How 9/11 was done

[dtugg]

There is even thermite cord: http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Thermite-Carbon_Cord

With cord you can make any shape you want: linear shapes, circle shapes, even star of david shapes!

Wow, the standards of proof are now just citing an article in a wiki for a video game.

Here is proof that antimatter bombs exist.

Maybe that's what they used to destroy the WTC.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Thus proving that the United Nations Space Command was responsible for 911.

Did you actually read anything at all on that site? TCC is a fictional device from the Halo video games.

Shame on me.

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

 

[WildCat]

And this video shows how the cuts were made by cleanup workers:



Will you now admit you were wrong about these cuts being made with thermite?

9/11-investigator? Any comment?

 

[dtugg]

Shame on me.

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

I know 9/11-investigator is ignoring me, but for anybody else following along, the fact that a patent exists does not mean the device works. It is just to protect the idea. There are patents for a bunch of crap that doesn't work like free energy devices and a cure for AIDS using tetrasilver tetroxide (commonly used to clean pools).

 

[Alt+F4]

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

A patent eh?

Oh please! The United States Patent and Trademark Office is part of Department of Commerce which is part of the same federal government truthers say is responsible for 9/11 to begin with!

How can you accuse the government on one hand while with the other hand use that same government to back up your theories?

 

[9/11-investigator]

Will you now admit you were wrong about these cuts being made with thermite?

9/11-investigator? Any comment?

Nope. The easiest way in getting columns sliced is using thermite. This if valid both for the criminals that brought down the towers and for the folks that had to do the cleanup.

And aren't the guys in this photo firemen inspecting the still smoldering site shortly after collapse where cleanup has yet to begin?

 

[~enigma~]

Shame on me.

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

Edited by Tricky: 

Do not change usernames

(9/11-investigator) can you tell me what year 9/11 happened and what year the patent is for?

 

[A W Smith]

Shame on me.

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

odd that a search at the BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE for thermite yields nothing, You would think the patent for such a revolutionary device that there would be a mention of it somewhere on their site.

Correspondence Name and Address: BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE 505 KING AVENUE COLUMBUS OH 43201-2693 US

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0007]

Thermite charge


AbstractThe present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition.


Broadly the invention provides for thermite charges to make linear or curvilinear cuts in materials such as building structures, pavements, transport equipment such as ships, planes, and the like. As used herein, the term linear includes both linear and curvilinear shapes. Typically, the term linear includes elongated jet shapes (described in more detail below) and is not limited by whether the elongated jet opening is linear, curvilinear, or has bends.

Now why would the very first example of use for this alleged device would be demolition of building structures"?? And filed in 2006 just after Jones invented the concept?

Edited by Tricky: 

edited for civility

Where is the model and demonstration? And the patent is 5 years after its first alleged use.

 

[Baylor]

You're not understanding what a "shaped charge" is. Since I'm not a good enough teacher, maybe this vid will help. Hopefully, it'll raise your awareness to know you (or people on the internet) can't make up terms (thermite-shaped charge) and have them mean whatever you want them to mean.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=

 

[ellindsey]

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

I've seen patents for antigravity machines. A patent filing doesn't mean that the device described exists or would even theoretically work, only that it is novel.

 

[Horatius]

Shame on me.

But I'll make it up with you: here's a patent regarding: "the present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

Actually, that's a patent application, not a patent, and it's from 2006, so they couldn't have used it in 2001. And, if you visit http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair and search on that publication number, you'll see that the examiner slaps them around a bit for not really defining anything clearly enough to be useful.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I know that there thousands of people from around the world who have studied the collapses in minute detail ... who are NOT on the US government's payroll.

I am asking for only one name of a person who is not on the government's payroll (or otherwise paid by the gov) and who has come out in favor of the OCT in the way people like Griffin, Jones and Gage have been doing? With speaking engagements and books written?

