AE911Truth Watch

[thebestodb]

I didn't realize you wanted the thread to never end. hah, I'm done with my stupid input.

 

[ktesibios]

Wrong

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

UL tested components/samples/assemblies with all the required fireproofing, before the Trade Towers were built.
There were NO samples from the Trade Towers.
Where does it say that UL had done any testing post 9/11 ?

Read NISTNCSTAR 1-6 pp. 39-56. The ASTM E119 fire resistance rating tests NIST had performed on floor assemblies built as in the WTC towers (because NIST could find no documentation of such tests being performed prior to the construction of the towers) were done at the UL furnace facility in Toronto.

 

[Christopher7]

Read NISTNCSTAR 1-6 pp. 39-56. The ASTM E119 fire resistance rating tests NIST had performed on floor assemblies built as in the WTC towers (because NIST could find no documentation of such tests being performed prior to the construction of the towers) were done at the UL furnace facility in Toronto.

You are right.
Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the testing done post 9/11.

Ryan: 11/11/04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04 . . . . .
. . . . the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. . . . the samples we certified met all requirements.

Knoblauch: 11/15/04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

 

[Christopher7]

Nist 10-19-04

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf

 

[Christopher7]

[FONT=&quot]This thread is about AE 911 Truth and the so called "debunking".

[/FONT]Originally Posted by C7
What have you debunked so far?

Originally Posted by applecorped
everything.

Originally Posted by C7
Could you be a little more specific?

Originally Posted by Drs_Res
Why?


[FONT=&quot]I did not find any problems in the first 28 pages, did you?



[/FONT]

 

[beachnut]

A&E are debunked. They have not come up with anything new, have they? No, they use old worn out false information.

Why are they even a group? Who is so lacking in knowledge about 9/11 who would join a group with no evidence to support anything they claim?

Gage's only goal is to get more people so he can get more money. He found that some people will suspend rational thought, not think for themselves and donate him money on the internet. He is the old snake oil salesmen bit now on the worldwide web; making money. Did an infomercial guy set up Gage to earn money online?

 

[Christopher7]

A&E are debunked.

Blanket denial is meaningless.

What specific errors did you find in the first 30 pages?

 

[Arus808]

you mean what specific errors can be found in the first statement on their website?

" Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

[FONT=Courier New,Courier,monospace] 309 [/FONT]architectural and engineering professionals
and [FONT=Courier New,Courier,monospace] 1277 [/FONT] other supporters including A/E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation."
​

Theirlist isn't of 309 architectural and engineering professionals.

if they can't even get their count right (and confirm that his membership is only architectural and engineering professionals) why should we believe anything on that site?

 

[boloboffin]

Sigh.

The first 28 pages of the slideshow as it now stands (the third iteration) includes a section from 911 Mysteries and most of the This Is An Orange short, which purports to tell the entire story of Building 7 based on visual identification. The errors in these two film clips are legion.

It also includes this key slide:

Which is about as full of as possible. The most amusing thing about this is that Gage will never use this slide again. He changes this so that it will apply to WTC 7 (eliminating squibs and adding "pools of molten iron"), and then changes it even further to apply it to the Towers. He used to put the exact slide he uses for WTC 7 here, but now he has three separate lists of characteristic features of controlled demolition.

None of them are complete. All of them contain superfluous and non-exclusive elements. And Gage will do a job of applying them to the buildings.

 

[Christopher7]

you mean what specific errors can be found in the first statement on their website?

" Welcome to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth!

[FONT=Courier New,Courier,monospace] 309 [/FONT]architectural and engineering professionals
and [FONT=Courier New,Courier,monospace] 1277 [/FONT] other supporters including A/E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation."
​

Theirlist isn't of 309 architectural and engineering professionals.

if they can't even get their count right (and confirm that his membership is only architectural and engineering professionals) why should we believe anything on that site?

Now there's a good reason to write the whole thing off.

The exact count is of no real consequence to anyone but a nitpicker looking for a reason to deny the facts presented at ae91truth.

Get real and dispute the facts presented in the first 30 pages.

 

[Christopher7]

Sigh.

The first 28 pages of the slideshow as it now stands (the third iteration) includes a section from 911 Mysteries and most of the This Is An Orange short, which purports to tell the entire story of Building 7 based on visual identification. The errors in these two film clips are legion.

Please point out the errors.

It also includes this key slide:

http://ae911truth.info/img/3Slide025.jpg

Which is about as full of as possible. The most amusing thing about this is that Gage will never use this slide again. He changes this so that it will apply to WTC 7 (eliminating squibs and adding "pools of molten iron"), and then changes it even further to apply it to the Towers. He used to put the exact slide he uses for WTC 7 here, but now he has three separate lists of characteristic features of controlled demolition.

None of them are complete. All of them contain superfluous and non-exclusive elements. And Gage will do a job of applying them to the buildings.

You keep talking in generalities and site structure.
Please point out specific mistakes.

 

[Christopher7]

BTW:

Ryan DID NOT LIE !

Ryan and Knoblauch were talking about the testing done post 9/11.

Ryan: 11/11/04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04 . . . . .
. . . . the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. . . . the samples we certified met all requirements.

Knoblauch: 11/15/04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”

 

[boloboffin]

Please point out the errors.

You keep talking in generalities and site structure.
Please point out specific mistakes.

I see. You're here trying to waste as much time as possible for a few laughs. Go to my website - the link is below - and you will find specifics galore. Bring back any you think you can dispute.

 

[funk de fino]

BTW:
Ryan DID NOT LIE !

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

The above statement is a lie. Yes or No, Chris?

 

[funk de fino]

Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

Did Dr Brown say the steel would have melted at 2000 deg f ?

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit)

 

[Christopher7]

Ryan
"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"

The above statement is a lie. Yes or No, Chris?

No, if the steel did not get above 250°C, then it should not have failed and therefore something is amiss.
That is his opinion.


The false claim was that Ryan lied:
Minadin [the merciless]
"Ryan is simply lying when he says that the UL certifies structural steel.

Ryan never said that.
He used the word "components" instead of "assemblies" [big wow] and later clarifies by using the word "samples".
Since he was referring to the report of 10/19/04, it's clear that he is talking about the post 9/11 testing UL did at the request if NIST.

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

That's a damn lie!

Ryan was perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself.

"[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."
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[fullflavormenthol]

C7>

Ryan was perfectly clear that he was speaking for himself.

"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."

I went ahead an color coded the specific examples of him expressing what individuals in the company said and thought. So yeah, he spoke out of line.

 

[funk de fino]

"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"

No, if the steel did not get above 250°C, then it should not have failed and therefore something is amiss.
That is his opinion.

Who suggested the the steel failed at 250 deg c? Not NIST. Ryan has lied when he says anyone contended that the steel failed at 250 deg C.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

He is lying.

If he was not lying then he would have won his court case, no?

 

[Minadin]

He is lying. The only way he's not actively lying is if he is a complete idiot. The emails he shared with people in the know directly refute things he was writing 10 months later. But it's entertaining to watch you do these insane aerobatics in your mind to attempt to reconcile his statements with anything resembling reality.

Let's break this down very simply:

1. Ryan made statements which were demonstrably false.
2. There is ample evidence that Ryan should have known that these statements were false.
3. Falseness + awareness of falsity = Lie

If you remove the awareness of falsity you may change the assumption from "lie" to "ignorant idiocy". It's your choice.

 

[jhunter1163]

Bumpez-vous.