• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Moving On is coming.

Russell I e-mailed Leslie Robertson about his so called quotes and asked James Williams for presentation notes.
Here is the reply.
http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

This is just one example why I suggest you start e-mailing people.

Scott

Scott,

I can't argue with that kind of documentation. Good job.

I do the same kind of thing with the Pentagon.

So are you saying there is no valid quote in reference to molten steel? Do you feel any of the quotes that refer to "molten metal" could be inclusive of steel?

So in all honesty you don't believe there was molten steel at the site?

What temperature condition do you believe created the slag underground?

Russell
 
All right you got me on the definition of skyscraper. My real point was the nature of a non symetrical collapse.


Russell


Damn, can't believe that I forgot about this part of my past. I lived in one of these ugly beasts (Knapp Hall) for a couple of years. There were probably still some of my vomit stains left on those floors.

http://www.rofflehaus.com/wiki/Knapp-Storms_implosion
http://www.fpm.iastate.edu/Knapp-Storms/faq.asp
http://www.fpm.iastate.edu/Knapp-Storms/video_page.asp
http://www.iastate.edu/Inside/2005/0610/implosion.shtml
 
8790453a2bd8d4151.jpg


Gravy,

Fires are complex I agree. This quote from the NIST page explains it best.

Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

This is more thourough than my earlier description of, "Notice for a mostly open office space floor system the rest of the windows are not showing flame on that floor? Imagine that there is a decent sized combustible fire going in there. Notice the wind and smoke direction. The leeward side has a "draw" to it. The fire has moved to the air and is likely only burning to that degree right there."

Russell
 
Scott,

I can't argue with that kind of documentation. Good job.

I do the same kind of thing with the Pentagon.

So are you saying there is no valid quote in reference to molten steel? Do you feel any of the quotes that refer to "molten metal" could be inclusive of steel?

So in all honesty you don't believe there was molten steel at the site?

What temperature condition do you believe created the slag underground?

Russell
That's why I have respect for you Russell. When you go out and start contacting people with regards to the Pentagon, your not just grabbing quotes. You've proven to me your not just the average internet researcher.

Russell I believe molten steel could of very well have happened. Slag can also occur at temps close to 1000C.
See link a couple posts back.


Molten aluminum would be less. Also please note reports of melted steel are not that uncommon among house fires. After the Oakland fires melted steel was reported more frequently than melted copper. However more often it is just oxidized steel.

I'm also working on getting some info from Mark Loizeaux regarding video of possible molten steel. Work has been busy for me lately, but I hope to review this soon. I should also note WTC 6 also had reports of molten metal.


Best Scott
 
Last edited:
That's why I have respect for you Russell. When you go out and start contacting people with regards to the Pentagon, your not just grabbing quotes. You've proven to me your not just the average internet researcher.

I agree. It is refreshing to see a CTer like Russ. While I have agreed w/none of his assertions. I do respect his above the board approach. If only 10% were like him. I wouldn't wanna thump them in the head, all the time. Respect!

My .02
 
1) I believe there is historical precedent that elements within our government have been willing to self inflict damage to further a larger set of goals.
2) I believe that there is evidence of foreknowledge of 9/11.
3) I believe at the very least it was facilitated by elements within our current administration.
4) I believe it has been the subject of a significant cover up.
5) I believe that according to recent polls that I am within a high percentage of the population that feels we have not been told the truth.

Should we add MIHOP and CDs to this list Russell?
 
Yes I have seen the WTC.

In person?

Have you ever fought fires or had high rise training?

Not personally, but my partner is a fire captain who has has extensive high rise training, elevator training, etc. and is part of the high rise unit. He is also a member of a HUSAR team and a CBRN team. He has been a firefighter for 20 years and his station - specifically his truck - typically comes in at the busiest or among the three busiest in the country annually. He knows of what he speaks. Moreover, I have personally spoken with a FDNY battalion commander who was at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 about the events of that day.

First of all firefighting operations were ongoing. They believed they could extinguish it or they would not have been in there. Second, they would not have been in there if they assessed ANY possibility of a collapse. That is THE first consideration of an IC. There was NO precedent of this in history. NYFD is the best at this topic.

You are incorrect in asserting that the firefighters believed that they could put out the fires in the towers. They were concerned from very early on that they were too large and too high up to fight successfully. The mission was very early on treated as a search/rescue/evacuate operation. Of course, they may have held out some hope that they could reach and contain the fires, but research into this particular topic will show you that they really did not expect to be able to do so.

They did not anticipate the collapse to occur so completely or so quickly, that is true. However, remember that the firefighters were inside the building, had poor communications with anyone outside, and had no idea about the conditions of the buildings above the floors that they managed to reach. I am sure you know from your research that personnel in the NYPD helicopters were, in fact, concerned about the possibility of collapse, and I'm sure you know that there were engineers on the ground who warned of collapse very early on.