Before I go any further, I need to point out something: The question about people who've spoken out "in favor" of the NIST narrative is a diversion. Anyone who's familiar with the way scientific knowledge progresses knows that the true test of a work's utility is the number of times it's referenced in other works, and the influence it has in the real world. To that end, the NIST narrative has already been demonstrated as accepted by non-US researchers, because different countries have incorporated the findings in the report into their own building codes, thus satifying both the references and the influence criteria. The poster Architect has noted this in many of his posts, and I invite him to expand on this point, as he's more familiar with how his own country and other European nations have internalized the fire and structural response knowledge generated by the NIST WTC study.

Furthermore, there is a further disconnect from reality in this challenge: Mainstream researchers in scientific and engineering fields tend to comment only on elements of the dominant narrative that fall within their expertise. Which is why you'll see, for example, Brett Blanchard (mentioned below) commenting on demolitions, but refraining from doing so about NORAD, or the Shanksville site. Or Steve Douglass, image analysis consultant for Aviation Week restricting his comments to the charge of "pods" on airliners, and not discussing the finer points of the tower fires. So no, there is practically no one who crosses disciplines and discusses elements of the mainstream narrative outside of their field of competence. Therefore, the presentation of Jones, Gage, and Griffin as accomplishments for the conspiracy peddlers, and the lack of mirroring personages on the "OCT" side as a failure is a false standard, and a bad one to shoot for as well. To presume that anyone on the side of reality would commit the same level of hubris that those three individuals did is to presume that professionals would dare speak definitively outside their competence. That Griffin, Jones, and Gage repeatedly do so is a detriment, not a positive, for the so-called truth movement.

That said, I answer this post anyway, just to dispel the illusion wrought by the poster that lack of response indicates lack of acceptance of the "Official Story". There has in fact been widespread acceptance of the collapse narrative that NIST, and beyond NIST's involvement, there is widespread acceptance among engineers and fire safety experts that the impact and fires did indeed cause the collapse, even if they do not know the details, or openly disagree with details of the NIST Report. Since 9/11-Investigator has specifically been discussing the towers collapse, I'm restricting my own response to people who've commented on that aspect. At any rate, the following examples demonstrate that people have indeed spoken out "in support" of the NIST narrative:

• Brett Blanchard - He has written in Implosion World about the WTC collapse, and specifically derided the demolitions fantasy. His credentials stem from his employment at Protec, a documentations and structural inspections engineering company that has expertise in the fields of recording and analyzing strucures demolitions. The company is an independent one, not part of a government agency.
  
  
• Abolhassan AboAstaneh-Asl - The crux of his criticisms have to do with building standards and adherence to code. While he disagrees with NIST on details of their findings, he very obviously accepts the dominant narrative about the jets impacting, and fires weakening the structure, and has come out and said this on more than one occasion. He has also given presentations on engineering aspects of 9/11, announcements of which can be found on his University of Berkeley page.
  
  If we want to classify his association with UCal Berkeley as being involved with the government, then I fear that David Ray Griffin would have to be classified as such as well. But most people understand that you can separate out university professionals from Federal employees, given that public universities are primarily state funded.
  
  
• Dr. James Quintiere - Truthers like to mention him as challeging the official story, but tend to ignore the fact that the basic tenents of his challenge revolve around the fact that he thinks the fireproofing didn't dislodge, and that the NIST tests did not adequately model the fire in the towers. In short, his objections are that NIST do not put enough emphasis on the fire that resulted post impact, and has improperly absolved the fireproofing and fire engineering when in fact those aspects should be studied further. In short, his belief depends on the fires in the towers that resulted from the jets impacts.
  
  He has testified in congress and been quoted in interviews. While he has been on the NIST advisory commitee, people should note that he left that post in 1989, and has been associated with the University of Maryland since then.
  
  
• Zdenek Bazant - In cooperation with other researchers, such as Yong Zhou, he has published the so-far definitive work on the energy available in the collapsing tower, which puts to rest the notion that the towers collapse should have arrested spontaneously. Another university researcher, this time with Northwestern University in Illinois, this person is also not on the federal payroll.
  
