Reasonable doubt...All truthers(and whoever esle) please read

[triforcharity]

As I said he really is writing more of a newspaper article. Saying other steel frame collapses happened, when there appeared to be something wrong with the building, and comparing it to the WTC I don't know what's wrong with that.

I've already explained it to you. Shall I explain it to you again?

Did you contact the Charleston SC fire department to inquire how they feel about steel failing in fire?

Or, have you read the USFA report on the Charleston fire?

 

[triforcharity]

Dogwood theater you forgot to mention this

"Dogwood Elementary School, as well as other schools of similar construction in Fairfax County, was not subject to current code regulations since it was built in 1974."

And when were the WTC buildings built? (With the exception of 7WTC)

Sight and Sound theater: How would "The building was under construction and fire doors were not yet installed, allowing the fires to pass through these openings freely" possibly apply to building 7?

Building 7 had a huge gash in the side of it.......I wonder if that might have something to do with it.....

Building 5 didn't completely collapse.

I never said it did.

 

[triforcharity]

BTW, why is I spend 20+ minutes typing out a reply, addressing (99.9% of the time) every one of you points and you come back with some lame, 2 line response, that usually doesn't discuss anything in the previous post?

 

[dafydd]

BTW, why is I spend 20+ minutes typing out a reply, addressing (99.9% of the time) every one of you points and you come back with some lame, 2 line response, that usually doesn't discuss anything in the previous post?

Because the previous post always blows his missile fantasy out of the water.

 

[tmd2_1]

I've already explained it to you. Shall I explain it to you again?

Did you contact the Charleston SC fire department to inquire how they feel about steel failing in fire?

Or, have you read the USFA report on the Charleston fire?

I don't know much about it, I will have to look into it more.

 

[tmd2_1]

And when were the WTC buildings built? (With the exception of 7WTC)



Building 7 had a huge gash in the side of it.......I wonder if that might have something to do with it.....



I never said it did.

NIST themselves said the debris from the tower played no significant role int the collapse.

Also you can't just say forget about WTC 7 like it wasn't there.

 

[tmd2_1]

BTW, why is I spend 20+ minutes typing out a reply, addressing (99.9% of the time) every one of you points and you come back with some lame, 2 line response, that usually doesn't discuss anything in the previous post?

Well because by in large you are just addressing me at least in this thread. There are many people posting things, I try to answer everyone. Also sometimes I write answers that are in other posts I address to other people. But I do try to answer everything.

 

[The Platypus]

Well because by in large you are just addressing me at least in this thread. There are many people posting things, I try to answer everyone. Also sometimes I write answers that are in other posts I address to other people. But I do try to answer everything.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Well because by in large you are just addressing me at least in this thread. There are many people posting things, I try to answer everyone. Also sometimes I write answers that are in other posts I address to other people. But I do try to answer everything.

tmd2_1,

If you would confine yourself to one thread and answer questions thoroughly, including evidence to support your answers and other claims, you would be able to concentrate on one topic at a time.

I know it's going to be tough to do. Just a suggestion for the future.

 

[triforcharity]

NIST themselves said the debris from the tower played no significant role int the collapse.

Also you can't just say forget about WTC 7 like it wasn't there.

I've hilited the part you missed.

It still contributed to the spread of flames from one floor to another.

And I didn't. BTW, both towers were built in the 1960's, which was about the same time as the school.

 

[Animal]

I don't know much ...........

I agree

 

[sheeplesnshills]

NIST themselves said the debris from the tower played no significant role int the collapse.

Thats not what they said......you could at least quote them correctly.

Also you can't just say forget about WTC 7 like it wasn't there.

Why not? really who cares about an office block if which no one died on a day when two of the highest building in the world collapsed killing 3000 people including more than 300 Firemen.
WTC7 is a curiosity, of interest only to those that write building codes etc and nuts with a fetish for the utterly irrelevant.

