Care to Comment

[BigAl]

Your use of Brent Blanchard to prove the steel was examined is a joke. Brent Blanchard has no qualifications to speak about nor does he understand what a forensic analysis of the steel would entail.

Identification of steel that has been subject to thermite or demolition charges isn't "forensic analysis". That would come later.

The effects and byproducts of thermite and demolition charges are obvious. Many of the people working on the pile would recognize them, especially the results of thermite.

Every piece of steel was sufficiently examined. Nothing was found.

I'm still waiting for your citation for the existence of Nano-Hush-A-Boom.

 

[BigAl]

Watch the movie 911 Mysteries to see the CBS clip of FEMA contract employee Tom Kenney telling Dan Rather about FEMA arriving in Lower Manhattan the night before Sept. 11, 2001, ostensibly for a bio-terror drill to be held on Sept. 12, 2001.
?

Even if the above is true, So what?

 

[MikeW]

Tom Kenney? Even Mike Ruppert was pointing out problems with that, years ago: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

 

[leftysergeant]

There was no analysis of the steel in those yards other than maybe a cursory visual, which is not nearly enough to make a determination of anything.

That's actually all it takes to rule out thermite and cutter charges.

You aren't proving anything other than your willingness to call people liars with no basis for it.

Actually, we are saying that you lack the knowledge needed to analyze the evidence. You clearly know jack squat about explosives and thermite and how they would be detectable during and after the demolition.

There is no hush-a-boom. You got that? No device or chemical compound exists that cvan exert catastrophic shearinf forces against stee of that size and shape without blowing out ear drums and windows a couple streets over.

There is no thermite that does not leave an identifiable residue that would catch the eye of every cop. fire fighter and iron worker who saw. There is also the problem that HE would send stuff out the windows and over the top of the dust plumes during collapse.

NEVER HAPPENED.

You aint got enough unobtainium to build a hush-a-boom.

 

[Profanz]

That's actually all it takes to rule out thermite and cutter charges.



Actually, we are saying that you lack the knowledge needed to analyze the evidence. You clearly know jack squat about explosives and thermite and how they would be detectable during and after the demolition.

There is no hush-a-boom. You got that? No device or chemical compound exists that cvan exert catastrophic shearinf forces against stee of that size and shape without blowing out ear drums and windows a couple streets over.

There is no thermite that does not leave an identifiable residue that would catch the eye of every cop. fire fighter and iron worker who saw. There is also the problem that HE would send stuff out the windows and over the top of the dust plumes during collapse.

NEVER HAPPENED.

You aint got enough unobtainium to build a hush-a-boom.

The only thing that is causing a HUSH is your hands over your ears. When debunkers say no explosions were claimed to be heard by anyone it is the debunker who is lying.

 

[BigAl]

The only thing that is causing a HUSH is your hands over your ears. When debunkers say no explosions were claimed to be heard by anyone it is the debunker who is lying.

There are NO eyewitness report of hearing explosions consistent in timing or loudness with man-made demolition.

None. Nada.

There is no Hush-A-Boom.

 

[Profanz]

There are NO eyewitness report of hearing explosions consistent in timing or loudness with man-made demolition.

None. Nada.

There is no Hush-A-Boom.

No there is no Hush-A-Boom. That's what I said. To claim no one heard explosions is the lie. And it's a very cowardly lie considering that most people who would have been close enough are dead.

Good job.

 

[BigAl]

No there is no Hush-A-Boom. That's what I said. To claim no one heard explosions is the lie. And it's a very cowardly lie considering that most people who would have been close enough are dead.

Good job.

"Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise". Lots of people heard loud noises when the buildings collapsed. Many of the quotes used by Twoofers are from firemen in the North tower when the South tower collapsed. Firemen heard a huge explosion and didn't know what caused it until later, sometimes much later.

"Explosion" is also used as metaphor and hyperbole but we know that Twoofers come up short in the understanding of English language when it is convenient.

 

[Profanz]

"Explosion" is just a synonym for "loud noise". Lots of people heard loud noises when the buildings collapsed. Many of the quotes used by Twoofers are from firemen in the North tower when the South tower collapsed. Firemen heard a huge explosion and didn't know what caused it until later, sometimes much later.

"Explosion" is also used as metaphor and hyperbole but we know that Twoofers come up short in the understanding of English language when it is convenient.

