Statistical Analysis of AE911Truth Technical Articles

[GodisEnergy]

ok who?
truther havent lied at all name one time

 

[Bell]

ok who?
truther havent lied at all name one time

Just a friendly request.

I know you can use the shift key, as shown by your screen name. But would it be too much to ask you to use upper case and punctuation in your posts? It makes them all that more easier to read.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[dtugg]

ok who?
truther havent lied at all name one time

Pretty much everything twoofers say regarding 9/11 is a lie.

For example, Jones says thermite was used to bring down the WTC. He has no proof of this and hasn't even demonstrated it is possible.

Also, is English your second language? If so, I can give you a break for your horrible spelling and grammar. If not........

And use Firefox. It has a built in spell checker and is better than IE in many other ways.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Pretty much everything twoofers say regarding 9/11 is a lie.

For example, Jones says thermite was used to bring down the WTC. He has no proof of this and hasn't even demonstrated it is possible. <snip>

There is also the issue of TM claims of photographic representations of molten steel; you know, the pictures that claim fire fighters and rescue workers are looking inside a cauldron of molten steel. What actually turned out to be work lights used in the rescue operation.

And GIE, if you want to have a look, I'm referring to the pictures on this site, and pay special attention to the second picture that has an orange color filter added to it. You will see the original appearance of that scene 16 minutes and 10 seconds into this film.

I berated thewholesoul earlier last year for using websites containing the same images.

What is the most basic of mistake they made ?

Let's begin with this:
"No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire"

They begin with statement that is relatively accurate. No structure as large as the trade centers had prior succumbed to the effects of fire.

The accuracy slips considerably from here. In order to substantiate that the lack of precedents is grounds for suspecting something further they offer this on their front page:

"High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”"

They cite this page as a resource for further reading on the subject.

While the source they linked to cites prior examples, it makes no specific analysis to determine what differed circumstantially, & structurally between the examples they present and the world trade center buildings (excluding their mention of the windsor tower, in which the source acknowledges the different construction materials used).

Consider the following -- if we attempt to draw from these examples and compare them to:

World Trade center 7

• How many of these precedents intended to substantiate the unlikelihood of structural failure due to fire are built the same way as this one? The structural framing system that is used in the design will determine how the structure performs under abnormal conditions, such as the failure of critical structural members.
  
• How many of the aforementioned precedents were left unfought for an extended period of time due to the loss of infrastructure designed to provide firefighting capabilities both from the built-in systems, and the fire fighter crews in the immediate vicinity?

World Trade Center 1 & 2

• How many of these precedents intended to substantiate the unlikelihood of structural failure due to fire are built the same way as this one? The structural framing system that is used in the design will determine how the structure performs under abnormal conditions, such as the failure of critical structural members.
  
• How many of the aforementioned precedents were left unfought for an extended period of time due to the loss of infrastructure designed to provide firefighting capabilities both from the built-in systems, and the fire fighter crews in the immediate vicinity?
  
• How many of the aforementioned precedents have experienced large-scale impact damage to load-bearing structural members from an on-coming passenger airliner and subsequently ignited on multiple floors simultaneously
  
• Further more, how many of their aforementioned precedents have had any amount of their protective fire proofing removed by an impact event? As well as fires which were completely inaccessible to conventional fire fighting methods?

And for all of these, has AE911truth performed any comparative models using available information on the designs of their precedents that would confirm individual aspects which they are questioning to see what information can be obtained and then validly compared to the conclusions reached by the NIST report? To put it simply I am asking if for example they modeled a similar impact event on a design-based simulation using one or more of their precedents as a comparative? If so, how do their structural designs impact the performance of having similar conditions applied?

AE911truth does not put forth any effort to take such considerations in account, which when making such references is basic procedure if they want to substantiate that what happened in the trade centers could not have possibly happened. And if they have precedents they want to use to substantiate their conclusions they need to be specific about what aspects of their comparatives can be applied to the the WTC. Simply spouting out examples without first understanding what makes those situations different is disingenuous at best. I expect better from professional designers who -- by many accounts -- should have considerably greater expertise on these subjects than someone at my level. If they have performed such procedures, then by all means... feel free to point them out.

There are plenty more I can get into this is only one...

 

[A W Smith]

There is also the issue of TM claims of photographic representations of molten steel; you know, the pictures that claim fire fighters and rescue workers are looking inside a cauldron of molten steel. What actually turned out to be work lights used in the rescue operation.

And GIE, if you want to have a look, I'm referring to the pictures on this site, and pay special attention to the second picture that has an orange color filter added to it. You will see the original appearance of that scene 16 minutes and 10 seconds into this film.

