RemoveBush
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 186
"T.A.M. - A blanket "Physics says this or that shouldn't happen is not sufficient. If that were the case, then all engineers besides those involved in the NIST investigation would be screaming it from the roof tops. Of all the members of the structural engineering community, most of which I would guess have at least read some summaries of the NIST reports, none of them have come out and said the physics is wrong, or that the towers couldnt have collapsed the way NIST says they did. You must provide a scientific work or reference that takes the NIST findings and proves them wrong. Otherwise, the statement is opinion. So far, I have seen one attempt, and I believe Greening's Paper counters it. Likewise, if a structural engineer could prove the NIST findings impossible, he would certainly publish his work in a reputable peer reviewed journal, as this would be a monumental, career making paper...yet I see none."
OK.... I have already supplied numerous listing, perhaps I will find a reply further on when you read them but here goes again.
If you look at that video I posted earlier, you will find a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER who states that WTC7 was an IMPLOSION!
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9/11+mysteries
How about this Controll Demollition expert?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoS...ch=wtc7 wtc controlled demolition 911 jowenko
Steven Jones knocks down Greening's "theory" with SCIENTIFIC experiments!
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
Just do a search on Greening in the PDF to find the information.
Here is another person, but this one is Anonymous. If you want to know more, then ask Dr. Jones:
"Comments from a Structural Engineer / Architect
• “It occurred to me that structural engineers and architects are
practitioners of static physics [like yourself] although we use
different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate
on our designs.
• “I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed
public disbelief at the official line which lurches from theory to
theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess
they have run out of ideas on Building 7.
• “You nailed the biggest problem when you focused on the
symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of the
damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned) as
cantilever beams on end. There is so much redundant steel in
these buildings because they have to resist hurricane force
winds. Was there a hurricane in New York on Sept 11?
• “If steel framed structures designed by world class engineers
(who are still being commissioned to design high rises
elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I
should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.”"
Again in Steven Jones's document:
Structural Engineers strongly criticize the final NIST report on WTC collapses: New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
• “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show
computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls
from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
• “Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the
type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
• “The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top
of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
• “University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any
errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
• “A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
"T.A.M. - As the 18-30 storey building "Chunk" above the impact zone fell, it wiped out the building floors below with little to no resistance (in comparison to the force acting downward). As a result the building below the zone appeared to collapse with ease, falling in near free fall time."
OK, then what took out the core?? What you are describing would mean that the floors would RIP themselves from the core and fall. Sure the core could suffer damage, but a large portion of it would be still standing. By all means, please explain how the core which was the large load baring part of the building was destroyed by this "theory".
"I believe there was some damage to some of the support structure, but my memory is poor on the exacts at this moment.
As for the fires, numerous pictures posted here have shown fires raging through multiple floors of WTC7, and a few pictures show smoke coming from nearly every floor on the south side facade. There is alot of testimony from firemen on the scene that the fires were out of control, and hence part of the reason why efforts were ceased on it so early."
OK, so why didn't these fall down?? If the "theory" put forth is true, then these buildings should have fallen as well after all they are actually worse fires than what the WTC had:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/ndocs/meridian_plaza_c.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/fib_la_fire1.jpg
"T.A.M. - A topic unto itself. Let me just say that "squadrons" and "contingents" can be referred to as "it", and there was a firefighting contingent formed in a perimeter around WTC7 that day. He could have been referring to the contingent, as a whole, as "it". I could go into further detail wrt what actual authority Larry would have or not have to call for a demolition of a building in this scenario, but it has been beaten to death on this board."
OK, but you do realize that you are stating that the fire department needed to get approval from Larry for doing this! The fire department is in charge from the moment they enter a fire scene and until they determine that it is resolved. So you are now saying that Larry was running things at WTC7, is that what your saying? If not, then why in the world would the fire department even need to call Larry to talk with him about anything? If they could not do anything, then they relinquish control to who ever is next in line. Since Larry told them to move back, the firemen were not in control, so who was?
"T.A.M. - 1. Provide me testimony from Nicholas DeMasi confirming the story.
2. Please provide me with any other rescue workers besides these two "partners" who saw, in any way, the black boxes."
If you would have READ the article, you would have read that he states that MANY people saw them with the black boxes. He aslo states that he will not BETRAY his brothers by naming them without their permission. Someone that has INTEGRITY!