  
• Arthur Scheuerman - Former Battalion Fire Chief of New York City. Like James Quintiere, this is another person whom conspiracy peddlers mistakenly assume is on their side, and do so by conflating objections to specific details - specifically, Scheuerman's objection to the immunities and exemptions the Port Authority had from building and fire codes - with overall rejection of the impact-plus-fire sans demolitions narrative (his objection is heavily based on the thesis that the fires weakened the damaged structure to the point of collapse). He has also made an appearance on Ron Weick's show "Hardfire" and has also written a book titled "Fire in the Skyscraper" covering the Towers collapse.

I can go on, but there are many people who are not on the government payroll. Note that I've yet to resort to the authors of many engineering works, such as those found towards the bottom of this page:

http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

... all of whom have written works that, while not mentioning the entirety of the "Official Story", do depend on the dominant narrative of hijacked jets damaging the towers and causing fires. And I haven't even mentioned the sources for the Popular Mechanics article, partially because there are federal employees on that list - the various military and government staff members, for example - but also because the above lists are all the argument that's needed to dispel the illusion that no commentary or work has been done accepting the "Official Story", or that no "noble personages" have spoken out in favor of it. The point is that there are plenty of people who have in fact spoken up in favor of the impact damage plus fire narrative that NIST builds its report around.

Like the "earwitnesses prove demolitions explosions" point rebutted earlier, this thesis about qualified people needing to have spoken out in defense of NIST should be put to rest. The utility of the knowledge is demonstrated by its effect on fire codes alone, and that's before you consider the plethora of journal articles and other works agreeing with and elaborating further on that narrative.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

You obviously missed my Eiffel tower-related thought experiment; the upper third of the tower of ca. 100 m is almost straight and much less robust than the WTC core and is standing upright for more than 100 years now. I would be very surprised if the WTC core turned out te be unable to stand on it's own for the full 4xx meters.

Once again, it's an entirely different design, and entirely different loads. The structure is simply not a comparison by any means for the trade centers. There are major scaling issues which would hamper such a comparison, which is lightly alluded to in a post I made some time ago...

As to supporting its own weight; you're talking about static loads (A steady state load or a load at rest.) The issue of the collapse of the towers is a culmination of factors but can be quickly and dirtily defined as a dynamic load (A load associated with the elastic deformations of a structure subjected to time-dependent external forces). The failures that followed were a combination of that and abnormal moment forces exerted on structural members. Judging by your comment, it doesn't seem you understand this.

 

[X]

A warned person counts for 2. Thanks. The urge of putting an unauthorized 'mr' before your uhh... family name stems from the desire to not let your name drown amongst the surrounding text.

That is appreciated.

You forget that I'm from the windmill country where umbrella's have a relatively short half-life.

I'm sorry. What does this have to do with buckling?

Let me guess... to prevent them from falling over?

Yes. Because they are not stable structures on their own.

Counter question: why do you think that these towers are so thin in the first place? Maybe because it's only purpose is to put a lightweight antenna as high as possible in the sky? Would that be it, you think? The alternative would be that they had to build a much robuster Eiffel tower-like structure, which obviously cost a lost more for no advantage whatsoever. The only weight said 'tower' needs to support is its own precious little weight.

Not so our WTC core. This needs to support half of the weight of the floors of the entire building. I appreciate that the core was not designed to have a second life as NYC's own Eiffel tower after evil Arabs/Israelis had found it necessary to bring the rest of the building down. But that does not mean that the tower was unable to stand upright without being aided by lateral forces for at least 50-100-200 m or even for the full height of the tower.

You miss my point.
The towers were tall, relative to their cross section.
Thus, the cores were tall, and relatively thin.
They were so tall that in order to support even their own weight, they needed to be braced.
The radio mast is merely one example of a structure that is tall and thin enough to be laterally unstable, yet perfectly capable of supporting an axial load.
It was an attempt to illustrate the principle, much like Grizzly's photos.

But don't listen to me. Use that formula to find the maximum load any individual core column could take.
Then find out the weight of the column per unit length.
Then find out the unsupported height the column can hold.