Moreover, the firefighters had no way of knowing how much damage had been done as a result of the airplane impact, nor any way of knowing how much of the fireproofing had been dislodged as a result.


Of course, there was no precedent for this. Large, fuel heavy jetliners had never before been deliberately crashed into 110 storey buildings at high speed.

Edit to add: I see that many of these points have also been addressed by Gravy above.

Off topic, but I'm just curious: why do you consistently refer to FDNY as NYFD?

Notice the dark smoke of an oxygen starved fire as well.

This has been discussed numerous times on other threads here. Edit to add: and I see that it has been addressed above as well.

Then you want me to believe it happened 3 times in one day? With molten fire in all 3 basements? No way.

Argument from incredulity.

That fire is deceptive in that photo. If you want to learn about it I will tell you. Notice on the left where floors had actually burned out from consuming the fuel load. The fire on the right may look "massive" to the untrained eye but it is only lapping up the side of the building making it look like multiple floors are burning.

Notice for a mostly open office space floor system the rest of the windows are not showing flame on that floor? Imagine that there is a decent sized combustible fire going in there. Notice the wind and smoke direction. The leeward side has a "draw" to it. The fire has moved to the air and is likely only burning to that degree right there.

I'm sorry but I do not believe that your photo anyalysis skills are refined enough to make those assertions with any degree of certainty. Each floor of the WTC was approximately an acre in size and I think that you are beyond your expertise when you claim to make those kind of positive assertions. Moreover, there are plenty of other photos and videos showing the massive fires. For you to argue to the contrary is rather extraordinary.

Edit to add: and I see that this has also been addressed above by others.

The NYFD firefighters would have gone in there with two 1 3/4" lines and knocked that down in a couple of minutes. Maybe a 2 1/2".

Oh, please. The firefighters themselves knew that they could not put the fires out. It is beyond presumptuous for you to assert that they could as though it was a walk in the park.

Ask somebody else if you don't trust me.

I have. As mentioned above, my partner is a fire captain, HUSAR member, and CBRN member, and I have spoken with a battalion commander who was at the WTC on September 11/01. There is also much documentation on this in the various professional reports.

Edit to add: in another post of yours, Russell, you mentioned fire shutters. Please elaborate on where you believe there were fire shutters located in the WTC buildings.
 
Last edited:
multi.jpg


Gravy,

Do you happen to know the time relation between the two photos? I saw the multiple floor involvement on the left photo even with the smoke obstruction. The right photo clarifies that even further. I phrased my response poorly. I should have said that it makes it appear that more floors are involved than actually are - that was my fault. They are also not fully involved floors. In the left photo on the right face of the building, a portion of that involvement is still lapping (flame running up the outside of the building). You can see how the flames are reaching much higher than the last floor of continuous puffing black smoke on the left face of the building.

Lapping will cause the fire on the free burn side to penetrate the windows of the floor above and extend the fire to that area on that side of the building. This is all asymmetrical related to the oxygen supply as the NIST explanation points out.

This type of consolidated asymmetrical fire would in my opinion cause exactly what we see below except for a couple of things. [EDIT: If it were to result in structural collapse.]

tip.jpg


First of all, I would have expected the top of the building to continue its fall to the left on to the ground with the undamaged building below to remain standing. Then the fairly even rows of material being discharged evenly on both faces at what appears to be several floors below the break of the building are interesting. The one on the right in particular since the weight is obviously being applied to the left.

What have you guys learned about this?

Russell
 
Last edited:
What are your credentials in physics and structural engeneering Russell?

ETA: oh, and are you a full-fledged MIHOP conspiracist now?
 
First of all, I would have expected...
First of all, I'll repeat Pardalis' question:
What are your credentials in physics and structural engeneering Russell?
Please don't be offended, but I don't give a flying fig what you "would have expected". How about you provide the page number and quote of the specific areas of the NIST report with which you disagree and provide your detailed analysis showing your work.
 
Last edited:
LashL,

Yes - in person. I was in NY for 5 days but never went into the WTC buildings.

It was my understanding that elevator shaft dampers had been retrofitted after the 1975 fire. Am I incorrect?

I am very surprised to hear they had no intention of fighting the fires and sent firefighters inside even though they felt collapse was likely. I will research this more.

The better part of valour now would seriously indicate that my direct and specific knowledge of the towers is lacking. So, I concede that I cannot discuss the towers with a solidly informed position!

Russell
 
Last edited:
What are your credentials in physics and structural engeneering Russell?

ETA: oh, and are you a full-fledged MIHOP conspiracist now?

Zero.

Yes - add that I believe that certain elements of the USG were involved in the planning of this incident. And I do believe that the first total collapses of 3 buildings of this magnitude all in one day within a couple of blocks of one another were the result of applied explosives.

Russell
 

Me too. :)

Yes - add that I believe that certain elements of the USG were involved in the planning of this incident. And I do believe that the first total collapses of 3 buildings of this magnitude all in one day within a couple of blocks of one another were the result of applied explosives.