"T.A.M. - The NTSB deferred to the FBI all investigation due to the criminal nature of the crashes. The NTSB is, for the most part, a safety board, formed to determine the accidental causes of crashes to help enhance safety in the future. If you have a problem with why they didnt do more, ask them why."
Sure, and I will probably get the same answer that everyone else gets "National Security". It's amazing how something the whole world witnessed is national security.
"T.A.M. - Please show me a VALID reference that states that within hours of the crashes they had anything that couldnt be garnished from a passenger manifest."
You did not just say that did you???? Are you kidding me? First of all.... They would have to COMB the manifests and try to identify EVERYONE on the planes.... Then they would have to try and find the information from the INS as to what they had on them. Then they would have to review the information to validate it. etc. etc. etc.
You really think that in just a couple of hours they can have all this information? They first need to find out what port of entry they entered the US from. There are SEVERAL ports they could enter from, so do you realize the time involved to obtain that information?
"T.A.M. - 1. The cost of the full investigation, including legal costs, I believe was the number you quote. Do you have any info on how much it cost to INVESTIGATE Clintons "BJ" activity...just the INVESTIGATION."
No I do not.
"T.A.M. - 2. The $160K you speak of...was this for FEMA or for the FBI. They do not need to provide funding to the FBi to investigate, as they are a preexisting organization, that would simply deviate the needed man power. This quote is too vague."
This was for the 9/11 Ommission Commission.
"T.A.M. - 3. If not 5 Democratic Politicians and 5 Republican Politicians, than who...who should have been on the committee. Do not cry foul without a suggestion for who should have been on the commission."
How about EXPERTS? You know like Structural Engineers, Construction Engineers, basically anyone who has the technical ability to know what they are looking for and what to ask. Do you know the reason why Kissenger resigned from the commission? It was because the Jersey girls asked him if one of his clients was OBL. Does this sound like a committee that is not biased? Even the next person to take charge was questioned by them.
You might want to be careful.... Your not using the "quote" button so people can track the quotes. Despite the fact that it says "quote", you are still not complying with the Members Terms since everyone here wants to play that game.
OK.... I have already supplied numerous listing, perhaps I will find a reply further on when you read them but here goes again.
If you look at that video I posted earlier, you will find a STRUCTURAL ENGINEER who states that WTC7 was an IMPLOSION!
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9/11+mysteries
How about this Controll Demollition expert?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoS...ch=wtc7 wtc controlled demolition 911 jowenko
Steven Jones knocks down Greening's "theory" with SCIENTIFIC experiments!
http://www.journalof911studies.com/JonesAnswersQuestionsWorldTradeCenter.pdf
Just do a search on Greening in the PDF to find the information.
Here is another person, but this one is Anonymous. If you want to know more, then ask Dr. Jones:
"Comments from a Structural Engineer / Architect
• “It occurred to me that structural engineers and architects are
practitioners of static physics [like yourself] although we use
different terminology peculiar to our professions to elaborate
on our designs.
• “I am surprised how few of my colleagues have expressed
public disbelief at the official line which lurches from theory to
theory as the shortcomings of each became apparent. I guess
they have run out of ideas on Building 7.
• “You nailed the biggest problem when you focused on the
symmetry of collapse in comparison to the asymmetry of the
damage... Steel high rises are designed (and overdesigned) as
cantilever beams on end. There is so much redundant steel in
these buildings because they have to resist hurricane force
winds. Was there a hurricane in New York on Sept 11?
• “If steel framed structures designed by world class engineers
(who are still being commissioned to design high rises
elsewhere in the world) can collapse with so little provocation, I
should send my diploma back and take up fortune telling.”"
Again in Steven Jones's document:
Structural Engineers strongly criticize the final NIST report on WTC collapses: New Civil Engineer, October 6, 2005.
• “World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show
computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls
from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned.
• “Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the
type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.
• “The collapse mechanism and the role played by the hat truss at the top
of the tower has been the focus of debate since the US National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) published its findings….
• “University of Manchester [U.K.] professor of structural engineering Colin
Bailey said there was a lot to be gained from visualising the structural
response. “NIST should really show the visualisations; otherwise the
opportunity to correlate them back to the video evidence and identify any
errors in the modeling will be lost,” he said….
• “A leading US structural engineer said NIST had obviously devoted enormous resources to the development of the impact and fire models. “By comparison the global structural model is not as sophisticated,” he said. “The software used [by NIST] has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgment calls.”
