Loose Change - Part III

[Trifikas]

I realize I'm a little behind, but I was in another thread, see, and...well, never mind.


It is reasonable for Prof Jose L. Torero to have been surprised that the buildings fell. Heck, the stood up for close to an hour after they were hit, probably a lot of people were thinking they would remain standing.

But that's a far cry from saying the official investigation into why they fell is completly wrong. His statements are all in the past tense, wich I inferred as he was telling how he felt at the time. What his beliefs are now are unknown, and he doesn't say if he believes the NIST report. The article states that he is trying to improve fire safety, not disprove the NIST reports, So I think for now we'll have to put him in the "Unknown" camp, rather than on the side of CT'ers or NIST report supporters.

Agreed?

Trif

 

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, why do you allways ask others to think for you? I have no proof. How could i? I told you that i am no american, even not on the american continent. I have no coherent story to tell, Pardalis, but the official story is a joke for me. Ok?

No, not OK. Childlike, you have to explain what you post, and explain why you say the things you say. You are the one making the claims, the least you could do is expand on them, otherwise you're just accentuating the confusion. You can't say somehting and run away.

Why is the official story a joke, and what all these alternative theories about international corrupt organisations have to do with 9/11? Don't you have any overview of what it all adds up to? What the hell am I supposed to do with all this information?

 

[Shrinker]

If you can't wait that long maybe you could ask him yourself - J. Torero's contact details can easy be found on the net.

Too slow Childlike, I asked him myself and while I await his permission to post the exchange I'll show you this...

http://tinyurl.com/htzb2

How did the WTC towers collapse: a new theory


A. S. Usmani, Y. C. Chung and J. L. Torero

Abstract

This paper uses a finite-element model to investigate the stability of the Twin-Towers of the World Trade Center, New York for a number of different fire scenarios. This investigation does not take into account the structural damage caused by the terrorist attack. However, the fire scenarios included are based upon the likely fires that could have occurred as a result of the attack. A number of different explanations of how and why the Towers collapsed have appeared since the event. None of these however have adequately focused on the most important issue, namely ‘what structural mechanisms led to the state which triggered the collapse’. Also, quite predictably, there are significant and fundamental differences in the explanations of the WTC collapses on offer so far. A complete consensus on any detailed explanation of the definitive causes and mechanisms of the collapse of these structures is well nigh impossible given the enormous uncertainties in key data (nature of the fires, damage to fire protection, heat transfer to structural members and nature and extent of structural damage for instance). There is, however, a consensus of sorts that the fires that burned in the structures after the attack had a big part to play in this collapse. The question is how big? Taking this to the extreme, this paper poses the hypothetical question, "had there been no structural damage would the structure have survived fires of a similar magnitude"?
A robust but simple computational and theoretical analysis has been carried out to answer this question. Robust because no gross assumptions have been made and varying important parameters over a wide range shows consistent behaviour supporting the overall conclusions. Simple because all results presented can be checked by any structural engineer either theoretically or using widely available structural analysis software tools. The results are illuminating and show that the structural system adopted for the Twin-Towers may have been unusually vulnerable to a major fire. The analysis results show a simple but unmistakable collapse mechanism that owes as much (or more) to the geometric thermal expansion effects as it does to the material effects of loss of strength and stiffness. The collapse mechanism discovered is a simple stability failure directly related to the effect of heating (fire). Additionally, the mechanism is not dependent upon failure of structural connections.

 

[Pardalis]

Childlike, if you can't even make sense yourself of the theories you are posting, why are you posting it in the first place?

 

[Childlike Empress]

@Cylinder: Yes, and the quote that Gravy "couldn't see" was:

And what about that? Isn't that the long awaited expert who is very surprised that the Towers collapsed? Totally ignored (an example - i am not convinced of CD, remember?).

@Pardalis: NO! I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT ADDS UP TO! I am SEEKING the truth and don't claim that i know it. I agree with you all that the term "truth movement" is at least dubious. I think it is by design dubious. edit: I am not posting theories. You know that.

@Shrinker: Great! I wish this had happened without my reminder.

CU

 

[Pardalis]

I am not posting theories. You know that.

Then what is it that you are posting?

 

[Shrinker]

Jose Torero & the Twin Towers

Well, well, would you look at this. Not only does he dismiss this current fuss, he also blows a hole in the 'no other building collapsed due to fire' story. See bolding at the bottom.

My email to J. Torero:

Hi there, I read this article at the BBC and wondered if wouldn't mind
answering a query or two.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/5216788.stm
I'm seeing this article quoted by 9/11 conpriacy theorists on the internet,
in an attempt to show that structural engineers are finally coming
around to the 'inside job' theory about the attacks. Is it true that you
find the collapse of the towers suspicious, or at least you believe the official
explanation lacking credibility? And do you intend to publish any work
showing finding related to this?

Thanks in advance for your time. I ask for purely personal reasons, since
the 9/11 conspiracy theories are a topic of particular interest to me.

