Fire, steel, and 911.

[Garb]

Beach,

Please add something of value...or stop junking up this thread. Just for the record...what I am doing here...is PROVING to you all that you really haven't DEBUNKED anything. That's what I'm doing. I know you think you've laughed off the Star Wars beam, and the holographic wings, and the i-pod complete with missile kit etc. But, the fact is...I THINK THOSE ideas and theories are retarded as well, and that's one of the reasons I don't care for Loose Change. It contained way too many of these fringe theories...that only served to water down their entire case. You've got to stick to the main facts surrounding the actual event. I don't give to flippety craps about Payne Stewart...and how you proved how he had lunch with NORAD or whatever...this means nothing to no one. You sit back and think you have debunked something real and substantial...when in reality, you've only "cherry picked," the easy to ridicule, fringe theories and that's the victory you like to revel in as you dismiss any hard evidence as fluff and junk...while casting yer invectives an impassioned fervor.

Boy you are really bad at proving people wrong.

 

[beachnut]

28th you have presented nothing new. Old CT stuff is getting moldy.

Try something new, you old thread "This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER! " did not change a thing.

You need a do over on your thread; and some new stuff.

I will add, so far you have presented nothing and actually have said nothing about anything.

Have I missed something with any facts in it?

 

[stateofgrace]

"This may come as a massive shock to you but things inside burning building explode. They get hot and, hey they explode."

Really? What types of things explode? You mean like aerosol cans and stuff like that right? And you are kidding, right? And, you did hear those firefighter recordings where they say explosions are going off on floors 8, floors 10 floors 13...I hate to break the news to you, but there wasn't even any fire down there, babe. We're talking about 60+ stories below the crash point. But, still you want to adhere to some hole-ridden theory, based in pure conjecture, over what american heros have reported from the front line. You'd rather question these mens' character than, accept the fact that maybe...just maybe, you are wrong and that there were explosives in the buildings.

Really ?

Could you point out a single post were I have ever questioned the character of the men who tried to help on this dreadful day. You will not find a single one. I await your apology.

Onto your further rubbish. you stated the floors were systematically removed during the collpase. Please tell me how the explosions on the floor 8, floor 10 and floor 13 would cause a building to start collapsing over 60 stories higher.

It has been pointed out to you time and time again what sounds like an explosion is not caused by explosives. No body is questioning the firemen other than you. You would do well to stop trying to twist the firemen into your twisted and warped version of events.

 

[Crungy]

Where does it say they certified steel in that article? They describe how they tested (not certified) the steel in 2004 at the behest of NIST. And the laboratories that did the testing were in Northbrook, IL and Toronto, Ontario. Kevin Ryan worked as a water quality tester in South Bend, IN. They did not certify or even test steel at his plant, and never did.

I took PE study courses at the UL Facility in Northbrook. It's a wonderful facility. I never noticed any black ops when I was there.

 

[Mercutio]

Does he maintain the same view today? This hero, reporting from the front line?

Since this question is getting lonely, being ignored so much, I thought I'd try to answer it. Read This, 28K. It is Turi's interview from October of 2001. Lemme get to the relevant passage, although the whole thing is worth reading:

The next thing I heard was Pete say what the **** is this? And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing and I turned around and most everybody was ahead of me running for the garage, and I remember thinking I looked at this thing a little bit too long and I might not make this garage. But I did.

You got one thing right: he is indeed a hero. But here he says that what he initially called "secondary explosions" was the beginning of the collapse.

Are you calling him a liar?

 

[28th Kingdom]

.

Yea, I'm really the one who owes you an apology. Maybe you should go back and see some of the things you have called me.

"Onto your further rubbish. you stated the floors were systematically removed during the collpase. Please tell me how the explosions on the floor 8, floor 10 and floor 13 would cause a building to start collapsing over 60 stories higher."

You know...some of you just keep inventing crap...it's bizarre. Please tell you how the explosions on the floor 8, floor 10 and floor 13 would cause a building to start collapsing over 60 stories higher? Um, no...first, you tell me where I said this, than I might actually defend it.