"T.A.M. - As the 18-30 storey building "Chunk" above the impact zone fell, it wiped out the building floors below with little to no resistance (in comparison to the force acting downward). As a result the building below the zone appeared to collapse with ease, falling in near free fall time."
OK, then what took out the core?? What you are describing would mean that the floors would RIP themselves from the core and fall. Sure the core could suffer damage, but a large portion of it would be still standing. By all means, please explain how the core which was the large load baring part of the building was destroyed by this "theory".
"I believe there was some damage to some of the support structure, but my memory is poor on the exacts at this moment.
As for the fires, numerous pictures posted here have shown fires raging through multiple floors of WTC7, and a few pictures show smoke coming from nearly every floor on the south side facade. There is alot of testimony from firemen on the scene that the fires were out of control, and hence part of the reason why efforts were ceased on it so early."
OK, so why didn't these fall down?? If the "theory" put forth is true, then these buildings should have fallen as well after all they are actually worse fires than what the WTC had:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/ndocs/meridian_plaza_c.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/la_fire_lg_c.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/b7/docs/fib_la_fire1.jpg
"T.A.M. - A topic unto itself. Let me just say that "squadrons" and "contingents" can be referred to as "it", and there was a firefighting contingent formed in a perimeter around WTC7 that day. He could have been referring to the contingent, as a whole, as "it". I could go into further detail wrt what actual authority Larry would have or not have to call for a demolition of a building in this scenario, but it has been beaten to death on this board."
OK, but you do realize that you are stating that the fire department needed to get approval from Larry for doing this! The fire department is in charge from the moment they enter a fire scene and until they determine that it is resolved. So you are now saying that Larry was running things at WTC7, is that what your saying? If not, then why in the world would the fire department even need to call Larry to talk with him about anything? If they could not do anything, then they relinquish control to who ever is next in line. Since Larry told them to move back, the firemen were not in control, so who was?
"T.A.M. - 1. Provide me testimony from Nicholas DeMasi confirming the story.
2. Please provide me with any other rescue workers besides these two "partners" who saw, in any way, the black boxes."
If you would have READ the article, you would have read that he states that MANY people saw them with the black boxes. He aslo states that he will not BETRAY his brothers by naming them without their permission. Someone that has INTEGRITY!
"T.A.M. - The NTSB deferred to the FBI all investigation due to the criminal nature of the crashes. The NTSB is, for the most part, a safety board, formed to determine the accidental causes of crashes to help enhance safety in the future. If you have a problem with why they didnt do more, ask them why."
Sure, and I will probably get the same answer that everyone else gets "National Security". It's amazing how something the whole world witnessed is national security.
"T.A.M. - Please show me a VALID reference that states that within hours of the crashes they had anything that couldnt be garnished from a passenger manifest."
You did not just say that did you???? Are you kidding me? First of all.... They would have to COMB the manifests and try to identify EVERYONE on the planes.... Then they would have to try and find the information from the INS as to what they had on them. Then they would have to review the information to validate it. etc. etc. etc.
You really think that in just a couple of hours they can have all this information? They first need to find out what port of entry they entered the US from. There are SEVERAL ports they could enter from, so do you realize the time involved to obtain that information?
"T.A.M. - 1. The cost of the full investigation, including legal costs, I believe was the number you quote. Do you have any info on how much it cost to INVESTIGATE Clintons "BJ" activity...just the INVESTIGATION."
No I do not.
"T.A.M. - 2. The $160K you speak of...was this for FEMA or for the FBI. They do not need to provide funding to the FBi to investigate, as they are a preexisting organization, that would simply deviate the needed man power. This quote is too vague."
This was for the 9/11 Ommission Commission.
"T.A.M. - 3. If not 5 Democratic Politicians and 5 Republican Politicians, than who...who should have been on the committee. Do not cry foul without a suggestion for who should have been on the commission."
How about EXPERTS? You know like Structural Engineers, Construction Engineers, basically anyone who has the technical ability to know what they are looking for and what to ask. Do you know the reason why Kissenger resigned from the commission? It was because the Jersey girls asked him if one of his clients was OBL. Does this sound like a committee that is not biased? Even the next person to take charge was questioned by them.
You might want to be careful.... Your not using the "quote" button so people can track the quotes. Despite the fact that it says "quote", you are still not complying with the Members Terms since everyone here wants to play that game.