His response:

The tests that you are refering to where conducted to demonstrate how
modern Fire Safety Engineering can help to control fires and understand
the behaviour of buildings during fires. We used an
enormous ammount of sensors to match the fire progression to pre-run
models and try to forcast the event. The relationship with 9-11 is a
weak one, it is just that if we introduced and interrogated sensors
to understand the fire and the behaviour of the structure, then we
could have provided fire fighters with adequate information on how
the structure was moving towards collapse at the WTC. The 9-11 link
leaked to the media because it is part of a TV show that the BBC is
making on modern Fire Safety Engineering. That is all.

We have worked extensively on the collapses of 9-11 and if you want
to read any of our published papers please go to

www.civ.ed.ac.uk/research/fire

It is a shame that out of a serious set of experiments, the media
has made a "9-11 revival" that has been picked up by so many people
that have not even bother asking what are we "really" doing.

My followup:

Thanks very much for your reply! I would love to read more about it but your
link isn't working. [I fixed the link above]

I'm not with the conspiracy theorists at all. In fact I try to debate them
wherever they pop up. They have a habit of latching on to articles like this
and failing to follow up with any research. Would you mind if I quoted your
response on an internet forum?

I don't what to put words into your mouth, but in the BBC article you're
quoted as saying the towers shouldn't have collapsed. From your reply here,
do you mean, they wouldn't have collapsed if firefighters had been
given proper information to prevent it?

Again, thanks for your (super-speedy) response!

J. Torero responds again:

I am attaching 2 published papers on what we believe happened.
You will see that these are very serious and detailed studies.

In regards to the quote you are refering to, this was "artistic
license" taken by the BBC, who never interviewed me but took the
liberty to edit a quote that came out in a different newspaper. What I
said is that buildings should not collapse due to fires, that the WTC
buildings had a very unique behaviour in fire, that was not antcipated
when they were designed because nobody followed a proper design
analysis of their behaviour in fire. These proper methods did not exist
in the 1960's, so the methodology used was simply to assign a
prescribed ammount of insulation. For that particular design, this
proved to be the wrong strategy.

Unfortunatelly, even with the correct information, given the particular
design, nobody would have been capable of changing the structural
outcome. Nevertheless, I believe that the intervention strategy might
have been a different one. Although, nobody knows with an event of such
magnitude.

Please feel free to quote me if you want to, I have decided not to
respond to any of the hundreds of e-mails I am getting, but yours seemd
quite sensible. So I replied.

Best regards,

Jose

PM me for the articles. All bolding mine.

 

[Hawk one]

In other words, J. Torero isn't supporting what CL thought he was supporting.

What a surprise.

 

[milesalpha]

Yes, an example. Perhaps some people on both sides are not interested in the truth?

@Nick: His curriculum vitae.

Hmmm an incomprehensible reply, and in light of information from others, your hope of salvation from this engineer is now non-existent. Perhaps now you understand why you were pulling the trigger early? I haven't see you thank anyone for doing your research for you. You obviously could have done the same thing. Granted it would have brought your poor argument to a screeching halt a bit earlier but you might not have looked so very foolish in the end.
Not to worry, I am sure you can still post this on Loose Change and not a single person will follow it up.

 

[sat556]

"9-11 Conspiracy nut found with huge pile of dope, suprises no-one" as a newspaper headline would be nearly as classic as "Watching this video is like being bukkaked with stupid".

I was chatting to a friend of mine about this. I got so wound up talking to him he had to re-inform me that I didn't need to convince him
Anyway, he mentioned that a few years ago, he would have been the type to be 'found with huge pile of dope', and that he believed at that time, almost every CT going. When he gave up the gear, he felt a right idiot.

By the way, as a constant lurker on this thread, I wish to say thanks for all the work you are all doing. I am so fascinated by these CTists that I hope to use this thread as part of my psychology course at some point.

 

[milesalpha]

I was chatting to a friend of mine about this. I got so wound up talking to him he had to re-inform me that I didn't need to convince him
Anyway, he mentioned that a few years ago, he would have been the type to be 'found with huge pile of dope', and that he believed at that time, almost every CT going. When he gave up the gear, he felt a right idiot.

By the way, as a constant lurker on this thread, I wish to say thanks for all the work you are all doing. I am so fascinated by these CTists that I hope to use this thread as part of my psychology course at some point.

Take it easy on the pot smokers, will you guys. After 25 years of steady use, some of us still retain enough of our faculties to see through CT nonsense. Good weed can certainly make you giggly, and perhaps enjoy questionable movies, but it doesn't make you stupid 24/7. I think that's a result of googling too many photos.

 

[sat556]

Take it easy on the pot smokers, will you guys. After 25 years of steady use, some of us still retain enough of our faculties to see through CT nonsense. Good weed can certainly make you giggly, and perhaps enjoy questionable movies, but it doesn't make you stupid 24/7. I think that's a result of googling too many photos.

Lol, maybe. I can only go on what he said. Although he doesn't describe his use as 'steady' by any stretch of the imagination, I think 'excessive' was more the term he used

 

[gumboot]

@Gumboot: Please read at least my last five posts before you generalise.