"It has been pointed out to you time and time again what sounds like an explosion is not caused by explosives. No body is questioning the firemen other than you. You would do well to stop trying to twist the firemen into your twisted and warped version of events"

And, that's classic doublethink...please don't be a droid. You just questioned the firemens' first hand accounts...and then said, no I'm not questioning their accounts. I'm not gonna continue to reply to such nonsense as this, so please people... start making better replies, and points...by seriously addressing the evidence I have presented. No, you haven't debunked this stuff...so don't delude yourself into thinking you have.

 

[beachnut]

Yea, I'm really the one who owes you an apology. Maybe you should go back and see some of the things you have called me.

"Onto your further rubbish. you stated the floors were systematically removed during the collpase. Please tell me how the explosions on the floor 8, floor 10 and floor 13 would cause a building to start collapsing over 60 stories higher."

You know...some of you just keep inventing crap...it's bizarre. Please tell you how the explosions on the floor 8, floor 10 and floor 13 would cause a building to start collapsing over 60 stories higher? Um, no...first, you tell me where I said this, than I might actually defend it.

"It has been pointed out to you time and time again what sounds like an explosion is not caused by explosives. No body is questioning the firemen other than you. You would do well to stop trying to twist the firemen into your twisted and warped version of events"

And, that's classic doublethink...please don't be a droid. You just questioned the firemens' first hand accounts...and then said, no I'm not questioning their accounts. I'm not gonna continue to reply to such nonsense as this, so please people... start making better replies, and points...by seriously addressing the evidence I have presented. No, you haven't debunked this stuff...so don't delude yourself into thinking you have.

They said sounded like, not that it was.

So do you have some proof?

NIST could not find any, but you seem to have some. When will you stop beating around the bush and give it your best shot?

 

[apathoid]

Really? What types of things explode? You mean like aerosol cans and stuff like that right? And you are kidding, right?

Fire Engulfs Office Building in Madrid
By HAROLD HECKLE
Associated Press

MADRID, Spain Feb 12, 2005 — A raging fire swept through the upper levels of a 32-story office building in downtown Madrid early Sunday, melting it like a candle and collapsing the top floors in a shower of flaming debris.

Bright orange flames shot out the sides of the Windsor Building, which is believed to be empty and is near one of Madrid's main boulevards.

The fire started around 11:30 p.m. Saturday and was still burning out of control about three hours later. At least nine upper stories were on fire and muffled explosions could be heard in the building.

Conspiracy?? No. Things go boom in burning buildings. Myself I had the displeasure of being near a transformer when it exploded; it sounded exactly like a claymore mine going off.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

 

[28th Kingdom]

Mercutio,

Sir, we might be talking about different people....I can't even tell at this point.

 

[Trigood]

Sir,

Sir,

If you insist on formality, it's "Madam," please.

Wow...unreal logic and interpretation of my words. I didn't DECLARE that because the top floors above the impact points fell COMPLETELY off to the side, that they magically became weightless...how do you even read that from what I have said? I am saying that, yes...BECAUSE those top floors, didn't FALL ON TOP OF the floors below...THAT THE WEIGHT of those top floors....WHICH IS NOW DETACHED FROM THE WTC I.E. TO THE SIDE...HAD ZERO impact on the remaining floors still attached to the WTC. How are you saying that a massive piece of steel and concrete falling TO THE SIDE could have any downward force or impact on a structure to which it NOW has NO TIES or physical relation to? Explain that one please.

I am saying that your ability to see what the evidence shows is severely lacking. In this case, the photographic evidence. Yes, on the ST collapse, the top of the building tipped over. However, to say that the top of the building "IS NOW DETACHED FROM THE WTC I.E. TO THE SIDE" and "NOW has NO TIES or physical relation to" the floors below is, simply, untrue. These statements have no relationship to fact. The top of the ST (and to a much lesser extent, the NT) did tip over a bit before collapse got into full swing. Nevertheless, there was never a point at which the tops of the towers totally detached from the bottom of the towers. Why are you advancing such a ridiculous theory, backed only by your fantasy notions of what you see in videos where you cannot see what you are saying that you see, because of dust, smoke, as well as walls blocking your vision of the inner cores?