Hint: f_cr = max weight = weight per unit length * max length
Thus max length = f_cr/weight per unit length​

(Assume the bottom end is fixed, and choose whatever boundary condition you like for the top end)

This is how you do a proper investigation, as opposed to making numbers up based on intuition.

Statements like "But that does not mean that the tower was unable to stand upright without being aided by lateral forces for at least 50-100-200 m or even for the full height of the tower.", are not investigating. They're mindless blabber. You have no support for it, for have not analyzed it, you've just made up a number that you like. And as such, are completely worthless.

To repeat my argument:
- I am sure the building was designed to withstand at least an hour of office fires as all the high rise steel framed buildings have done in the past.

Yes, but as had been pointed out, the people who designed for that didn't take into consideration a large jet flying at high speed, knocking off fire proofing and wrecking the sprinkler system.

Regardless, this has nothing top do with the core's ability to stand on its own.

- the building was designed against an impact of an airliner. WTC2 endured an impact from a plane that missed the center of the building AND was flying under an angle of 45 degrees. So I'll grant you one edge core column at best of, what did somebody claim? ... responsible for 6% of the total load (buildings are typically over engineered by several factors).

This has been addressed above, and has nothing to do with the core being able to stand on its own.

Let's stick to one topic, please, so we don't get bogged down in pointless minutia.

Conclusion: the core could not have been damaged as imagined. It was sliced by explosives/thermate/whatever.

And this is an unsupported allegation that does not follow from your arguments.

It is a non-sequitur. The leap to having it "sliced" does not follow from your argument. You made no basis for it.

Further, you base this assertion on your own personal feeling that the core could have stood, without ever having validated that notion!

I can state that a 747 cannot reach takeoff speed under their own power on a standard-length runway, and therefore all 747's are equipped with rocket-assist takeoff (RATO) unit.
But the fact that such units exist is irrelevant.

Unless I can prove my claim that 747 aircraft cannot reach takeoff speed under their own power on a standard length runway, I have no business claiming that they all use RATO units.

THis is the same situation you have found yourself in again and again on this thread.

YOU CANNOT CLAIM SOMETHING MUST HAVE HAPPENED A CERTAIN WAY WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM

Which means that, if you are going to use the core collapsing as evidence of controlled demolition, you must prove it would not have collapsed on it's own.

These formulas bring (well, almost) tears to my eyes of fond memories to one of the best times of my life when I was a student myself, many, many years ago. Girlfriends, wild parties, all books of Nietzsche, Pirsig and hey, even formulas!

While I'm glad you had a chance to reminisce., I would prefer it if you were to apply these formulas to your ideas.

I would think, being an investigator and all, you would have no qualms about subjecting your hypothesis to the standards of proof demanded of science.

You know, the same standards you hold everything we've told you to.

You obviously missed my Eiffel tower-related thought experiment; the upper third of the tower of ca. 100 m is almost straight and much less robust than the WTC core and is standing upright for more than 100 years now. I would be very surprised if the WTC core turned out to be unable to stand on it's own for the full 4xx meters.

Again, this is a non-sequitur.

The Eiffel tower being able to stand on it's own for any length of time has no bearing on whether of not the WTC core could stand on its own.

Why?

Because they are not the same design.

So all this prattle about the Eiffel tower and your pants is a waste of time. If you want to know why you can't make analogies based only on a whim, read some of Heiwa's threads.

Analogies are fine for demonstrating simple concepts, but you can't make any conclusions about a structure without properly supporting the analogies.

Tall and thin = unstable is an analogy. It is a very simple analogy, but it demonstrates the principle well. It can be used to illustrate that the WTC core, which was also tall and thin, would be unstable and in need of lateral support. What it cannot do is be used to make any predictions on the strength of the WTC core.

In fact, I encourage you to read Heiwa's threads, because you are treading very close to being in the realm of Heiwa-esque physics. I'll link to some below:
Forum search results for Heiwa's threads

I understand your point but I hope I have made it clear why the point is irrelevant for the case at hand.