 

[beachnut]

Dogwood theater you forgot to mention this

"Dogwood Elementary School, as well as other schools of similar construction in Fairfax County, was not subject to current code regulations since it was built in 1974."

Sight and Sound theater: How would "The building was under construction and fire doors were not yet installed, allowing the fires to pass through these openings freely" possibly apply to building 7?

Building 5 didn't completely collapse.

WTC 5 did not collapse completely? Why?

Add, reasons for firefighting, to the list of things 911 truth doesn't know.

 

[jaydeehess]

NIST themselves said the debris from the tower played no significant role int the collapse.

Actually no.
NIST stated that the debris impacts did not themselves lead to collapse. They also calculated that had the debris impacts not occured but that the fires did occur as seen then the building would have still collapsed.
What the impact damage did do is make the collapse faster and change the direction its constutuents went. Most specifically causing the collapse of the western 2/3rds of WTC 7 to fall to the south.

Also you can't just say forget about WTC 7 like it wasn't there.

The reason for concentrating on WTC 1 & 2 first is obvious. No one died in WTC 7 and it took 7 hours of unchecked fire to cause it to collapse, whereas in the towers less than an hour of fire caused the buildings to collapse killing thousands of people.

Of course your characterization of NIST "just" "forgetting" WTC 7 is rather obviously incorrect. They produced a preliminary report first and then when done with WTC 1 & 2 they went back and completed the final report on WTC 7.


You did read the report right?

 

[Craig4]

BTW, why is I spend 20+ minutes typing out a reply, addressing (99.9% of the time) every one of you points and you come back with some lame, 2 line response, that usually doesn't discuss anything in the previous post?

The reason is that this has nothing to do with evidence for tmd. He's already decided that no answer is good enough and nothing will dissuade him from concluding there is a cover up. It's important to him that he have a special understanding of the event surrounding 9/11 even in the face of contradictory facts.

You see life is not working out for tmd (as if it works out the way we planned for any of us) and it's important to him that he have this one unique understanding that makes him "special".

 

[000063]

NIST themselves said the debris from the tower played no significant role int the collapse.

Assuming they claimed that (they didn't), the debris set the fire that was largely responsible.

 

[jaydeehess]

Assuming they claimed that (they didn't), the debris set the fire that was largely responsible.

In much the same way that my lighter does not cook my hamburgers on the BBQ but without it the BBQ does not heat up either.

 

[tfk]

tmd,

So you're saying the NIST report is a "twoofer" website? Good to know.

Good to know the depth of your sincerity in these discussions. Thanks.

Anyway you go on and on, I'm not sure what you think is wrong with the article.

You're "not sure what think is wrong with the article"???

I've told you, explicitly, multiple times.

1. It's written by an incompetent.
2. It cites other incompetents.
3. Virtually every conclusion he draws is simply wrong.
4. Just about the only time that he gets something right is when he quotes real experts, like NIST & U Manchester Fire studies program.

He simply gives examples of steel frame collapses, cites what was wrong with them and compares them to the WTC He wasn't really doing much analysis. I'm not sure what the problem is. But you go on believing what you want to believe.

No, you don't get it.

Your liberal art student did draw engineering conclusions. Which you, with your architect training, cannot see are completely wrong.

Here are some of his conclusions:

Here I will show why these structures cannot be justifiably used as comparisons to the WTC buildings, based on the estimated damage parameters and fire severity for these structures.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the WTC buildings should not have collapsed from the types of fires that were seen on 9/11.

However, these factors have already been examined and dealt with accordingly.
[He didn't "deal with" anything. He simply asserts.]

Jim Hoffman has examined the partial collapse of the Windsor Tower [4], and notes that all this incident proves is that a huge building-consuming fire, after burning for many hours, can produce the collapse of parts of a building with weak steel supports lacking fire protection, and that the collapse events that do occur are gradual and partial.
[Hoffman is wrong. Taylor is wrong by quoting him.]

