were making sound assertions of fact based on verifiable evidence, it wouldn't really matter what his qualifications were.

It's a something I've noticed with a number of the pseudscientific arguers for truth - in order to prove that the WTC couldn't collapse, they end up proving that no building could ever collapse for any reason.

I don't feel like travelling by sea for a while, for some reason.

 

[Architect]

On the debunkers thread, Heiwa has suggested that one of the underlying flaws in the NIST collapse report is the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.

The purpose of this thread is to provide Heiwa with an opportunity to post the evidence for this quite remarkable claim.

Just to kick things off, let's look at how steelwork responds to fire. Heiwa, I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

Testing Criteria

Firstly, the lay reader may be interested to learn that there are, of course, formal standards to test the fire performance of structural steelwork.

The general procedures used for determining the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of structure are specified in BS476 series. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant parts are:​

Part 20 Method of determination of the fire resistance of elements of construction (general principles)​

Part 21 Method of determination of the fire resistance of load-bearing elements of construction​

Whilst BS 476 Part 20 is concerned with general principles and covers requirements which are common to the other parts of BS 476, the BS 476 Part 21 fire resistance testing covers load-bearing elements of construction, such as steel beams, columns or walls, whilst BS 476 Part 22 fire resistance tests are intended for non load-bearing elements of construction.​

European fire testing standards have also been published. In assessing the performance of fire protection materials the relevant part is presently ENV 13381-4 “Test methods for determining the contribution to the fire resistance of structural members Part 4: Applied protection to steel members”. This standard makes reference to the EN 1363 Series of standards which contain general information about conducting fire resistance tests. However, as all the procedures for assessing fire protection are currently specified in ENV13381-4, it is this standard which is generally referred to in this publication. ​

Performance of Steel in Fires​

Hot finished carbon steel begins to lose strength at temperatures above 300°C and reduces in strength at steady rate up to 800°C. The small residual strength then reduces more gradually until the melting temperature at around 1500°C. This behaviour is similar for hot rolled reinforcing steels. For cold worked steels including reinforcement, there is a more rapid decrease of strength after 300°C (Lawson & Newman 1990). In addition to the reduction of material strength and stiffness, steel displays a significant creep phenomena at temperatures over 450°C. The phenomena of creep results in an increase of deformation (strain) with time, even if the temperature and applied stress remain unchanged (Twilt 1988).

High temperature creep is dependent on the stress level and heating rate. The occurrence of creep indicates that the stress and the temperature history have to be taken into account in estimating the strength and deformation behaviour of steel structures in fire. Including creep explicitly within analytical models, is complex. For simple design methods, it is widely accepted that the effect of creep is implicitly considered in the stress-strain-temperature relationships.

For those who require further information or, as the case may be, persuasion regarding the actual performance of steelwork under such conditions we are fortunate that a predictably large numbers of leading bodies have looked at the issue in depth.

http://www.shef.ac.uk/fire-research/..._meetings.html

http://www.corusconstruction.com/page_1416.htm

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/866/CIB_W14/workprog.htm

http://www.civil.canterbury.ac.nz/fi...rts/KLewis.pdf

Note in particular the strength/temperature/yield grading charts in the final link, which have obvious implications for the structure of any steel framed building exposed to fire conditions.

Practical Implications - Design Codes and Building Regulations

The fire design codes BS 5950-8, Eurocode 3 Part 1-2 and Eurocode 4 Part 1-2 provide the framework for designers to calculate the temperature at which a given steel member will fail in a fire situation. These design methods incorporate more realistic estimates of the applied load during a fire and include the effects of non-uniform heating through and along the member. The design methods are based on either fire
resistance, which is a measure of an element to withstand given criteria in a standard furnace test, or natural fires where the size of the fire compartment, available combustible material, characteristics of the compartment boundaries and​

air supply are considered.

The requirements and calculations so arising are necessarily complex.

As the reader might anticipate, because structural steelwork is at risk of failure in a fire building regulations also introduce fireproofing requirements.

The Scottish Regs, section D, are a bit detailed - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/build_regs/sect-d.pdf - but you'll notice do flag up the need for fire protection in structural components and steelwork.

In England, Part B of the Regs flags up a similar position - its not available on-line free but Corus (who do know a thing about steel) have a useful and relatively non-technical summary at http://www.corusconstruction.com/leg...s_section1.pdf . Some of you will note on page 5 the admission that most unportected steel sections only have fire integrity for about 15 minutes.