It is not irrelevant.

You assert that the core should not have collapsed on it's own, and therefore must have been demolished.

However, you have no support for your assertion. Which means your claim of this being proof of controlled demolition is worthless, unless you can substantiate your assertion.

It's the exact same as what I said above about 747's.

Unless my assertion (that they cannot take off under thier own power) is supported, I have no basis for my conclusion of RATO units.

Unless you can support your assertion (that the core could stand unsupported), you have no basis for concluding that it was a controlled demolition.

Thus, it is extremely relevant.

Please do not pretend you have a mandate to protect these or them against thinking about 9/11. You have not.

You are the one accusing people of being complicit in mass murder, based on nothing more than personal prejudice and an ignorance of physics.

You are the one saying that the people who confessed to the crime, and the people who are implicated by all the evidence, are actually innocent.

You are the one claiming that all the evidence and support determined and established by many many scientists from all around the world is wrong, because you think, despite a complete absence of corroborating evidence, that a handful of Israeli's did it.

Don't tell me I can't demand you support your allegations.

Because I can, and I will. And not just me. Everybody on this board, every person affected by the tragedy, every person exonerated by your claims, every person implicated by your claims, and every person in the whole world, can demand you provide support for your absurd hypothesis.



--- --- --- --- ---


Now, would you mind actually addressing the points I raised about buckling?
Because, to be honest, you had nothing of substance in that post whatsoever.

I will not reply again until you actually address the issue.

For convenience, I shall include important information below:

[latex]f_{cr} = \frac{\pi^2 E I_{min}}{L^2}[/latex]

where:

f_cr = critical loading force
E = modulus of elasticity (for steel: E = 200 GPa = 30,000,000 psi),
pi = 3.14,
I_min = the minimum Second Moment of Area,
and L = length of the column.​

(hosted on my photobucket account)

From here.

-----

[latex]I_{x} = \frac{b h^3 - 2 \frac{b - t_{w}}{2} h_{1}^3}{12}[/latex]

[latex]I_{y} = \frac{h_{1} t_{w}^3 - 2 \frac{h - h_{1}}{2} b^3}{12}[/latex]

where:

I_x = area moment about X-axis ("b" dimension)
I_y = area moment about Y-axis ("h" dimension)
b = width (x-dimension), the data for which can be found here
h = height (y-dimension), the data for which can be found here
t_w = width of central webbing, the data for which can be found here
h₁ = inside distance between flanges, the data for which can be found here

​

(hosted on my photobucket account)

From here

-----

And now all you need is the weight per unit langth, which is also available at the same site as the rest of the column data.
Source for column data

​

Now get cracking. This shouldn't take you too long.

You have a splendid opportunity to establish support for you claim that the core columns could not have collapsed on their own.

Sine you are a person interested in the truth of what happened that day, I expect you'll be overjoyed that I've given you everything you need to support this aspect of your hypothesis.

If you need help, just ask.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yesterday night I have spent another 2 hours watching and annotating a video that concentrates on the collapse of the WTC: "Improbable Collapse".