It just seemed odd to me that you came here posing as a reasonable LIHOP advocate, and now you have come to these insane controlled demolition idiocies (I'm sorry, but that's what they are.).

Why?

Why would they need to rig the towers with explosives, when you got already airline jets flying into them? Isn't that enough of a shock? Why blow everything up?

Don't you think that would risk further complications and possible leaks?

And please explain to me how on earth these three buildings could have been wired for demolition without anyone noticing it.

It's absurd beyond absurd.
 
Russell,
I'll gladly address your questions, but I wonder if you'll do me the favor of tackling these first. Obviously you can't both support the FDNY and the WTC 7 demolition theory, so I'm wondering where you're thoughts are leaning and how you reconcile things. Thanks.

*********

You didn't respond to my questions about WTC 7 in this post. Here they are again:

Now, what issue do you have with all the statements from first responders about the building's condition and its expected imminent collapse? I'm not asking your opinion, based on some videos you've seen. I'm not asking you what some news reporters in a studio said. I'm asking you about the reports from the experts who were there.

1) Please summarize what they said about WTC 7's condition.

2) Do you have any reason to believe that the accounts of WTC 7's condition are false?

Which paraphrased statement to PBS makes sense, and which is completely absurd?

A) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to blow up my building,”

or

B) “We’ve had such terrible loss of life that it would be wise to withdraw firefighters to prevent further loss of life”?

Which do you think Silverstein meant when he was calmly speaking to that documentary crew in 2002? Be honest. A or B? Thank you.
 
I still have 3 questions that have not been addressed. Despite the limitations in my personal knowledge this is also a two way street where I would like to learn. I have no fear of being wrong if it is educational.

1) If the fuel went down the shaft and ignited the sub levels which would have happened immediately, do we have any evidence or firefighter reports of basement fires prior to the collapses?

2) Is there an explanation for the top of the building not continuing on to the ground?

3) Did the collapse of WTC7 start in the area of the structural damage?

Russell
 
It just seemed odd to me that you came here posing as a reasonable LIHOP advocate, and now you have come to these insane controlled demolition idiocies (I'm sorry, but that's what they are.).

Why?

Why would they need to rig the towers with explosives, when you got already airline jets flying into them? Isn't that enough of a shock? Why blow everything up?

Don't you think that would risk further complications and possible leaks?

And please explain to me how on earth these three buildings could have been wired for demolition without anyone noticing it.

It's absurd beyond absurd.[/quote]

Operation Northwoods was planned by elements in the US military. It was not LIHOP. That is the precedent I referred to. I also said, "I believe at the very least it was facilitated by elements within our current administration."

I have no idea how the buildings may have been wired. Bringing the buildings down had many possible effects beyond what just a plane crash would do. Of course any additions to any plan involving human beings increases the risk.

Irregardless of the planes the official explanations of the collapse of all three buildings is fire - correct? I know they say the planes might have dislodged fire proofing etc., I know WTC7 had structural damage. But in the end is it not fire that is attributed for the collapse of the buildings?

Yes or no?

Russell
 
I still have 3 questions that have not been addressed. Despite the limitations in my personal knowledge this is also a two way street where I would like to learn. I have no fear of being wrong if it is educational.

1) If the fuel went down the shaft and ignited the sub levels which would have happened immediately, do we have any evidence or firefighter reports of basement fires prior to the collapses?

2) Is there an explanation for the top of the building not continuing on to the ground?

3) Did the collapse of WTC7 start in the area of the structural damage?

Russell

Do you know what a force triangle is and how to resolve it?

Hint Statics and Strengths of Materiels I & II at the sophmore college level will answer your questions.

Then you will have the tools that looking at a video does not give you.
 
Russell,

It seems to me that, while you are well-spoken and respectful of the victims of 9/11, you have made not one original argument in this entire thread.

At most, you have put a different spin on recycled CT arguments ("pull it," "madrid highrise").

I'll stay out of your thread because, at this point, it seems obvious you are more willing to side with the likes of Dylan Avery, who, if I can remind everyone again, had a huge chunk of his first LC showing clips of a "missile" and a "pod" on the planes that hit the WTC.

Its obvious that you would rather sit and speculate against our government with what you claim to be coincidences and pseudo-science than to sit down and look at the facts. Gravy has given you enough information to sit down and figure out the truth of 9/11, but you choose to ask more questions, rather than figuring out the answers to the questions you have already posed.

Earlier on in the thread, page or so back, you make it clear that nothing will change your mind on this issue.

Therefore, I wish you all the best in your pursuits but I do secretly wish you had the moxy to admit you have believed this conspiracy without a single shred of factual evidence. I could invent better CT arguments than the ones you have magically come up with and I know for a fact that you would accept them as truth before they could be disproven.
 

Back
Top Bottom