People heard explosions. And yes most of them were firefighters because they were the closest. That's what I said. There was no HUSH.

 

[BigAl]

People heard explosions. And yes most of them were firefighters because they were the closest. That's what I said. There was no HUSH.

None of the noises heard were consistent with the existence with man-made demolition.

 

[BasqueArch]

Utterly Wrong Again

Brent Blanchard refutes your claims. All the steel was forensically examined at the sorting sites. What NIST did after this is irrelevant. Those investigators would have found the residues or evidence of thermite nonsense and reported it or saved those parts. Like they did with the steel that had evaporated from WTC 7 and one of the Towers. If they saved them then why would any other steel that had to have showed evidence of explosives or thermite not saved also?

There was none. Just like there are no large pieces of molten steel.

I have read Blanchards report that refutes your claims. Remember Tony, I proved you wrong with your claims about steel temps amd the NIST report. It seemed to me you had not read that section and made up a story about forgetting it. Just like your made up story about Mr Silverstein. You have no credibility as a proven liar.

Tony Szamboti

… Your use of Brent Blanchard to prove the steel was examined is a joke. Brent Blanchard has no qualifications to speak about nor does he understand what a forensic analysis of the steel would entail. There was no analysis of the steel in those yards other than maybe a cursory visual, which is not nearly enough to make a determination of anything.

You aren't proving anything other than your willingness to call people liars with no basis for it.

Utterly Wrong Again​

Astaneh-Asl
“One week after the collapse of the World Trade Center, the author, armed with a research grant from the National Science Foundation, arrived in New york and started collection of perishable data and investigating the remains of structural steel from the World Trade Center buildings. The main goals of the author’s field investigations were:
a. To visit the site and map the collapsed structure and the debris.
b. Inspect quality of construction
c. Collect samples of material for further studies
d. Collect drawings and information on design, construction and maintenance
e. Establish failure modes and formulate a hypothesis for causes of collapse.

Figures 6 shows views of various components of the World Trade Center Towers after collapse. By inspecting the remains of the steel structure visually, it appeared that the construction and fabrication of the steel structure was of high quality and no apparent flaws could be observed. Several components of the steel structure appeared to be from the impact areas although at the time of inspection it was not possible to identify the location of these pieces. Such pieces were preserved and later were turned over to the National Institute of Standards and Technology for testing and identification.”

http://www.crono911.net/docs/AstanehWTC.pdf

“World Trade Center Post-Disaster Reconnaisance and Perishable Structural Engineering Data Collection
Project Participants
Senior Personnel
Name: Astaneh-Asl, Abolhassan
Worked for more than 160 Hours: Yes
Contribution to Project:
A. Astaneh was PI for this Small Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) of NSF. One week after the tragic collapse of the World
Trade Center, supported by this GSER, he traveled to New York and stayed for two weeks in Hotel Tribeca which was few blocks from Ground Zero. First he met with Mr. Leslie Robertson and visited Ground Zero with him. Mr. Robertson is the
structural designer of the collapsed World Trade Center Towers.

The project was a Small Grant for Exploratory Research. The main goal was to conduct reconnaissance of collapsed WTC towers and to collect perishable data. Dr. Astaneh, P.I. has traveled to New York City twice to conduct investigation of structure of WTC. Early investigation was done near Ground Zero as steel was being transported to recycling plants. Later investigations were conducted at the recycling plant where steel is being recycled. Some data on drawings and structures of WTC were obtained, and continues to be obtained from design offices of the structural firms who have designed the original structures. Photos taken during or immediately after the collapse have been purchased.

Findings To Date: During the 1st ten days of stay, most of the investigation was on the structure of Building 7 of the WTC. The 47-story structure was burning for almost 7 hours before it collapsed. During the 2nd 10 days of his stay in NYC, Dr. Astaneh has been able to establish contact with one of the recycling plants in New Jersey recycling the majority of steel from the WTC. He has conducted more systematic part of his investigation there. He has been able to investigate and document a large number of steel structural members. Some of his most striking achievements have been to identify and save at least four members (columns and beams) from the WTC Towers that appear to be
important pieces perhaps from the floors that were subjected to intense heat. “

http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf

[qimg]http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a838_abolhassan_astaneh_2050081722-21407.jpg[/qimg]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA/SEAoNY/ASCE engineers:

“As of March 15, 2002, a total of 131 engineer visits had been made to these yards on 57 separate days. An engineer visit typically ranged from a few hours to an entire day at a salvage yard. The duration of the visits, number of visits per yard, and the dates the yards were visited varied, depending on the volume of steel being processed, the potential significance of the steel pieces being found, salvage yard activities, weather, and other factors. Sixty-two engineer trips were made to Jersey City, 38 to Keasbey, 15 to Fresh Kills, and 16 to Newark.