Hoffman has also examined the McCormick Place roof collapse that is often cited by debunkers, and has shown why this structure is also not comparable to the WTC buildings.
[Hoffman is wrong. Taylor is wrong by quoting him.]

If we are to draw comparisons between the WTC skyscrapers and other structures, then we would logically want to compare them to other skyscrapers.

Having already covered the Windsor Tower and McCormick Place
[He didn't "cover" anything about these two structures. He simply asserts.]

and on, and on, and on...

Each of these statements is simply wrong. Incorrect. Erroneous.

If you stick the work "not" into each of them at an appropriate location, then the conclusions become true.
____

Now, a couple of questions for you.

1. Why have you completely ignored the substance of my posts: that Bazant is a world expert and Taylor is a 20-something year old liberal arts student?? Do you disagree with either of those statements?

2. Did you read my quote from Vincent Dunn? Do you think that he is qualified? He disagrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Taylor's conclusions. Any response?

3. On issues of structural engineering & fire effects on buildings, why do you give credence to a liberal arts undergrad student, when his conclusions disagree conclusively with 50 year career, accomplished, recognized experts in those specific fields? Are you daft?

4. What motivates you? Politics? Iconoclasm? Paranoia?
___

Finally, a statement, not a question.

You asserted earlier that your architectural degree and my mechanical engineering degree made me (tfk) as qualified as you (tmd).

That is true. And somewhat insulting, in a "damned by faint praise" sorta way.

The contrapositive is NOT true, that you are as qualified as me.

You're not.

I'll offer 3 incontrovertible proofs:

1. You did not catch why virtually all of Mr. Taylor's conclusions are wrong.
This series of posts proves it.

2. You said, in an earlier post "free fall speed".
Anyone who says "free fall speed" immediately disqualifies themselves from the ranks of the competent.

3. You're a truther. I'm a debunker.
I invite you to, no, I IMPLORE you to approach any qualified, experienced & unbiased structural engineer. Explain that person A is a truther, and person B is a 9/11 truth debunker.

Ask him, with only that piece of information, which of these people is more technically qualified.

Ask 10 of them at random.

Come back with your results.

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd,



Good to know the depth of your sincerity in these discussions. Thanks.



You're "not sure what think is wrong with the article"???

I've told you, explicitly, multiple times.

1. It's written by an incompetent.
2. It cites other incompetents.
3. Virtually every conclusion he draws is simply wrong.
4. Just about the only time that he gets something right is when he quotes real experts, like NIST & U Manchester Fire studies program.



No, you don't get it.

Your liberal art student did draw engineering conclusions. Which you, with your architect training, cannot see are completely wrong.

Here are some of his conclusions:



and on, and on, and on...

Each of these statements is simply wrong. Incorrect. Erroneous.

If you stick the work "not" into each of them at an appropriate location, then the conclusions become true.
____

Now, a couple of questions for you.

1. Why have you completely ignored the substance of my posts: that Bazant is a world expert and Taylor is a 20-something year old liberal arts student?? Do you disagree with either of those statements?

2. Did you read my quote from Vincent Dunn? Do you think that he is qualified? He disagrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Taylor's conclusions. Any response?

3. On issues of structural engineering & fire effects on buildings, why do you give credence to a liberal arts undergrad student, when his conclusions disagree conclusively with 50 year career, accomplished, recognized experts in those specific fields? Are you daft?

4. What motivates you? Politics? Iconoclasm? Paranoia?
___

Finally, a statement, not a question.

You asserted earlier that your architectural degree and my mechanical engineering degree made me (tfk) as qualified as you (tmd).

That is true. And somewhat insulting, in a "damned by faint praise" sorta way.

The contrapositive is NOT true, that you are as qualified as me.

You're not.

I'll offer 3 incontrovertible proofs:

1. You did not catch why virtually all of Mr. Taylor's conclusions are wrong.
This series of posts proves it.

2. You said, in an earlier post "free fall speed".
Anyone who says "free fall speed" immediately disqualifies themselves from the ranks of the competent.