The Canadian Regs aren't available on-line free either, but their national buildings institute flags up across all their documents the risk posed by fire and the need for protection - see, by way of example, http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cbd/cbd071e.html .

The New Zealand and Australian steel codes, (SNZ, 1997 and SAA 1990) are very similar to each other. The NZ regs section C4 requires....wait for it......structural protection of steel in fire ( http://www.building.govt.nz)


Summary

It is recognised through empirical analysis across a recognised series of standards that structural steelwork weakens significantly under normal fire conditions, and as a consequence codes require additional protection through (for example) the incorporation of passive fire protection systems.

There is no evidence that such tests are wrong, or that fire protection can be safely omitted due to (for example) the efects of heat conduction throughout the affected members.

I'm quoting the OP as a reminder that Heiwa - and Terry - haven't actually addressed any of the technical points contained other than to hand-wave and claim that empirical test results in a laboratory are in some way not representative of real conditions.

THey have not, you will recall, actually cited any susbtantive technical papers which would support their positions. We are to believe Heiwa because naval architects are allegedly qualified to design buildings (try that in the UK, mate, I dare you)and Terry has a fixation about WTC7 which I can't quite nail.

Business as normal for the Truth Movement, basically.

 

[Terral]

Archie Is All "Talk, Talk, Talk" With No "Building Fires Did It" Case At All. None!

Hi Archie:

Archie >> I'm quoting the OP as a reminder that Heiwa - and Terry - haven't actually addressed any of the technical points contained other than to hand-wave and claim that empirical test results in a laboratory are in some way not representative of real conditions.

This is just more Archie stupidity, as if he has a reply to my rebuttal here or here or here or here or anywhere. Where is Archie’s defending argument to even one of my rebuttal posts? This guy is hopelessly attempting to prove “Building Fires Did It” in support of the Official DoD/FBI Cover Story, when 800 degree fires have insufficient energy to melt structural red-iron steel contained in the WTC-7 steel-framed NETWORK. He is using ‘testing’ data for “Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials” where he deliberately changed the Subtitle from “6.2 Steel” to “Performance of Steel in Fires,” as if these tests were conducted in Building Fire conditions. Then he pretends “melting” of 2800-degree Structural Steel is not required, because Archie is only talking about ‘softening’ of steel (heh), but the real WTC EVIDENCE shows molten metal pools EVERYWHERE. How did Archie get his massive molten bricks like this from 800 degree building fires? Why do we have video after video showing molten metal pools under all the WTC skyscrapers clearly brought down by Controlled Demolition? My WTC-7 CD Thread is here. Where is Archie’s precedent for building fires taking down another skyscraper like this straight down into its own footprint? Look at this picture again to realize none of the adjacent buildings are touched. Here is another shot from a different angle. There is NO WAY any building fires took this overbuilt skyscraper down in a ‘symmetrical collapse’ in just 6.6 seconds! To even try and pass that nonsense off as the “Official Story” is the height of arrogance and stupidity using the same deluded breath. This guy is only embarrassing himself,

Archie >> They have not, you will recall, actually cited any susbtantive technical papers which would support their positions.

Bullony. Dr. Steven Jones has joined efforts with the architects and engineers at AE911Truth.org (see Richard Gage and Dr. Jones pictured together in middle of the page) and he obviously has far better credentials than you. But what is this? This is a technical paper put out by the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University by Professor Jones. :0)

Archie >> We are to believe Heiwa because naval architects are allegedly qualified to design buildings (try that in the UK, mate, I dare you) and Terry has a fixation about WTC7 which I can't quite nail.

WTC-7 is the smoking gun pointing to the Controlled Demolition of all three WTC skyscrapers, because this massive overbuilt skyscraper was struck by no Jetliner ‘and’ suffered the same exact fate on the same day and just a few hours after WTC-1 and WTC-2 collapsed Demolition-style the very same way. The inside-job bad guys did not need any Jetliner to take down WTC-7 or any of the WTC skyscrapers obviously taken down part of an Inside-Job.

Archie >> Business as normal for the Truth Movement, basically.

No sir. This is business as usual for people with the gall to stand up and defend the out-of-control Bush Administration and their “Building Fires Did It” nonsense, as if you have proven one thing on this thread at all. Where is Archie’s “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” thread with real evidence to support ‘his’ Official Cover Story theory? Hmmmmm? We all might die for old age waiting for that one . . .

GL,

Terral

 

[peteweaver]

Terral, don't be daft.

As yourself why BYU engineering department laughed at Steven Jones.

