AE911Truth Watch

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7
UL would certainly test steel components that were representative of the ones that were to be used in the building.

No, they didn't.[childish insult deleted].

Source?


Who said they did not test the steel components?

On Edit: Ryan was fired because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." (Paul Baker, UL spokesman)

He did NOT say or indicate that his opinions were UL's opinions.

"[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements."

He is stating facts he had learned by reading reports and expressing his concerns.

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[uk_dave]

Chris, you've really bought the lies of the 'truth' movement.

Try investigating it yourself. You know, no CT sites. Maybe contact UL and ask them.

Don't forget to mention the law suit brought by Ryan. That'll give them a giggle.

 

[Confuseling]

Please explain why the Chinese government isn't all over the clear proof that the US government was in on the attacks Christopher7.

I find this confusing. They would be the preeminent global superpower if they could incite a revolution in the US.

If I were them, that's what I'd do.

 

[Christopher7]

Actually Gage was around last year and only parrot's Jones and others who have all been there for quite some time. So who is new?

He has gathered facts and evidence from many sources. Based on that evidence and his 20 years of experience, he believes the 3 buildings could not have fallen the way the did without explosives.
You are desperately trying to find a reason to deny his credibility.
It just doesn't wash.

In matters of explosives we asked for explosives experts. You had Jowenko but he stands pretty much alone in his feild in saying that any CD was involved.

Thorin Wolf is an expert in explosives but you no doubt have a lame excuse to dismiss him too.
Let's face it, no matter how many experts like Jones, Gage and 300 architects and engineers, Jowenko, Jeff King etc. say something you can't deal with, you will find a reason to dismiss them out of hand.

We asked for structural engineers and got Judy Woods who's hypotheses are plain ridiculous,

Can you spell 'strawman'?

Griffin? A theologian?

Yes a theologian. He is an intelligent, educated person. He does not claim to be an expert, just a concerned citizen who sees the obvious flaws in the official story.

Ryan's expertise was in water quality and he was making pronouncements about steel.

He did not claim to be an expert in steel.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]He did some research, noted his sources and expressed his concerns.
[/FONT][/FONT]

The pilots at P4T cannot do simple physics. Some even require basic math corrections(I once had to point out that someone had calculated a desent rate and it was 60 times to high.

Someone? who? when?
Please point out where P4T is wrong.

Fire experts who have studied the towers are for the greatest part, in agreement that the steel was weakened by heat enough to cause the collapse.

Source?
NIST was NOT able to confirm steel framework temperatures in excess of 250° C.

Yes qualifications mean something, we all know that. The qualifications should be in relevent areas which can certainly mean,for example, that despite having a degree in structural engineering it does not make you an expert in steel building construction if your course of work is in dental amalgams.

There are experts in ALL relevant areas who say the official story is a crock. [or words to that effect]

It makes him an expert in physics. He can then state that the building took approx 10-20% longer to collapse than a chunk of steel falling from the top would take. That's about it. Once he delves into how long it 'should' have taken he is in a feild of expertise for which he has not had any training.

He is qualified to say that the 3 buildings could not have fallen as fast as they did without explosives.
You are NOT qualified to say he is wrong.
You are again trying to deny what you can't deal with.

Bazant however does have that training and Bazant claims that the towers would collapse once initial failure had taken place.

Source?

Others with relevent expertise have shown that fire would suffice, after aircraft impacts, to have caused that initial failure.

Source?

When Jones delves into the chemistry of thermite in a forensic situation, he is in another feild other than physics.

He is qualified to conduct tests for thermate and analyize results.
You seem to think that people know nothing outside their area of expertise.
Such is not the case.

Ryan wrote his letter in such a way as to make it appear that it was from UL and not a personal opinion of someone who just happened to work at UL in unrelated division.

Wrong!
He made it clear that his concerns were his own.

If I wrote a letter to the CRTC (Canadian equivalent to the FCC) on my station's letterhead and complained that they had made an error,

He did not say NIST was in error, he pointed out a discrepancy and expressed his concerns.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]"

[/FONT][/FONT]

That fact is Ryan tried to pass himself off as greater than he was

False.
Please point out where you think he misrepresented himself.

 

[Minadin]

Chris, you've really bought the lies of the 'truth' movement.

Try investigating it yourself. You know, no CT sites. Maybe contact UL and ask them.

Don't forget to mention the law suit brought by Ryan. That'll give them a giggle.