3. You're a truther. I'm a debunker.
I invite you to, no, I IMPLORE you to approach any qualified, experienced & unbiased structural engineer. Explain that person A is a truther, and person B is a 9/11 truth debunker.

Ask him, with only that piece of information, which of these people is more technically qualified.

Ask 10 of them at random.

Come back with your results.

I'm not sure where to begin with this. I'm really not. First of all you must have me confused with someone else. I never gave my qualifications, so I don't know where you got the architectural degree from.

Now your first comment, this is what you said previously, "One troofer website citation after another.

"The incompetent leading the clueless.""

Now let's look at citation 35

[35] NIST Final Report, page xxxviii (He makes several other references to NIST as well)

What am I to conclude about your thought on NIST?

Now let's see what you say. "2. It cites other incompetents." Again your feeling on NIST.

And now we have a really great one. You said "2. You said, in an earlier post "free fall speed".
Anyone who says "free fall speed" immediately disqualifies themselves from the ranks of the competent."

Let's see what NIST says shall we? "In Stage 2, the north face descended at GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This FREE FALL DROP continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0m (105ft), the distance traveled between times t=1.75s and t=4.0s."

You must have a real low opinion of NIST.

But anyway, on to what I guess is your argument. Most of what you say is Bazant in an expert and Taylor is an idiot, so therefore Taylor is wrong. That's a great argument. All Taylor does is mention other steel frame collapses and cite what was wrong with them. Known facts, like stuff FEMA may have mentioned, or some other body. He than compares it to the WTC. I really don't see what he did as wrong? I won't address this again, try addressing what's actually in the article.

Now I guess I will answer your questions.


1. Why have you completely ignored the substance of my posts: that Bazant is a world expert and Taylor is a 20-something year old liberal arts student?? Do you disagree with either of those statements?

I agree, that Bazant is an expert and Taylor is a 20-something year old liberal arts student

2. Did you read my quote from Vincent Dunn? Do you think that he is qualified? He disagrees wholeheartedly with Mr. Taylor's conclusions. Any response?

I read it. He didn't say he disagrees with Taylor. I mean those exact words. I'm not sure how you can disagree with him, he just posts know facts about the buildings that collapsed.


3. On issues of structural engineering & fire effects on buildings, why do you give credence to a liberal arts undergrad student, when his conclusions disagree conclusively with 50 year career, accomplished, recognized experts in those specific fields? Are you daft?

He's simply reporting on known facts.



4. What motivates you? Politics? Iconoclasm? Paranoia?

I'm motivated to find the truth, we all (not just Americans) deserve to know the truth of that day. That day changed so many things, if we are living a lie it should stop.

 

[tmd2_1]

Actually no.
NIST stated that the debris impacts did not themselves lead to collapse. They also calculated that had the debris impacts not occured but that the fires did occur as seen then the building would have still collapsed.
What the impact damage did do is make the collapse faster and change the direction its constutuents went. Most specifically causing the collapse of the western 2/3rds of WTC 7 to fall to the south.


The reason for concentrating on WTC 1 & 2 first is obvious. No one died in WTC 7 and it took 7 hours of unchecked fire to cause it to collapse, whereas in the towers less than an hour of fire caused the buildings to collapse killing thousands of people.

Of course your characterization of NIST "just" "forgetting" WTC 7 is rather obviously incorrect. They produced a preliminary report first and then when done with WTC 1 & 2 they went back and completed the final report on WTC 7.


You did read the report right?

Come on man you know what I meant.

NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-ncstar1-a-27

I didn't mean NIST forgetting WTC 7 I meant tri. His answers were to some of my points was that it didn't apply to the towers. I was saying "Yeah but it still applies to WTC 7"

I'm not saying they shouldn't concentrate on the towers, but they sure as hell should concentrate on WTC 7 too. It's inexplicable a building like that falling from fires, and at free fall speed for portions of it (as NIST admitted)