12:55 – No examples of collapse high rise steel frame work buildings due to fire in a period of 100 years.
16:50 – Buildings were totally over designed for calamities. Aircraft impact and jet fuel fire was incorporated into the design.
18:30 – The design could withstand a 707 which has more damaging capacity than a 676.
19:50 – NIST needs to resort to loosening of fire coating to explain the collapse. Everything was covered with fire proofing, which was undergoing an upgrade.
20:24 - According to NIST the towers would not have collapsed on the basis of the impact and subsequent fires alone if the thermal isolation had not been widely dislodged.
21:00 – Deceptive test with shooting bullets at thermal isolation which caused it to dislodge sold as a model for what happened on 9/11. Not realistic to assume that B676 crash would cause anything similar to the test situation.
22:00 – Denial that wide scale dislodging of thermal isolation took place.
23:00 – According to NIST none of the recovered steel samples was exposed to more than 600 C for as long as 15 minutes. Only 3 of the external panels recovered had reached a temperature of 250 C.
23:30 – Less than 2% of the material from the fire zone had experienced temperatures of more than 480 F, which is very low. Way too low to soften the steel.
24:30 – Illustration pancake theory. Rejection of the idea that thermal expansion had caused deformation and subsequent collapse of floor panels on the basis of tests.
26:00 – None of the samples displayed show signs that they had lost more than half of their strength. Also for unfireproofed steel.
27:30 – No pancaking took place. Nowhere there were piles of floors stacked up on each other to be seen. Nor is there a spindle of core columns left. The only thing to be observed is dust. And if dust is all there is than there is no mass to cause a collapse!
28:25 – Antenna goes first for 12 feet and only then things start collapsing below. But the plane had not cut all the core columns. It looks like all core columns had been cut.
29:10 – Picture of spire. The spire does not tip over but collapses in itself as if it has been cut into pieces.
29:55 – What can move masses out of the way? Explosives. Who in their turn create dust.
30:30 Steven Jones specialty: molten metal. All three buildings 1/2/7 had molten metal in the basement areas. Official reports say nothing about molten metal. Cannot come from fires. Only explanation is exothermic chemical reaction. Thermite most likely candidate.
32:20 – Thermite can be purchased on Ebay. Aluminium oxide is a byproduct of the thermite reaction and contributed to the dust clouds.
35:50 – Official studies cannot explain presence of sulphur found on debris samples.
36:30 – Drawn out lawsuit of family members of victims against city of New york caused the release of transscripts of many dozens of witnesses of explosions within WTC towers.
38:30 – Several people reported red flashes.
39:00 – Several witnesses compare it spontaneously with controlled demolitions as seen on tv.
40:20 – Superiors of firefighters forbid the firefighters to discuss the bombs planted in the buildings.
42:00 – WTC7.
44:50 – NIST admits that the ‘best hypotheses’ they can offer has in reality a low probability. They did not look into the possibility of controlled demolition.
54:00 – Several examples of media obstruction of displaying the collapse video of WTC7. Permission from the highest levels is necessary to get this done.
55:55 – 45 seconds would it have taken for the twin towers to come down on the basis of the law of conservation of momentum if internal resistance had to be overcome.
57:15 – 10 times more dust has been produced by the twin towers than one would expect in advance on the basis of gravitational pull alone.
58:00 – Satellite images taken weeks after 9/11 show hot spots around Ground Zero.
59:00 – NIST states that they do not give an analysis of the structural behavior directly after the collapse.

I am sure this is going to be a great help for you guys to finally see things in a different light and that all resistance is futile.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I am sure this is going to be a great help for you guys to finally see things in a different light and that all resistance is futile.

Of all the deluded notions you repeatedly post here, the most egregious is the supposition that anything in "Improbable Collapse", or any of the other conspiracist videos and websites you so faithfully believe in and slavishly quote here, has not been thoroughly discussed, dissected, diced, chopped, liquidised and consigned to the refuse dump where it belongs. If you manage to avoid learning anything else, please try to learn one thing: you are bringing nothing new to this discussion. We've seen it all before, and if you're not getting a reply it isn't because there isn't one, but because it's been posted so many times that it's become unutterably tedious to repeat it.

Dave

 

[9/11-investigator]

9/11-investigator? Any comment?

Oh yes, here an additional comment:

Here you have confirmation that the guys were indeed firemen. Scroll to the bottom for picture again and accompanying text: "The core column shown above the firefighter was discovered after the collapse. The angled cut occurs in exactly the manner that shaped charges slice through steel beams to control the way they fall. Notice the hardened once liquid metal."

And here is another instructive site showing the difference between columns sliced with thermite (as was the case with the WTC) and ones cut by hand.

No wonder the authorities had such a big hurry to cart all the evidence off to remote places like China and India.

 

[Dave Rogers]

12:55 – No examples of collapse high rise steel frame work buildings due to fire in a period of 100 years.