Clearly, steel can bend and break, allowing a portion of a building to tilt, and yet still allowing for the building to be attached at numerous points to the structure below. Do you deny this is possible, in general? If so, please explain why all forces holding the two parts of the building are required to be dissolved, in this situation. If not, then why do you deny it happened in this case? (as it clearly did). If there were still numerous points of contact between the upper and lower portions (i.e., bent but not broken steel beams, broken beams that were still resting upon each other, etc.), then why do you deny the forces exerted by the upper portion of the structure upon the lower portion, at those numerous points?

In other words, you are proclaiming the utterly ridiculous conclusion that, as soon as the top of the building began tilting, it magically disengaged all contact with the lower portion, began "floating in the air," and ceased exerting gravitational forces on the building below! Even other CTists that I've debated have debated more subtly than that.

Notice, too, that EVEN IF what you say is true of the ST (which it isn't), it has nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of the NT, in which the top clearly did not tip over much before collapse. How do you wave away the weight of the top of the NT on its bottom section? You have completely avoided that question throughout this discussion.

"COMPLETELY" falls over? Why didn't those floors fall OFF the tower then? I don't think you can use the word "COMPLETELY" here. It's not reasonable and it's not scientific. See Point #1 above.

Um, THE FLOORS DID fall off the towers...as they soon disappeared in the cloud of dust that engulfed the WTC.

Um, you cannot see some of the floors in the dust/smoke at the impact zone. Why do you assume that means they have fallen off the towers? Because the entire structure of the top is still above the tower vertically, it is clear that, despite the tilt (ST only, remember), the floors immediately above the impact zone are also still above the towers vertically.

This is where your logical fallacy lies. You think, because that top part of the tower has torque (is moving rotationally), it ceases to exert force vertically downward due to gravity. Like a lot of CTists, I think you need a refresher course in basic physics. And this is why I said you should try and persuade overweight people that they lose weight by tipping over, as you seem to think they do. If something tips over, you seem to be saying, it loses vertical gravitational force, i.e., weight. This could be real moneymaker for you, given the billions in the diet industry and all.

Maybe those detached floors never hit the ground, because they were pulverized after they fell to the side.

You are, once again, assuming a conclusion (that the towers were CD'ed) and using it to prove your conclusion (that the towers were CD'ed). Circular logic.

Here's the original quote where you did this, as well:

There is NO weight bearing down on them....it's like the top floor keeps disappearing...one by one...that's why I said it didn't really collapse...the floors are actually exploding in a downward sequence...and that's why the building can and DID "fall" faster than the speed of free fall or gravity...because actually...nothing is collapsing or falling really (besides the remains of the explosions) The floors are just being pulverized in a downward sequence that creates the illusion that the floors are collapsing down upon one another. [Triggod comment: And here you use your assumptions to "prove" a CD:] Yes, it's like a CD, that no one has ever seen...because I MEAN...look at the mess it caused...no one would ever CD a steel-structure building that tall...and that's why they had to use a different technique...as oppose to WTC 7, which was a more classic CD.

BTW, I really enjoy engaging 4-5 people like this...because it actually feels like some sort of communication...but I must say, that once the 40-50 people join...I will have to refrain from posting...since it's all but impossible for me to keep up.

Thanks.

Your problem is not keeping up, it's (1) interpreting visual evidence as you see it, and not as you wish to see it, and (2) applying scientific laws and reasoning to that evidence.

Good luck to you.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Conspiracy?? No. Things go boom in burning buildings. Myself I had the displeasure of being near a transformer when it exploded; it sounded exactly like a claymore mine going off.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr69c.html

Have you seen the video of this? Well, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFCNMS5W3o

Nice little blaze, eh? "Muffled," explosions. With all that fire? Come on...you really think there was fire down on the 8th floor? You really believe that? I'm talking about the magical kind...you know that's invisible, and non-hot and that travels down imaginary shafts and stuff.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Jeff King says he studied physics at MIT, has 8 years of electrical engineering experience with some practical engineering experience. Okay, good enough for me. I don't need you to try and twist something just to make it fit some kind of whacked out truth you seem to be clinging to. And, I certainly don't need to engage in a game of semantic word play with you...cus, I know that I have nothing to gain from addressing you in this context.

"Want to bet that the company did not certify the steel, and never certified any structural steel anywhere?"

This is straight from your bible:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_fire_resistance_data.htm

Where in this link do you get that NIST certified the steel?

This link states that NIST used the ASTM E119 standard to evaluate the fire resistant coating. D’oh!