And Jones did not do that out of ignorance. as I pointed out on ATS he intentionally retrieved the photos from another site and then purposely relabeled them to deceive, he is an outright liar and charlatan.

original
http://911guide.googlepages.com/10267a2lm8.jpg/10267a2lm8-full;init:.jpg

altered
http://911guide.googlepages.com/136394734263b02c86.jpg/136394734263b02c86-full;init:.jpg

 

[GodisEnergy]

No the picture was taken from a newspaper who enhanced the colour, jones made a mistake.
People make mistakes. It doesnt mean their liars.
+ no high rise structure has ever collapsed from fire so
That is not a lie.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

+ no high rise structure has ever collapsed from fire so
That is not a lie.

Would I be correct to assume that from your position, none of the outlined factors have any bearing on the relevance of those said precedents to the comparison AE911truth attempts to draw? Please enlighten me on why I should be convinced by comparisons for which no effort has been made to emphasize the differences and similarities of each case. Why are such stringent codes enforced if steel framed structures are so seemingly invincible as you and others appear to suggest? What it it that I am supposed to draw off an argument that is based on nothing more than the hollow assumption that the conditions necessary to culminate into such structural failures are impossible?

 

[ref]

No the picture was taken from a newspaper who enhanced the colour, jones made a mistake.
People make mistakes. It doesnt mean their liars.
+ no high rise structure has ever collapsed from fire so
That is not a lie.

Was this a mistake?

This photo is from a BBC site. The original BBC description of the photo reads as follows: "Investigations began as the wreckage was cleared".

Jones included this same photo in his paper, with a link to the original BBC site. Guess how Jones described the exactly same photo? "Workers evidently peering into the hot ‘core’ under the WTC rubble”. Now, why did he change it like that?

Later he altered the description a little, the altered version reads: “The photo may show the glow of hot metal in the rubble”.

Why?

 

[GodisEnergy]

Would I be correct to assume that from your position, none of the outlined factors have any bearing on the relevance of those said precedents to the comparison AE911truth attempts to draw? Please enlighten me on why I should be convinced by comparisons for which no effort has been made to emphasize the differences and similarities of each case. Why are such stringent codes enforced if steel framed structures are so seemingly invincible as you and others appear to suggest? What it it that I am supposed to draw off an argument that is based on nothing more than the hollow assumption that the conditions necessary to culminate into such structural failures are impossible?

So did ae911 truth lie or not ? no they didnt lie
no high rise structure has ever collapsed into the path of most resistance from earthquakes fires or any other methods.

You people distort quotes around and make a mountain out of a molehill.

Whats with this photo , BBC didnt comment on what was going on in the photo ,and even if they did there not experts.
What is going on in the photo im not sure,it could be a hot core or it could be a oxycetalene torch ,but i cant see anyone holding the torch .
Jones said it was 'possibly' a hot core.
He didnt lie

 

[dtugg]

GiE, you said that your avatar is a photo of the "squibs" proving a controlled demolition. Please reconcile this with your fantasy of it being therm*te that brought down the towers. I know you are language challenged so allow me to spell it out for you: How the hell does therm*te create "squibs"?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So did ae911 truth lie or not ? no they didnt lie

The moment they contended that the lack of precedent was grounds to claim that structural failure was impossible they lied. But that's not what I have a problem with, they're quite free to make that claim if they can offer a reasonable supporting argument that would convince any competent designer that they're onto something. You know what they bring up instead? They give us several arbitrary examples of structures which burned longer, and then they cleverly avoid explaining what was different in those precedents from what we were dealing with on 911.

They don't tell you that the structural framing systems are totally different designs than those applied to the WTC. Why is this important? Because it determines how the structure reacts when critical components fail.

They ignore that not a single precedent they offered never had a 100-ton jet liner slam through critical load bearing structural members before the ensuing fire compounded that damage

They don't tell you that fire fighters in nearly every case had easier access to these fires, and the vast majority (the exception being the windsor tower) of their examples had working active fire suppression mechanisms in place (sprinklers, and fully intact passive fire protection unaffected by physical impact)

You want to tell me that what they're pushing isn't lying then tell them to improve their case studies. Their precedents intended substantiate against collapse have no value whatsoever when they make no effort to understand why they did not collapse whereas the trade centers did. Or better yet, they should come up with new ones where they did the relevant studies before claiming they added any value to their content

Try again, did they make the considerations I outlined in my previous post or not? If you think those are irrelevant then feel free to elaborate me why they aren't using any sources you see fit that you believe will be sufficient to back your reasoning up. I want to know what your justification is for not needing to perform these case studies.

no high rise structure has ever collapsed into the path of most resistance from earthquakes fires or any other methods.