Irrelevant. No examples of similar high rise structures surviving either (a) jet plane impact or (b) unfought widespread fires started simultaneously on multiple floors.

16:50 – Buildings were totally over designed for calamities. Aircraft impact and jet fuel fire was incorporated into the design.

Misrepresentation. Aircraft impact was considered in a post-design study which did not include effects of jet fuel fire. Study was based on manual calculations, a totally inadequate level of simulation for realistic results.

18:30 – The design could withstand a 707 which has more damaging capacity than a 676.

Untrue. The 767 is heavier and faster.

19:50 – NIST needs to resort to loosening of fire coating to explain the collapse. Everything was covered with fire proofing, which was undergoing an upgrade.

Misrepresentation. NIST modelled the impact both numerically and physically and found that fireproofing removal was expected, hence based their further simulations on that assumption. Other studies suggest fireproofing removal may not have been necessary for global collapse.

20:24 - According to NIST the towers would not have collapsed on the basis of the impact and subsequent fires alone if the thermal isolation had not been widely dislodged.

This is disputed, and NIST's modelling indicates that fireproofing was removed.

21:00 – Deceptive test with shooting bullets at thermal isolation which caused it to dislodge sold as a model for what happened on 9/11. Not realistic to assume that B676 crash would cause anything similar to the test situation.

Blatant misrepresentation. NIST conducted far more extensive testing than is admitted in this video, and specifically adjusted impact velocities and debris size to match modelled impact parameters.

22:00 – Denial that wide scale dislodging of thermal isolation took place.

Uninformed opinion. Irrelevant.

23:00 – According to NIST none of the recovered steel samples was exposed to more than 600 C for as long as 15 minutes. Only 3 of the external panels recovered had reached a temperature of 250 C.

Misunderstanding of the data. Recovered steel samples were chosen on the basis of ability to identify their position in the structure. No identifiable pieces from the fire zones were found. All temperatures agreed with NIST's fire modelling results thus confirming the accuracy of the model.

23:30 – Less than 2% of the material from the fire zone had experienced temperatures of more than 480 F, which is very low. Way too low to soften the steel.

Not sure what the actual claim is here. NIST's results are internally consistent, so any claim of inconsistency is either misrepresentation, misunderstanding or a statement of uninformed opinion.

24:30 – Illustration pancake theory. Rejection of the idea that thermal expansion had caused deformation and subsequent collapse of floor panels on the basis of tests.

Incorrect. Test results properly scaled indicate that collapse was expected.

26:00 – None of the samples displayed show signs that they had lost more than half of their strength. Also for unfireproofed steel.

See comments above on recovered steel samples.

27:30 – No pancaking took place. Nowhere there were piles of floors stacked up on each other to be seen. Nor is there a spindle of core columns left. The only thing to be observed is dust. And if dust is all there is than there is no mass to cause a collapse!

Outright lie. The well known "meteorite", claimed by Steven Jones to be previously molten steel, is easily seen to be parts of about three floors pancaked together with entrained debris. Large pieces of concrete debris were abundant in the WTC rubble piles, as Steven Jones among others has admitted. The claim that the WTC was turned to dust is one of the commonest lies of the "truth" movement.

28:25 – Antenna goes first for 12 feet and only then things start collapsing below. But the plane had not cut all the core columns. It looks like all core columns had been cut.

The movement of the antenna followed the movement of the top section of WTC1, initially tilting then falling with the upper block. From the point of view of the video clip used, taken from the direction opposite to that in which the building tilted, it appears as if the antenna dropped, but this is due to foreshortening and monocular vision. Other videos show that the antenna tilted instead of dropping.

29:10 – Picture of spire. The spire does not tip over but collapses in itself as if it has been cut into pieces.

The spire could not have been undamaged from the collapse of the building around it. It di in fact tip slightly, but fractured after only a very small tilt, as would be expected.

29:55 – What can move masses out of the way? Explosives. Who in their turn create dust.

