Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Mr.Herbert]

.

Building codes would not permit such a hazardous situation.

Please site the NYC Building Code article.

Main Site:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/html/reference/code_internet.shtml

Fire Protection:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/bldgs_code/bc27s5.pdf

Heating and Combustion Equipment:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dob/downloads/bldgs_code/bc27s14.pdf

BTW: the transformers were in the sub station in building 7. do?

You are clueless when it comes to building construction. Do you know what a transformer is? Do you know what they do? Do you realize there are a LOT of transformers in large buildings?

The firefighters arrived after the planes hit. It was not a jet fuel explosion. Had you actually watched the video you would know that but you just open your deniers handbook and copy what's there.

There was a bomb planted in the lobby? Can you please show any victims from the lobby that sustained injuries that were caused by a bomb?

 

[Christopher7]

There was a bomb planted in the lobby? Can you please show any victims from the lobby that sustained injuries that were caused by a bomb?

You still haven't watched this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Bob McIlvain's son was killed by the lobby blast blew the windows out. He was standing outside and the glass hit him in the face and chest.

You are the one claiming that the explosions that destroyed the lobby were transformers or something like that, but that is supposition and you have NO proof. You will not admit that what destroyed the lobby could have been explosives.

The code will say what is allowed and what the restrictions are. There is no single quote to point to. I am a contractor and I know that building codes are very strict for commercial buildings but a fire engineer would be able to give a more precise answer. You know darn well that codes would not permit hazardous situations like something that could blow up the lobby - the main egress for the building.

 

[NoahFence]

You still haven't watched this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Bob McIlvain's son was killed by the lobby blast blew the windows out. He was standing outside and the glass hit him in the face and chest.

Any associated fires with that blast? When was it? Specifically, what time?

I hope you understand that if it were any more than say, 15 seconds prior to the collapse, it's pretty much irrelevant.

Unless Hush-A-Boom^TM explosives also come with a delayed reaction....

 

[funk de fino]

No, the problem is that you don't understand what I'm talking about and it is clearly intentional. Kindly take your snotty attitude and your childish insults and return them to that dark recess from whence they came.

Have a nice day.

He schooled you and you are too arrogant and dishonest to even see it.

If you even understood what eutectic was you would see your thermite/thermate arguments were deeply flawed.

 

[dafydd]

For reference, an old smearogram* of the penthouse descent through the structure, with the progression marked...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/14787397.png[/qimg]

* Smearogram - A plot of a 1-pixel wide vertical slice of video over time.

Can't remember doing one for the other view, but if I don't find one in my piling system, I'll knock one together.

Ooh,a straight line this time. Well done.

 

[Christopher7]

He schooled you and you are too arrogant and dishonest to even see it.

If you even understood what eutectic was you would see your thermite/thermate arguments were deeply flawed.

You missed this:
[note how the word eutectic is used in the sentence]

The beam melted. i.e. it was heated until it turned to liquid.
FEMA C Pg 1-2
Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

melt/melt/
Verb: Become liquefied by heat.

 

[grandmastershek]

You still haven't watched this video...

Interviewer "Was it a secondary explosion?"

Fireman "Yes it was"

Secondary explosions are not the result of explosives. (User's manual for NFPA 921: guide for fire and explosion investigations By National Fire Protection Association, p. 251)

 

[funk de fino]

You missed this:
[note how the word eutectic is used in the sentence]

The beam melted. i.e. it was heated until it turned to liquid.
FEMA C Pg 1-2
Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

melt/melt/
Verb: Become liquefied by heat.

I know what eutectic means. You fail to see that it destroys your arguments.

 

[funk de fino]

The beam melted. i.e. it was heated until it turned to liquid.

This is an epic fail.

I can bold parts too.

FEMA C Pg 1-2
Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

 

[Christopher7]

Interviewer "Was it a secondary explosion?"

Fireman "Yes it was"

Secondary explosions are not the result of explosives. (User's manual for NFPA 921: guide for fire and explosion investigations By National Fire Protection Association, p. 251)

Never ever?

The proof that you are in denial is that you cannot even admit that all these secondary explosions could be explosives.

 

[funk de fino]

Never ever?

The proof that you are in denial is that you cannot even admit that all these secondary explosions could be explosives.

NIST reinterviewed many of the witness again. They did not say they heard bombs or explosives.

They were there, you were not. OK?

 

[triforcharity]

CRT monitors and toner cartridges - blow up the lobby??? Get serious please.

Show proof that any of these were present and in a position to blow up the lobby or stop making that claim.

Building codes would not permit such a hazardous situation.

BTW: the transformers were in the sub station in building 7.

The firefighters arrived after the planes hit. It was not a jet fuel explosion. Had you actually watched the video you would know that but you just open your deniers handbook and copy what's there.

Which video? The one you didn't post? Maybe I missed it......

And as carlitos said, many of the firefighters didn't realize what the explosions were, and assumed explosions. When, in fact it was people's lives ending at that very moment.

BTW, high voltage transformers would have been found in the HVAC equipment, and also in the motors mentioned previously.

 

[Christopher7]

NIST reinterviewed many of the witness again. They did not say they heard bombs or explosives.

There were many who said it sounded like explosives or bombs but that means nothing to a denier. You always say "That's just a simile". You cannot bring yourself to admit tha any of the explosions were explosives.

Again, the multiple explosions that blew up the lobby could only be explosives. There were no fires on the bottom floors and building codes would not permit something that could cause such an explosion.