Indeed. But since Chris7 is unlikely to wish to recall all (or any) of that mess, I'll provide links and highlights here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90210&highlight=Kevin+Ryan
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation

Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address, using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion, not UL's

UL was entitled to fire him for his sending the letter to NIST
containing many false or unsubstantiated assertions" and "baseless
assertions" and "incredible and unsupported claims" because he
misrepresented his opinions as that of the company

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72610


Here's his original letter to Frank Gayle of the NIST -

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

And some excerpts:

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

Kevin Ryan actually uses his place of employment in his opening remark, presumably to gain the attention of Mr. Gayle.

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

Kevin Ryan flaunts his complete lack of knowledge about structural steel and its performance in fires at certain temperatures. Also, his ignorance as to how the UL tests steel. Which makes some sense considering that's certainly not his department.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

Now, he's implying that he is in fact representing the interests of UL in writing this letter.

But besides all this, Ryan is simply lying when he says that the UL certifies structural steel. He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle. How does he know, you might ask? Well, he was told as much by the manager of the building and fire safety department at UL, nearly a year before he drafted the above letter:

[QUOTE="J. Thomas Chapin]UL does not certify structural steel.

......The floor assembly in the World Trade Center was not was not a UL tested assembly.[/QUOTE]
http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55-5ExhibitCExcerptsfromemailcorresp.pdf

Of course, I can easily verify this, because I have sitting on my shelf in the back room at my office, a 3-volume copy of UL's Fire Resistance Directory - 2003. In its roughly 4,000 pages of listings of various types of assemblies, you will in no place find what is the innate fire resistance rating of a 22k7 steel bar joist. However, you will rather easily be able to discover what the rating will be after the application of various materials and methods to insulate it.

The UL doesn't test the steel. They don't certify the steel. They test assemblies. They give performance ratings and assembly numbers based on the results of the test, so that designers know what to expect when certain products are put together in a particular way. And, for anyone who might be curious, it should be noted that the UL certainly does not test any steel assemblies that are themselves used in any buildings later on. The tests tend to have a rather destructive effect on the steel, which renders it useless for the purposes it was designed.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Stephen Jones is a EXPERT on the laws of physics.
He is qualified to say "According to the laws of physics, the Trade Towers could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.
He doesn't need to know squat about explosives, only that the buildings could not have fallen the way they did without them.

Sadly, he then goes on to explain which of the laws of physics the collapse violates, and in what way, and gets it wrong [1]. In making his appeal to his own authority, he invalidates the very authority he's appealing to.

Dave

[1] Speaking as an expert on the laws of physics.

 

[uk_dave]

Thorin Wolf is an expert in explosives but you no doubt have a lame excuse to dismiss him too.

NO, he's not. Don't be a sheeple to the 'truth' movement chris.

WAKE UP!

Think for yourself.

You know people lie, right? Well the 'truth' movement is full of liars. You have to stop listening just because they tell you what you want to hear.

Think.
Question.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Stephen Jones is a EXPERT on the laws of physics.
He is qualified to say "According to the laws of physics, the Trade Towers could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.
He doesn't need to know squat about explosives, only that the buildings could not have fallen the way they did without them.

being an expert on the laws of physics doesnt qualify him to state what forces the materials and construction of the towers should and shouldnt have been able to withstand

He is also highly qualified to conduct experiments on WTC dust where he has found evidence of thermate.

being an expert on the laws of phsyics doesnt make him an expert in chemistry either

 

[DGM]

When did Jones confirm his evidence of "thermate" Chris?

Last I saw it was down to one of a dozen or so things. (all natural and expected no less)

 

[AZCat]

<wonderfully explicit response to C7 snipped for brevity>

Excellent work, Minadin. I'd just like to add that if anyone wants to read the 2008 version of ASTM E 119, it is available for $49(U.S.) from ASTM. Previous (and superceded) versions are available for $58 from the same web site. For our friends across the water (and up north), it is important to note that the units in the standard are inch-pounds. Free unit converters are available on the internet for those who are unfamiliar with the IP system.

 

[boloboffin]

Anyway, back to the actual OP of this thread for an announcement:

Richard Gage has changed the slideshow available at his website AGAIN.

This is the third version, if you're keeping count. Several mistakes he had corrected in the second version, he has jumped back on board with in the third (most notably the "small fires in WTC 7"). I'm trying to make my way through the slideshow quickly, but the videos are being stored in a remarkably buggy way. Any video slide forces you to watch the entire video before proceeding.