Irrelevant, as the sound of explosives sufficiently powerful was not heard.

30:30 Steven Jones specialty: molten metal. All three buildings 1/2/7 had molten metal in the basement areas. Official reports say nothing about molten metal. Cannot come from fires. Only explanation is exothermic chemical reaction. Thermite most likely candidate.

Molten metal can easily be produced in fires. Molten steel is less likely, but there is no reliable evidence that molten steel was present.

32:20 – Thermite can be purchased on Ebay. Aluminium oxide is a byproduct of the thermite reaction and contributed to the dust clouds.

Unfounded speculation. There is no evidence for thermite, which has never been used to sever vertical structural members.

35:50 – Official studies cannot explain presence of sulphur found on debris samples.

Untrue. Gypsum wallboard decomposes to produce sulphur oxides at the temperatures known to be present.

36:30 – Drawn out lawsuit of family members of victims against city of New york caused the release of transscripts of many dozens of witnesses of explosions within WTC towers.

Things explode in fires. None of the explosions reported was loud enough to have been demolition charges. Most explosions were long before the collapses.

38:30 – Several people reported red flashes.

in a fire? Who'd have thought it?

39:00 – Several witnesses compare it spontaneously with controlled demolitions as seen on tv.

Because those are the only other examples of buildings falling that they've seen.

40:20 – Superiors of firefighters forbid the firefighters to discuss the bombs planted in the buildings.

Not sure this is true.

42:00 – WTC7.

44:50 – NIST admits that the ‘best hypotheses’ they can offer has in reality a low probability. They did not look into the possibility of controlled demolition.

Out of date. NIST eliminated the possibility of explosives on the basis of lack of sufficiently loud noises at the time, and thermite on the basis that there is no known way for thermite to demolish a building.

54:00 – Several examples of media obstruction of displaying the collapse video of WTC7. Permission from the highest levels is necessary to get this done.

Irrelevant.

55:55 – 45 seconds would it have taken for the twin towers to come down on the basis of the law of conservation of momentum if internal resistance had to be overcome.

Several calculations have shown that this is incorrect; predicted collapse times are typically 12-16 seconds.

57:15 – 10 times more dust has been produced by the twin towers than one would expect in advance on the basis of gravitational pull alone.

Based on speculation as to the amount of dust produced, hence irrelevant.

58:00 – Satellite images taken weeks after 9/11 show hot spots around Ground Zero.

Which are incompatible with any CD hypothesis, and can only be due to smouldering fires in the rubble pile. Heat from thermite would have dissipated.

59:00 – NIST states that they do not give an analysis of the structural behavior directly after the collapse.

Because it's blindingly obvious what would happen.

Would you like to try repeating somebody different's arguments instead?

Dave

 

[~enigma~]

No wonder the authorities had such a big hurry to cart all the evidence off to remote places like China and India.

I really suggest you come back to 2008 from 2002 and explain why the steel in Hangar 17 at JFK in Brooklyn isn't "evidence."

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here you have confirmation that the guys were indeed firemen.

Unsourced statements on Truther websites don't confirm things.

And here is another instructive site showing the difference between columns sliced with thermite (as was the case with the WTC)

Petitio principii much?

... and ones cut by hand.

What it actually seems to show is the difference between the top parts of the severed beams and the stumps left in the ground.

You can see more slag-encrusted stumps here.

No wonder the authorities had such a big hurry to cart all the evidence off to remote places like China and India.

Quite so, they only let demolition engineers clamber all over the site for a year, and as demolition engineers don't know anything at all about demolition, this wasn't long enough for any of them to ask awkward questions like: "Why are all these beams cut given that (a) we know we didn't cut them (b) cut beams don't look like that?"

Where the authorities slipped up, of course, was letting so many people take photographs of the evidence. Silly of them really. Couldn't they have restricted photojournalists from taking photographs of the very thing they were trying to cover up?

And these people are secretly running the world? Sheesh.

But that's Evil Secret Conspiracies for you, they're just exactly as dumb as Truthers need them to be.