Three trips made in October included several ASCE engineers. Eleven engineer trips were made in November, 41 in December, 43 in January, 28 in February, and 5 through March 15, 2002.

D.3.1 Identifying and Saving Pieces
As shown in Figure D-4, the engineers searched through unsorted piles of steel for pieces from WTC 1 and WTC 2 impact areas and from WTC 5 and WTC 7. They also checked for pieces of steel exposed to fire.
Specifically, the engineers looked for the following types of steel members:
• Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were exposed to fire and/or impacted by the aircraft.
• Exterior column trees and interior core columns from WTC 1 and WTC 2 that were above the impact zone.
• Badly burnt pieces from WTC 7.
• Connections from WTC 1, 2, and 7, such as seat connections, single shear plates, and column splices.
• Bolts from WTC 1, 2, and 7 that were exposed to fire, fractured, and/or that appeared undamaged.
• Floor trusses, including stiffeners, seats, and other components.
• Any piece that, in the engineer’s professional opinion, might be useful for evaluation. When there was any doubt about a particular piece, the piece was kept while more information was gathered. A conservative approach was taken to avoid having important pieces processed in salvage yard operations.

WTC 1&2 Core column recovery and identificaton
Index of steel saved for analysis is at NCSTAR 1-A, Appendix E. Index is on page 275. (page 61 of the PDF) FEMA Steel collected spreadsheet (PDF)
• Most of the core columns recovered were significantly deformed, which made it difficult to select undeformed regions to harvest test specimens from. Even the relatively straight sections were often slightly bent. NIST NCSTAR 1-3D "Mechanical properties of structural steel," page 48 (82 in the PDF).
• Out of the 55 wide flange sections and built-up box sections recovered, 12 core columns were positively identified from WTC 1 and 2, including:
– Two columns from the fire floors of WTC 1,
– Two columns from the impact zone of WTC 2. NIST NCSTAR 1-3B Steel inventory and ID, page xxv (page 27 in the PDF).
• 12 columns were unambiguously identified as core columns with their as-build locations known, 12 wide flange sections were found to have markings that were not interpretable, and 31 columns were without any markings at all. Due to the ambiguous nature of the last two groups, only the first group of samples were analyzed. NCSTAR 1-3C Damage and Failure modes of structural steel components, page 197 (247 of PDF)
• In the two buildings, there were 329 core columns (each three stories tall) traversing floors involved in fires. NIST has portions of four of these columns, and on average about half of each column was recovered. While these pieces allow some comparison of metal and paint condition with the predications of the fire model, the recovered steel represents less than one percent of all the core columns intersecting floors with fire. Thus, the forensic analysis indicating moderate temperature excursions in the recovered core columns does not, and cannot, give a picture of temperatures seen by the vast majority of the core columns. NCSTAR 1-3C, page xivi (PDF page 48)
• Core columns C-88a and C-88b, from WTC 2, were unique among the recovered core elements in that the columns were still connected at the welded column splice, Fig. 4-2. Both columns were 42 ksi built-up box columns with their shared splice in the 80th floor level. NCSTAR 1-3C, page 198 (page 248 of PDF).”
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd.pdf

More at FEMA “World Trade Center Performance Study”
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm
[qimg]http://www.wtc7.net/docs/fig_d_7_s.jpg[/qimg]

Tony Szamboti
… Your use of Brent Blanchard to prove the steel was examined is a joke. Brent Blanchard has no qualifications to speak about nor does he understand what a forensic analysis of the steel would entail. There was no analysis of the steel in those yards other than maybe a cursory visual, which is not nearly enough to make a determination of anything.

You aren't proving anything other than your willingness to call people liars with no basis for it.