 

[Architect]

Hi Archie:


This is just more Archie stupidity, as if he has a reply to my rebuttal here or here or here or here or anywhere. Where is Archie’s defending argument to even one of my rebuttal posts? This guy is hopelessly attempting to prove “Building Fires Did It” in support of the Official DoD/FBI Cover Story, when 800 degree fires have insufficient energy to melt structural red-iron steel contained in the WTC-7 steel-framed NETWORK. He is using ‘testing’ data for “Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials” where he deliberately changed the Subtitle from “6.2 Steel” to “Performance of Steel in Fires,” as if these tests were conducted in Building Fire conditions. Then he pretends “melting” of 2800-degree Structural Steel is not required, because Archie is only talking about ‘softening’ of steel (heh), but the real WTC EVIDENCE shows molten metal pools EVERYWHERE. How did Archie get his massive molten bricks like this from 800 degree building fires? Why do we have video after video showing molten metal pools under all the WTC skyscrapers clearly brought down by Controlled Demolition? My WTC-7 CD Thread is here. Where is Archie’s precedent for building fires taking down another skyscraper like this straight down into its own footprint? Look at this picture again to realize none of the adjacent buildings are touched. Here is another shot from a different angle. There is NO WAY any building fires took this overbuilt skyscraper down in a ‘symmetrical collapse’ in just 6.6 seconds! To even try and pass that nonsense off as the “Official Story” is the height of arrogance and stupidity using the same deluded breath. This guy is only embarrassing himself,

Terry, you're looking for a specific debate on failure mode in WTC7 when the OP here is showing that everyone - except, I suspect, yourself and Heiwa - knowns that steel fails in fire conditions.

Bullony. Dr. Steven Jones has joined efforts with the architects and engineers at AE911Truth.org (see Richard Gage and Dr. Jones pictured together in middle of the page) and he obviously has far better credentials than you. But what is this? This is a technical paper put out by the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Brigham Young University by Professor Jones. :0)

Now, Terry, I'd like you to look properly at the documents I link to/refer to in my post. These are real technical papers, supported by laboratory testing and analysis. The testing criteria, processing or results, and so on are all strictly defined.

Now go back and look at the papers you refer to, none of which are actually produced by experts in the appropriate contruction fields and which don't come at all close to the level of study and understanding the cited documents.

It's rather like claiming that the Bible is scientifically comparable to, say, hundreds of detailed analytical studies on Evolution (incidentally the Church of Scotland buys evolution, so I want to be clear I'm not getting stuck into Christians on this point).

Now if what you have is a belief system, then say so. But don't try and make out that these jokers stand up to (for example) the standards of the BSI.

WTC-7 is the smoking gun pointing to the Controlled Demolition of all three WTC skyscrapers, because this massive overbuilt skyscraper was struck by no Jetliner ‘and’ suffered the same exact fate on the same day and just a few hours after WTC-1 and WTC-2 collapsed Demolition-style the very same way. The inside-job bad guys did not need any Jetliner to take down WTC-7 or any of the WTC skyscrapers obviously taken down part of an Inside-Job.

I suspect that WTC1 and 2 falling on it may have had something to do with it, personally, but WTC 7 isn't my thing.

No sir. This is business as usual for people with the gall to stand up and defend the out-of-control Bush Administration and their “Building Fires Did It” nonsense, as if you have proven one thing on this thread at all. Where is Archie’s “WTC-7 Collapsed From Building Fires” thread with real evidence to support ‘his’ Official Cover Story theory? Hmmmmm? We all might die for old age waiting for that one . . .

Keep working on the reading comprehension, mate.

 

[Architect]

Terral, don't be daft.

As yourself why BYU engineering department laughed at Steven Jones.

Heh-heh, how Yorkshire is that for a reply!

 

[Terral]

No Sir. 1000 Degree Fires Simply Do NOT Melt 2800 Degree Structural Steel

Hi Archie:

Archie >> Terry, you're looking for a specific debate on failure mode in WTC7 when the OP here is showing that everyone - except, I suspect, yourself and Heiwa - knowns that steel fails in fire conditions.