Luckily, I was put out of typing action for a while due to a nasty dog bite. I didn't get very far with the debunking of the second slideshow (now no longer available on their website).

So due to life and the various shenanigans at AE911Truth, a complete slide-by-slide debunking may prove to be impossible. I will move forward as I can. The slides I've done so far will still apply to the new slideshow. But when I get this thing finished is anybody's guess. I imagine we'll get three more slideshows before the end of the year at this rate.

 

[jaydeehess]

He has gathered facts and evidence from many sources. Based on that evidence and his 20 years of experience, he believes the 3 buildings could not have fallen the way the did without explosives.
You are desperately trying to find a reason to deny his credibility.
It just doesn't wash.

Ryan steps out of his area of expertise quite frequently. In fact in the speech I saw he spent more time on such things as public opinion polls as on anything remotely connected to architecture.

His 20 years of expertise contain no evidence that he has worked on the construction of anything that one would regard as a large office building let alone any work on failure modes in such structures.

Thorin Wolf is an expert in explosives but you no doubt have a lame excuse to dismiss him too.

I did not say Jowenko was alone, I said pretty much alone. You know full well the other demolitions experts that counter Jowenko's and Wolf's contentions.

Let's face it, no matter how many experts like Jones, Gage and 300 architects and engineers, Jowenko, Jeff King etc. say something you can't deal with, you will find a reason to dismiss them out of hand.

I have not seen any compelling arguements from any of them. Nor have I seen any that look better than Bazant's or NIST's for example.

Can you spell 'strawman'?

She was the first 'structural engineer' that the TM put forth. That is hardly my fault Chris.

Yes a theologian. He is an intelligent, educated person. He does not claim to be an expert, just a concerned citizen who sees the obvious flaws in the official story.

So is Reynolds, you choose not to believe him.

He did not claim to be an expert in steel.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]He did some research, noted his sources and expressed his concerns.
[/FONT][/FONT]

He sent the letter on UL letterhead. Nevertheless he fought his firing and the courts upheld UL's position. Ryan had every opportunity to explain his actions, he lost.

Someone? who? when?

Calls himself "Bill"
Says he is a Cessna pilot.
Sometime before I was banned at P4T for trying to get JDX et al to write a technical paper and submit it to "Aviation Week and Space Technology" or "Scientific American" or "Discover" or "Technology Review" in order to get their message out that the FDR data did not match the accepted flight path of Flight 77.

Please point out where P4T is wrong.

To start with, and most recently, in their contention that a flight path over the VDOT tower by Flt 77 would have required 11 g's on the airframe which would tear it apart. Their math was shown to be wrong, laughably wrong. They claim that they knew it was wrong before being shown by people here that it was indeed wrong. They claim they are working on correcting the math but have not taken the page down.

Source?
NIST was NOT able to confirm steel framework temperatures in excess of 250° C.

Eagar, "Fire Engineering" magazine come to mind

There are experts in ALL relevant areas who say the official story is a crock. [or words to that effect]

as well as experts in ALL relevent areas that say the various and diverse stories of the TM are a crock.[or words to that effect]

He is qualified to say that the 3 buildings could not have fallen as fast as they did without explosives.
You are NOT qualified to say he is wrong.
You are again trying to deny what you can't deal with.

No, he has no specofic training in explosives or explosive demolitions.

Source?

You want a source for Bazant's expertise? Look him up!

Source?

For others who have done research on fire behaviour in the towers? Try the signatories of the NIST report.

He is qualified to conduct tests for thermate and analyize results.
You seem to think that people know nothing outside their area of expertise.
Such is not the case.

Someone who is working outside their major area of expertise can indeed educate themselves to work in other areas. Why though would Jones state that the presence of sulphur IS the marker of thermite when in fact even the gypsum board of the towers contained sulphur? He has no experience in forensics.

 

[R.Mackey]

"Thorin" Wolf?

We got dwarves petitioning for a new investigation now..?

 

[jaydeehess]

From Torin Wolf - all round expert

Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.” How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds
“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."

Note the bolds

First of all what he describes would require each floor collapse to come to a complete halt at the next level, if each floor took the same amount of time to collapse. There is absolutly no reason to require such a thing.(not to mention I don't know what math he used. 110 X 0.5 = 55 seconds) Is he only counting collapse from the 86th floor?

Next, 8.6 seconds? Really? Try 10-16 seconds depending on just how you are measuring the collapse after it is hidden by the dust cloud.