Engineers performed a thorough, not cursory, unhindered forensic inspection of the WTC1,2,7 steel before it was shipped off. They found no evidence of explosives.​

Tony, does it bother you that what you say is contradicted by what actually happened.​

 

[triforcharity]

The steel itself has to get hot to weaken and there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. This isn't a belief, it is a reality.

How hot would the steel have to get before it fails to hold the static load?

How hot does steel have to get before it looses 50% of it's strength?

How hot does hydrocarbon fires get?

 

[triforcharity]

On a side note, it is interesting how there seemed to be a lot of contract employees and volunteers involved in the investigation. Geez, why would that be?

No, it's really not all that nefarious. There were lots of contract employees and volunteers at the OKC bombing site. There were also lots of contract employees and volunteers in New Orleans after Katrina. Same with the current oil spill in the gulf.

This was a disaster of epic proportions. The Local, state, and federal government needed as much help as they could get.

Now, care to elaborate on this a little? If it's too off topic, please start another thread, or I can. It doesn't matter to me.

 

[funk de fino]

Watch the movie 911 Mysteries to see the CBS clip of FEMA contract employee Tom Kenney telling Dan Rather about FEMA arriving in Lower Manhattan the night before Sept. 11, 2001, ostensibly for a bio-terror drill to be held on Sept. 12, 2001.

No, provide a link. That was a mispeak by the guy. You should know this. he said Monday but he did not mean it. He does not say 10th September does he?

The CBS clip is played between 52 and 53 minutes into the film.

On a side note, it is interesting how there seemed to be a lot of contract employees and volunteers involved in the investigation. Geez, why would that be?

Are you stupid?

 

[triforcharity]

The only thing that is causing a HUSH is your hands over your ears. When debunkers say no explosions were claimed to be heard by anyone it is the debunker who is lying.

Nice strawman.

Nobody claims that there were not explosions. There are plenty of things that go boom in a fire. Many of which would have been found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC.

What is said, is that no explosion that would have come from an explosive capable of cutting WTC's core columns, we noticed, or documented in any way, on 9/11.

Nice try though.

 

[funk de fino]

Your use of Brent Blanchard to prove the steel was examined is a joke. Brent Blanchard has no qualifications to speak about nor does he understand what a forensic analysis of the steel would entail.

He claimed that he witnessed the chain of custody for the steel and saw Forensic examiners and demo officials examine the steel. Those guys were the guyswho pulled out steel for FEMA/NIST to examine. They would have seen signs of thermite or explosives. They examined all the steel. Your claim it was not examined is false and misleading. This was done before NIST went anywhere near the steel.

There was no analysis of the steel in those yards other than maybe a cursory visual, which is not nearly enough to make a determination of anything.

By trained forensic examiners and demo official who would have witnessed the remains of any CD material including your fantasy thermite nonsense.

You aren't proving anything other than your willingness to call people liars with no basis for it.

You are a well proven liar who has not supplied anything for your Silverstein claims. If you feel that any of the officials Brent blanchard said were involved are wrong or in on the inside job then what have you done about contacting them for clarification Tony?

Nothing eh? Cowardly or dishonest? Surely an honest investigator would have contacted those metioned by Brent before making up stories about it?

 

[funk de fino]

People heard explosions. And yes most of them were firefighters because they were the closest. That's what I said. There was no HUSH.

NIST interviewed many of them afterwards about those claims.

Guess what?

 

[WildCat]

Why don't you clear up the misinterpretations Tony? All you have to do is collate all of your claims into a coherent theory... when do you think you'll be able to do that?

Hey Tony, when will you be posting your coherent theory on 9/11?

If it's too hard for you, maybe your li'l buddy Profanz can help you out.

 

[NutCracker]

Hey Tony, when will you be posting your coherent theory on 9/11?

If it's too hard for you, maybe your li'l buddy Profanz can help you out.

In addition to a coherent theory I'd like to see the evidence supporting the theory and the logic that connects the facts to the theory. Without these, a coherent theory, though interesting, is little more than a work of art.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

First, you need to explain why you use this strawman, since NIST's hypothesis doesn't really rely on weakened from heat steel columns.

I think it's telling that Tony is responding to a statement by Rika, which apparently wasn't an accurate reflection of NIST's position, as if it were it were NIST's position.

He's been called out on this before, but it's even more evidence that Tony doesn't know what NIST's position actually is. He's just arguing out of his ass.