Archie is deliberately misrepresenting the “Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials” data from Chapter 6 of “Designers' Guide to EN 1991-1-2, EN 1993-1-2 and EN 1994-1-2” (shown here) to carry out this “Building Fires Did It” charade. Then he turns around and pretends that ‘his’ intentions for posting this data has something ‘other’ than to do with the WTC skyscraper Controlled Demolitions part of these 9/11 attacks. If everyone except Terral and Heiwa knows about this ‘failure mode’ of 2800-degree structural red-iron steel and how it “fails in fire conditions” (this guys is out there man), then why do we have hundreds of professional architects and engineers preaching the Controlled Demolition Explanation with Dr. Steven Jones standing among them? Then again, why is this supposed Architect standing ‘against’ these same architects and engineers, so he can push the Official Bush Administration “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story? What is all of this “Pull It” business about, IF building fires could possibly take down WTC-7?? Watch Part 2 of “Justice For 9/11” and decide for yourself. Did Archie offer even one defending argument after quoting about half of Post #151? No. He offers up stupidity in the place of any kind of defense to his Official Cover Story stand . . .

Archie >> Now, Terry, I'd like you to look properly at the documents I link to/refer to in my post. These are real technical papers, supported by laboratory testing and analysis. The testing criteria, processing or results, and so on are all strictly defined.

No sir. I have read through everything and know for A FACT that you are misrepresenting the OP documentation that in itself makes no case for WTC-7 collapsing into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds from any building fire. Anyone willing to follow in your stupidity is encouraged to do so, but NONE of your “Building Fires Did It” nonsense has any basis in reality whatsoever. None at all. Zero.

GL,

Terral

Terral, I asked nicely before, now I'm asking again as a mod. Please use the Quote function provided, and do not change user names in your responses.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[Architect]

Compare and Contrast:

Archie is deliberately misrepresenting the “Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials” data from Chapter 6 of “Designers' Guide to EN 1991-1-2, EN 1993-1-2 and EN 1994-1-2” (shown here) to carry out this “Building Fires Did It” charade. Then he turns around and pretends that ‘his’ intentions for posting this data has something ‘other’ than to do with the WTC skyscraper Controlled Demolitions part of these 9/11 attacks. If everyone except Terral and Heiwa knows about this ‘failure mode’ of 2800-degree structural red-iron steel and how it “fails in fire conditions” (this guys is out there man), then why do we have hundreds of professional architects and engineers preaching the Controlled Demolition Explanation with Dr. Steven Jones standing among them? Then again, why is this supposed Architect standing ‘against’ these same architects and engineers, so he can push the Official Bush Administration “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story? What is all of this “Pull It” business about, IF building fires could possibly take down WTC-7?? Watch Part 2 of “Justice For 9/11” and decide for yourself. Did Archie offer even one defending argument after quoting about half of Post #151? No. He offers up stupidity in the place of any kind of defense to his Official Cover Story stand . . .

On the debunkers thread, Heiwa has suggested that one of the underlying flaws in the NIST collapse report is the steelwork would be inherrently resistant to heat-induced failure under typical fire conditions.

The purpose of this thread is to provide Heiwa with an opportunity to post the evidence for this quite remarkable claim.

Just to kick things off, let's look at how steelwork responds to fire. Heiwa, I'd like you to tell me if there are any errors that I make. And be specific.

Discuss.

 

[westprog]

why do we have hundreds of professional architects and engineers preaching the Controlled Demolition Explanation with Dr. Steven Jones standing among them?

This is why my primary interest in Conspiracies - in particular, 911 - is not to do with the minutiae of the arguments, but with the mental states of the conspiracists.

Terral knows that there's a massive consensus among all the relevant professions that there was no demolition. Not only that, the more relevant the professional qualifications, the more absolute the consensus, so that when we get to structural engineers and fire safety experts, the consensus is effectively 100%.

He ignores this, on the basis that his dumb calculations are better than the experts. That's a stupid argument, but at least it's an argument. But then he tries to argue against one particular person who disagrees with him by listing the "hundreds" of people on AE911T.

That his two arguments are not only specious, but cancel each other out, is entirely typical of the movement. It's comparable with Griffin's argument that the building should have fallen like a tree, and that because gravity is vertical, nothing should have been expelled sideways.

 

[pomeroo]

Hi Archie:




Archie is deliberately misrepresenting the “Thermal and Mechanical Properties of Materials” data from Chapter 6 of “Designers' Guide to EN 1991-1-2, EN 1993-1-2 and EN 1994-1-2” (shown here) to carry out this “Building Fires Did It” charade. Then he turns around and pretends that ‘his’ intentions for posting this data has something ‘other’ than to do with the WTC skyscraper Controlled Demolitions part of these 9/11 attacks. If everyone except Terral and Heiwa knows about this ‘failure mode’ of 2800-degree structural red-iron steel and how it “fails in fire conditions” (this guys is out there man), then why do we have hundreds of professional architects and engineers preaching the Controlled Demolition Explanation with Dr. Steven Jones standing among them? Then again, why is this supposed Architect standing ‘against’ these same architects and engineers, so he can push the Official Bush Administration “Building Fires Did It” Cover Story? What is all of this “Pull It” business about, IF building fires could possibly take down WTC-7?? Watch Part 2 of “Justice For 9/11” and decide for yourself. Did Archie offer even one defending argument after quoting about half of Post #151? No. He offers up stupidity in the place of any kind of defense to his Official Cover Story stand . . .