Well, after excellent research, I rest my case.

All you seem to do is pop up every now and then and drop a link into the thread, accompanied by vague innuendo. When questioned on it, you declare blind ignorance.

So we run off, do some research, and find your "evidence" to be about as solid as a wet paper bag.

It took me all of five minutes to discover why Halliburton got the Iraq contracts, that they were won in an open bid, and that they made very little money off them.

I don't think I've ever seen you present a single scrap of "evidence" that wasn't founding to be insubstantional within a page or two of the thread.

So, if you'd be so kind, would you answer a question for me? It is in response to this comment, made by you:

I have no coherent story to tell, Pardalis, but the official story is a joke for me. Ok?

If you'd be so kind, explain to me, in plain english, devoid of links, why the official story is a joke to you.

Thank you in advance.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

Well, well, would you look at this. Not only does he dismiss this current fuss, he also blows a hole in the 'no other building collapsed due to fire' story. See bolding at the bottom.

Excellent work Shrinker. Thanks for the info.

-Andrew

 

[Dave_46]

Pardalis, why do you allways ask others to think for you? I have no proof. How could i? I told you that i am no american, even not on the american continent. I have no coherent story to tell, Pardalis, but the official story is a joke for me. Ok?

I'm another who would like to know. WHY is the official story a joke for you?

Dave

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I am sure that everyone who answered to my pic (except T.A.M.) read the most of my postings. You know what my stand on Loose Change is and you know that i don't believe in CD. The reason why i "mirrored" shrinkers pic is because i am beginning to lose respect for you. You (some of you) use the same tactics you accuse the "Truth Movement" of. Nick, please tell me your opinion on shrinkers pic. Is this really excellent? True? Or what. Arkan Wolfshade's thread on how "neo-nazis drive the truth movement"? Hm? Laughable.
...

Coming in a little late to this party, but oh well.

I'm calling you on this. Show where my information is incorrect. Or, are you laughing because you don't care that one of the sites being cited often by the "Truth" movement is a known group of history revisionists founded by a known Holocaust denier?

 

[T.A.M.]

People like CLE have a right to be the way they are...curious, unconvinced, skeptical of what they've been told. We are this way as well.

It is not people like her that worry me, as she seems to be, for the most part, an actual "Truth" seeker. I hope she is as open to our evidence, which 99% of the time is much more solid, than that of the CTers, as she is to theirs.

The people that worry me, the people that I come here to debate with and argue with are people like Killtown, and Dylan, and that lot. People who are not truth seekers, but rather "Truth" fabricators. They seek to find little incoherencies in the 9/11 story, which are easy to find, as they are in any major event of such scope, and to then weave a tapestry of deceit and coverup from those little bits.

Now, 20 years ago I wouldn't have paid them much attention, as they had no real vehicle for their crap. With the Internet, however, the whole thing changes. Now they have a massive vehicle, full of young, naive, susceptable minds, to grind their crap into. Now I must take up the call, like so many others have, to make sure that those out their who might listen to them, also have to opportunity to study the REAL evidence, and make up their own minds.

(comes down off soap box and smiles)

 

[realitybites]

(comes down off soap box and smiles)

Crowd goes effin' wild.

 

[Joytown]

Thought this would be of interest.

There's a new NOVA being aired on Sept 5th that's a followup to "Why The Towers Fell" called "Building on Ground Zero". From the article I read:

""Building on Ground Zero" follows up the 2002 report "Why the Towers Fell," reporting that earlier speculations on structural causes for the collapse may not be proven accurate. Further investigation suggests not that the trade center trusses gave way and floors "pancaked," but that the trusses held so well, supporting columns were broken. Yet this history update only leads into examining the future, said program producer Larry Klein.

"We look at what happened on 9/11 and what that revealed about the general issue of safety in all tall buildings, not just the World Trade Center," Klein said yesterday. He wants to "use the event to say, how do we move forward? How do we make safer buildings?" The "NOVA" hour assesses possible building code revisions versus their cost, and shows advances being built into projects like 7 World Trade and Shanghai's new world's-tallest-building, the World Financial Center."

The article also talks about another program on PBS "America Rebuilds" - "a very powerful documentary about healing" ... ."Debates over an appropriate memorial are part of the focus. So is a portrait of current activity at the site, from early tenants in the rebuilt 7 World Trade building to the tour guides and protestors still working out their own reactions to the disaster."

Source: newsday.com/entertainment/tv/ny-flleft4831820jul28,0,3525268.story?coll=ny-television-print

pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


-joytown

BTW since I'm new to these forums, a procedural question: would this be appropriate as it's own thread, or the the LC3 the overarching repository for all things 9-11? I vacilllate between not wanting to start 25 threads ala Muttonhead and not wanting my post to get buried in the 50+ page behemoth that is the LC3 thread!

 

[Brainster]

Link is broken, Brainster.

Hmmm,, must be cached over here. Here's the post where I used the photo.

This is, of course, just a confirmation of Godwin's Law.