Here’s a little quote that I found interesting though,

The four laboratory tests provide only a means for evaluating the relative fire resistance rating of the floor systems under standard fire conditions and according to accepted test procedures. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator of the NIST WTC investigation, cautions, “These tests alone cannot be used to determine the actual performance of the floor systems in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, they are already providing valuable insight into the role that the floors may have played in causing the inward bowing of the perimeter columns minutes before both buildings collapsed.”

Emphasis mine.

Really? What types of things explode? You mean like aerosol cans and stuff like that right? And you are kidding, right? And, you did hear those firefighter recordings where they say explosions are going off on floors 8, floors 10 floors 13...

So an exploding compressed gas cylinder isn't an explosion? Are you daft?

The sound that the firemen heard could have been structural steel breaking as well. Have you ever heard steel break my friend?

 

[Crungy]

start making better replies, and points...by seriously addressing the evidence I have presented. No, you haven't debunked this stuff...so don't delude yourself into thinking you have.

If you want to be taken seriously, then please don't post factually incorrect rubbish such as this.

[QUOTE="P"30 looking for luv, but a bit round around the middle"Doughy]YET, THE VERY company who certified the steel in the WTC, said that the jet fuel COULDN'T have melted the columns on tower 1 & 2.[/QUOTE]

So, are you calling this guy a liar? A guy from the company who actually certified the dang steel? Wouldn't he kind of be an expert on the subject?

No. He's a deluded paranoid nutjob with no knowledge of basic structural engineering, whose work consists of playing in the bath tub with a few bottles of Mr. Bubble. When you hire an A/E firm to design a building do you assign the structural engineering to the architect, the mechanical engineering to the electrical engineer, the architecture to the civil engineer, etc, etc.

Below is an old post about me, UL and Aquachild. The six degrees of 9/11 nutter separation.........WOO!

I have a connection to Bathtub Boy. I work for a company that Aquaboy slandered in his post. I have a interesting story that I'll filter through CT lenses. After the 9/11 attacks my firm received a large contract to provide security for a major urban water delivery complex and filtration plant. We have already been working with this client prior to 9/11. One of my tasks was to design a various diesel generator systems to provide backup power.

One of the structures required a custom built field assembled 3000 gallon diesel fuel storage tank. Typically, when I design an outdoor above ground tank, it's prefabricated (ConVault and Highland Tanks being two manufacturers I've used in the past) and UL 142 stamped at the factory. The UL rating insures welding integrity and welding procedures and tank impact resistance to bullets and aircraft.

For this project, the tank was to be built in an room with irregular geometry, located on a lake structure. In my job specifications, I wrote out that the field built tank was to be stamped with a UL 142 rating. When the job got rolling, the mechanical sub-contractor sent me a RFI (request for information) stating that his tank manufacturer UL would not certify the field built tank. What should he do? Let's see Kevin Ryan, who worked for a division on UL gets fired for remarks about the 9/11 investigation, remarks that cast suspicion and mistrust on my company and a fellow co-worker. Now UL won't certify my 3000 gallon field built fuel tank for a project, which was brought on by 9/11. Sounds pretty damn suspicious. A conspiracy perhaps? Did I get shut down because Aquaboy was able to pull strings with his old UL pals. With all of the above "suspicious connections" and conflicts of interest, a CTer might think so. Being of sound mind, I new that the UL 142 standard was only done in tank factories and certified the tank upon completion, thus protecting the tank manufacturer from any potential litigation if the tank were to be damaged during transport.

This type of slander, which I've seen Aquanut engage in the several times I've read or watched his nuttery, is what really irks me. Like many nutters, prior to laying out his nonsense, H2Wooboy will attempt to discredit any person or firm due to them having any history working with "The Man". Once you get in the business, it's harder to find any person or company who hasn't at one time worked on a project involving "The Man". Anyone in the business world knows this as a given. Anyone on the "Elite (WTC, Pentagon, Shankville, Wonka Factory, etc) Team" will be oblivious to this for life. Employees aren't speaking out for fear of reprisal. If you walked in my office, you'd see plenty of cubes decorated with anti-Bush material. They aren't speaking out because they are professionals in the design and construction industry and their expertise is in concert with those of their peers, those which shaped the OS. They view the technical counter arguments of Ryan and his ilk with the same level of exasparation as a surgeon does the critique of a witch doctor.