Did they reinterview these firefighters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

or these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mlw1r1Pec

or this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY95decSS_I

or this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls&feature=player_embedded

or these reporters:

We've heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted. Whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coop de grass to bring them to the ground.
At 1:24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k&eurl=

MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
" I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
At 2:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k&eurl=

Reporter Jack Kelly
"Apparently what appears to happened was that at the same time two planes hit the buildings, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the building which also exploded at the same time and brought those buildings down."
At 1:34 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk&feature=related

NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. . . . . and then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. . . . . . The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
At 1:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refmjRorR18&feature=player_embedded


Despite all this and a lot more, deniers insist that there is no evidence of bombs or explosives.

 

[triforcharity]

Talk to yourself much?

I understand perfectly. The beam melted. i.e. it was heated until it turned to liquid.
FEMA C Pg 1-2
Evidence of severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting was readily visible in the near surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot sulfur attack on the steel. This sulfur rich liquid penetrated preferentially down the grain boundaries of the steel severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000°C (1,800°F) which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel.

melted past participle, past tense of melt (Verb)
1. Become liquefied by heat.
2. Change (something) to a liquid condition by heating it.


Might I suggest "Rosy's Remedial Reader" for your bedtime story tonight.

May I suggest the same for you? You seem to have missed a VERY important word there, as you usually do.

 

[triforcharity]

You still haven't watched this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

Bob McIlvain's son was killed by the lobby blast blew the windows out. He was standing outside and the glass hit him in the face and chest.

You are the one claiming that the explosions that destroyed the lobby were transformers or something like that, but that is supposition and you have NO proof. You will not admit that what destroyed the lobby could have been explosives.

The code will say what is allowed and what the restrictions are. There is no single quote to point to. I am a contractor and I know that building codes are very strict for commercial buildings but a fire engineer would be able to give a more precise answer. You know darn well that codes would not permit hazardous situations like something that could blow up the lobby - the main egress for the building.

So, please cite the code.

PS. The video you linked to was immediately after the first tower collapsed, and they were in the other tower.

But hey, way to go there sherlock.....

I work with fire protection engineers almost on a daily basis. It's part of my job. I have no doubt that when I ask them tomorrow, that they will know nothing about this code you speak of.....

 

[Christopher7]

BTW, high voltage transformers would have been found in the HVAC equipment, and also in the motors mentioned previously.

You are assuming no doubt.

Please give a source. Where was the HVAC equipment? Source?

 

[Animal]

You are assuming no doubt.

Please give a source. Where was the HVAC equipment? Source?

The only assumptions being made are about bombs in the lobby.

 

[Christopher7]

So, please cite the code.

There is no single code.

PS. The video you linked to was immediately after the first tower collapsed, and they were in the other tower.

Source?
That does not change the fact that multiple explosions destroyed the lobby.

I work with fire protection engineers almost on a daily basis. It's part of my job. I have no doubt that when I ask them tomorrow, that they will know nothing about this code you speak of.....

Ask them if building safety codes would allow something that could explode in or near the lobby that could destroy the lobby. Show them this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

 

[triforcharity]

There were many who said it sounded like explosives or bombs but that means nothing to a denier. You always say "That's just a simile". You cannot bring yourself to admit tha any of the explosions were explosives.

Again, the multiple explosions that blew up the lobby could only be explosives. There were no fires on the bottom floors and building codes would not permit something that could cause such an explosion.

Did they reinterview these firefighters?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o

or these?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Mlw1r1Pec

or this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY95decSS_I

or this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozTnINH6Yls&feature=player_embedded

or these reporters:

We've heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted. Whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coop de grass to bring them to the ground.
At 1:24 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k&eurl=

MSNBC Reporter, Rick Sanchez:
" I spoke with some police officials moments ago, Chris, and they told me they have reason to believe that one of the explosions at the WTC besides the ones made with the planes, may have been caused by a van that was parked on the building that may have had an explosive device in it."
At 2:35 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k&eurl=

Reporter Jack Kelly
"Apparently what appears to happened was that at the same time two planes hit the buildings, that the FBI most likely thinks that there was a car or truck packed with explosives underneath the building which also exploded at the same time and brought those buildings down."
At 1:34 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8XBxw7k8rk&feature=related

NBC Reporter, Pat Dawson:
[Albert Turi the Chief of Safety for the New York Fire Department] received word of the possibility of a secondary device, that is another bomb going off. . . . . and then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took place, he said there was another explosion that took place in one of the towers here, so obviously according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building. . . . . . The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building.“
At 1:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=refmjRorR18&feature=player_embedded


Despite all this and a lot more, deniers insist that there is no evidence of bombs or explosives.

Hey, since you like to bring up the FDNY, let's talk about this for a minute.

Does anyone who was in that building believe there were bombs?

No.

How do I know?

Well, let's do a little research. I know, it's lost on you, but i've already done all the legwork for you. Now you just have to pay attention.

Ready?

Go to this site.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/audiosrc/nyregion/met_WTCTAPES_02.02.mp3

Listen to the mp3.

IIRC, about 10 minutes in, the dispatch from Brooklyn comes on the Manhattan channel, and says that the NYPD has a report of a bomb in one of the tunnels, and incoming units should avoid the area.

AVOID THE AREA!!

Now, when these firefighters thought the explosions going off were bombs, why didn't ANY of them advise any of the other units in the area to stay out or to evacuate? This would be standard protocol per FDNY.

Why didn't they do this Chris7?

Because they knew that EXPLOSIONS in an office fire was NORMAL, and to be EXPECTED.

You can listen to the entire audio of the Manhattan dispatch here

I've listened to them. NOWHERE does ANYONE call for an evacuation due to a bomb.

So, why would that be Chris7?

Please give me one good reason why my friends didn't do their job.

 

[triforcharity]

You are assuming no doubt.

Please give a source. Where was the HVAC equipment? Source?

I don't assume that there are high voltage transformers in the equipment specified.

Again, please give some actual evidence of a bomb in the lobby.

Show me ONE victim that exhibited baratraumatic injuries.

JUST ONE......