No sir. I have read through everything and know for A FACT that you are misrepresenting the OP documentation that in itself makes no case for WTC-7 collapsing into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds from any building fire. Anyone willing to follow in your stupidity is encouraged to do so, but NONE of your “Building Fires Did It” nonsense has any basis in reality whatsoever. None at all. Zero.

GL,

Terral

You've been caught lying again. There aren't hundreds of engineers preaching the CD idiocy--just a handful of ineducable dunces.

When will you stop lying?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Discuss.

On a somewhat related note, I've come to the conclusion that the towers would not have collapsed (at least not when and in the manner that they did) had core columns not been severed. This is just based on some back of the envelope calculations, but the exterior columns become unstable and pull inwards to failure at roughly 600c and a 6kip inwards pull.

 

[Terral]

These "Building Fires Did It" Clowns Have NO Case For Anything At All. Talk, Talk ..

Hi West:

West >> Terral knows that there's a massive consensus among all the relevant professions that there was no demolition.

Terral knows no such thing. West is trying to ‘talk, talk, talk’ the Loyal Bushie ‘walk, walk, walk’ without citing even one professional architect or engineer anywhere. Did the 911Commission Report conclude from ANY of your experts that “Building Fires Did It” for this WTC-7 case? NO THEY DID NOT. Shall we run through the entire list of omissions, or concentrate just one a few for this very ‘one-sided’ debate?

911Reasearch

Omissions

The Report fails to acknowledge that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fires.

The Report fails to mention the total collapse of 47-story steel-framed skyscraper Building 7 at 5:20 on the day of the attack.

The Report contains no mention of the interview in which the owner of Building 7 states that he and the Fire Department decided to "pull" Building 7 -- an apparent admission of a conspiracy to destroy the building and its contents.

The Report fails to mention the rapid removal and recycling of the structural steel from the collapsed World Trade Center buildings, even to make excuses for it . . .

This bogus 911Commission Report does not even mention the WTC-7 case at all, but YOU want to pretend ‘they’ have a multitude of professional architects and engineers (you people are delusional) standing by to make ‘their’ case. What about the NIST Report? Did that bunch of Loyal Bushie con-artists conclude that WTC-7 collapsed CD-style into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds from building fires? NO THEY DID NOT.

Team Liberty

Because the federal government has hired ARA to conduct this research, there is no chance whatsoever of truth in the WTC-7 collapse investigation.

When asked by the Muckraker Report on March 20, 2006 if the federal government would be forthcoming if investigation conclusions regarding the collapse of World Trade Center Building Seven indicated that it collapsed at freefall speed onto its footprint as the direct result of a controlled demolition, Michael E. Newman, Public and Business Affairs spokesman for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said, “If that is the conclusion reached, that’s what we will release to the public.” When asked if the government’s previous conclusions [and this foolish Archie’s conclusions] reached to explain the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2) prohibited a “controlled demolition” conclusion regarding WTC-7, Newman said, “They do not.”

Where are all of your experts producing evidence for “Building Fires Did It” for any of these 9/11 Reports? How is Archie here drawing “Building Fires Did It” Conclusions from silly ‘testing data,’ when the 911Commission and NIST gangs could NOT produce THAT conclusion from all the known architectural and engineering professional expert testimony from all over the world? I will restate my challenge to these “Official Cover Story” advocates again: Produce an equal number of professional architects and engineers for the 268 currently signed onto AE911Truth.org ‘and’ the scholars at Scholars For 911Truth standing with them, then I will begin to examine the substance of your claims. Obviously the Inside-Job bad guys can afford to hire some architects and engineers to prop up their silly “Building Fires Did It” nonsense, but at some point ‘you’ are required to begin producing your evidence to support your “all the relevant professions” claims.

The fact is that you are jumping up and down yelling, “Building Fires Did It,” because “Senor Bushie told me so.” Right? Of course . . .

P.S. My case has been presented to my complete satisfaction on this thread and the powers-that-be would rather I not post on your topic any longer.

GL,

Terral