 

[Mercutio]

Mercutio,

Sir, we might be talking about different people....I can't even tell at this point.

No. Same person. Your quote was from the insanity of 9/11 itself. He retracted the testimony you are relying on.

And it took 2 minutes of Google to find this out.

 

[beachnut]

Have you seen the video of this? Well, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFCNMS5W3o

Nice little blaze, eh? "Muffled," explosions. With all that fire? Come on...you really think there was fire down on the 8th floor? You really believe that? I'm talking about the magical kind...you know that's invisible, and non-hot and that travels down imaginary shafts and stuff.

Have you seen this? What does it mean?

 

[apathoid]

Have you seen the video of this? Well, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KFCNMS5W3o

Nice little blaze, eh? "Muffled," explosions. With all that fire? Come on...you really think there was fire down on the 8th floor? You really believe that? I'm talking about the magical kind...you know that's invisible, and non-hot and that travels down imaginary shafts and stuff.

Huh? So, you're saying would expect explosions in an inferno? Yes/no?

Imaginary shafts? Link these imaginary express elevators?

Also, can you provide a link for the firefighter quotes about hearing explosions on the 8th floor of either WTC1 or 2. Thanks.

 

[28th Kingdom]

I am saying that your ability to see what the evidence shows is severely lacking. In this case, the photographic evidence. Yes, on the ST collapse, the top of the building tipped over. However, to say that the top of the building "IS NOW DETACHED FROM THE WTC I.E. TO THE SIDE" and "NOW has NO TIES or physical relation to" the floors below is, simply, untrue. These statements have no relationship to fact. The top of the ST (and to a much lesser extent, the NT) did tip over a bit before collapse got into full swing. Nevertheless, there was never a point at which the tops of the towers totally detached from the bottom of the towers. Why are you advancing such a ridiculous theory, backed only by your fantasy notions of what you see in videos where you cannot see what you are saying that you see, because of dust, smoke, as well as walls blocking your vision of the inner cores?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u_k217RkUo

Watch, and notice how the floors below the toppling upper floors....are descending towards the earth at a faster rate than the now detached upper floors.

Also, once again....I'm not going play semantic-go-seek...CD is being used to cover ALL forms of planted explosives in the buildings...OKAY?!?!

 

[Trigood]

And, that's classic doublethink...please don't be a droid. You just questioned the firemens' first hand accounts...and then said, no I'm not questioning their accounts. I'm not gonna continue to reply to such nonsense as this, so please people... start making better replies, and points...by seriously addressing the evidence I have presented. No, you haven't debunked this stuff...so don't delude yourself into thinking you have.

Let me say this really slow, because you seem not to be getting it:

Do things ever explode without explosives being present? Have you ever heard of a car's fuel tank exploding after a crash? Have you ever heard of any other highly flammable object exploding simply because it came in contact with an object at its flashpoint temperature?

This is common knowledge among most educated people on this planet. Why have you not absorbed this knowledge, in all your years?

What part of the following statement don't you understand?

Witness statements that they heard explosions are not proof of the presence of explosives.

--

You know, I have another little anecdote for you. You used the fact that some firefighter(s), right before WTC7 collapsed, said it was going to "blow up" as "proof" of CD. Funny, that term is often used for explosive collapses. In the recent Alabama wind storms, I read articles where local people described the violent collapse of buildings due to the storms as those buildings "blowing up." Perhaps the NWO (or whoever) placed CD charges in those buildings down in Alabama as well, and set them off right as the storm came through? Hmm, yeah, I guess whenever someone uses a colloquialism for "violent collapse" that also can be used to describe an explosive demolition, they MUST mean the latter and CANNOT mean the former. I guess you need to rewrite the dictionary then, too, sir.

 

[28th Kingdom]

][/U]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/images/inno_elevators.gif
Also, can you provide a link for the firefighter quotes about hearing explosions on the 8th floor of either WTC1 or 2. Thanks.

I'll do you one better...here's actual audio recordings of the firefighters inside the buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

 

[apathoid]

I'll do you one better...here's actual audio recordings of the firefighters inside the buildings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKdvl--1Dt0

Thanks for the link, I'll give it a listen....