Lastly, if 110,000 structural failures occured all at the same time then the building would have collapsed all at the same time. That is to say that the 2nd floor would have started moving at the same time as the 90th. Given that such simply did not occur one has to wonder why he says it did.
Because he is correct in one thing. In order for a building to fall at "free fall speed" he would be correct to say that all floors would have to start moving at the same time. But since that observation does not apply here neither does his contention.

ETA: one needs only high school physics to show that Wolf is in error

 

[Christopher7]

Sadly, he then goes on to explain which of the laws of physics the collapse violates, and in what way, and gets it wrong [1]. In making his appeal to his own authority, he invalidates the very authority he's appealing to.
Dave
[1] Speaking as an expert on the laws of physics.

An anonymous poster claims to be an expert and says the Professor of 20 years with 2 PhD's is wrong about everything.

There's a bit of a credibility gap here.

 

[WildCat]

There's a bit of a credibility gap here.

There sure is! Your "experts" had to create their own "journal" to publish their "scientific papers" in. What does that tell you Chris?

 

[R.Mackey]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Dr. Steven Jones only has one Ph.D., and since his many writings in the (possibly eponymous) "Journal" of Nine-Eleven Studies" have been exposed here over and over again, there is no credibility gap whatsoever. Dr. Jones's beliefs were also disputed en masse by the structural engineering department at his own university.

The man's writings are false. His credentials are therefore irrelevant, except in that he surely should have known better.

 

[AZCat]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Dr. Steven Jones only has one Ph.D., and since his many writings in the (possibly eponymous) "Journal" of Nine-Eleven Studies" have been exposed here over and over again, there is no credibility gap whatsoever. Dr. Jones's beliefs were also disputed en masse by the structural engineering department at his own university.

The man's writings are false. His credentials are therefore irrelevant, except in that he surely should have known better.

You are correct. For some reason Jones' c.v. is still posted on the BYU website. He lists only one PhD (and I hope Steven Jones is an acceptable source for C7 regarding the degrees obtained by Steven Jones).

The original statement posted on the BYU College of Engineering and Technology has been taken down, but this article from the BYU NewsNet says the following regarding the statement (the article was written while it was still up)

Not long after this spate of interviews, BYU’s College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences posted a statement on its Web site stressing Jones’ right to publish what he wished while distancing itself from Jones’ current research. That statement has since been removed, but a similar one is still online at the College of Engineering and Technology’s Web site.
“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.
“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”
Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Christopher7]

Indeed. But since Chris7 is unlikely to wish to recall all (or any) of that mess, I'll provide links and highlights here:

Quite the contrary, thank you and LashL for the URL's

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90210&highlight=Kevin+Ryan
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72610

Here's his original letter to Frank Gayle of the NIST -
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php


He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle.

Thomas Chapin PhD General Manager, Fire and Construction SBU - UL Inc. to Kevin Ryan – 12-1-03
UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are* used as * component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.
i.e. an ‘assembly’ is a [singular] structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.

Ryan used the word ‘components’ rather than the word ‘assemblies’ in his first sentence.
You ignored the qualifying statement later in the paragraph and called him a liar.

*incorrect word/phrase, should be: “Structural steel ……. is used as a component in assemblies”


For those of you with reading impairments;

“the samples we certified” modifies and clarifies the statement;

“the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

***************************************************

Kevin Ryan to Dr. Gayle, 11-11-04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”


It’s perfectly clear that Ryan and Knoblauch were referring to the steel samples/assemblies that UL tested.

 

[Christopher7]

You are correct. For some reason Jones' c.v. is still posted on the BYU website. He lists only one PhD (and I hope Steven Jones is an acceptable source for C7 regarding the degrees obtained by Steven Jones).

I read somewhere that he had 2 PhD's. If he only has 1, it does not lessen his experience, expertise or credibility.
No one here is qualified to refute Prof. Jones or his findings.
but
Personal incredulity won't let you accept what any 'twoofer' expert says.
i.e. No matter how qualified or how many experts question the official story, I will NOT believe that Bush & Cheney are lying about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

The original statement posted on the BYU College of Engineering and Technology has been taken down, but this article from the BYU NewsNet says the following regarding the statement (the article was written while it was still up)
(emphasis mine)

So
Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both say:

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

It appears that the someone [the administration?] did not approve of the post because they took it down.
How many of the structural engineering faculty and administrators besides Steve and Rick signed on to this post?