Path of most resistance? I don't recall ever hearing of such a contention outside of the 911 truth movement. I can only assume that this is based on the misconception that structures are monolithic entities, as opposed to systems which rely on the collective capacity of their constituent parts.

Much as you like to contend it so, structures are by no means invincible, they will collapse -- in whatever fashion they do -- if the damage to critical structural members is sufficient to overcome the loading capacity of the remaining support members.

"First time in history" is hardly anything you should be concerning yourself with here.

You people distort quotes around and make a mountain out of a molehill.

I took the two excerpts directly from their website and I standby the argument I made regarding the methods they resorted to in order to substantiate their claims. As a design student, I make a point to study the basics of the buildings I do my case studies on, whether I'm analyzing the conceptual ideas behind the designs, or I'm analyzing how differences in construction invariably affect building performance. AE911truth apparently doesn't consider that methodology important, they appear more concerned with finding the trendiest conspiracy theories when it fits their professional fields.

Whats with this photo , BBC didnt comment on what was going on in the photo ,and even if they did there not experts.
What is going on in the photo im not sure,it could be a hot core or it could be a oxycetalene torch ,but i cant see anyone holding the torch.
Jones said it was 'possibly' a hot core.
He didnt lie

This, this, and this are all confirmed to have been work lights used during rescue operations immediately following the attacks. But of course if you're not sure for whatever reason you can eliminate a significant heat source simply by virtue of the workers being able to miraculously stand two feet away without immediately recieving third degree burns from the radiant heat.

 

[A W Smith]

Whats with this photo , BBC didnt comment on what was going on in the photo ,and even if they did there not experts.
What is going on in the photo im not sure,it could be a hot core or it could be a oxycetalene torch ,but i cant see anyone holding the torch .
Jones said it was 'possibly' a hot core.
He didnt lie

Jones LIES,, get over it

 

[GodisEnergy]

This is insane nitpicking, everyone knows the windsor building wasnt hit by a plane.

AE911 truth should put disclaimers on everything right..

 

[dtugg]

GiE, you said that your avatar is a photo of the "squibs" proving a controlled demolition. Please reconcile this with your fantasy of it being therm*te that brought down the towers. I know you are language challenged so allow me to spell it out for you: How the hell does therm*te create "squibs"?

????

 

[Grizzly Bear]

This is insane nitpicking, everyone knows the windsor building wasnt hit by a plane.

AE911 truth should put disclaimers on everything right..

Pay attention... I will tell you line by line

the point that is flying over your head.

No, I just want them to do their jobs right.

They suggest that because this is the first know instance of fire inducing the complete collapse of a structure the size of the trade centers

that it should never happen.

To substantiate this claim

They offer prior examples which did not collapse

They offer all of their examples without informing the reader of

the differences pertaining to circumstance (Such as impact damage, and loss of infrastructure, inability to fight the fires)

or

the difference in construction materials and structural framing.

Both determine performance, and such differences will have determined the structures' vulnerability to catastrophic failure. here's a quiz for you; What did AE911 truth get wrong in this category?

 

[GodisEnergy]

????

ive already discussed this topic to death and cannot repeat myself for everyone all the information is on this thread

 

[GodisEnergy]

Pay attention... I will tell you line by line

the point that is flying over your head.

No, I just want them to do their jobs right.

They suggest that because this is the first know instance of fire inducing the complete collapse of a structure the size of the trade centers

that it should never happen.

To substantiate this claim

They offer prior examples which did not collapse

They offer all of their examples without informing the reader of

the differences pertaining to circumstance (Such as impact damage, and loss of infrastructure, inability to fight the fires)

or

the difference in construction materials and structural framing.

Both determine performance, and such differences will have determined the structures' vulnerability to catastrophic failure. here's a quiz for you; What did AE911 truth get wrong in this category?

Well actually they never said that.You drew those conclusions yourself ,just like you accuse truthers of jumping to conclusions when larry said pull it

As nist concluded the collapse of the towers was primary due to fire.
So the windsor building is the closest comparison we can find.Or the Empire state building being hit by an airliner.
What about the wtc steel testing where they heated the steel in a large building to twice the temperature of the wtc fires and the building didnt collapse
Should we ignore every other case of Building Collapse from earthquake because the building was built differently and used different construction materials?
Should we not take into account Hurricanes and other forces as being comparative to the wtc.

 

[dtugg]

ive already discussed this topic to death and cannot repeat myself for everyone all the information is on this thread

Answer the question or you are a coward. Was it explosives or thermite or both?

 

[GodisEnergy]

Ok sure,directed thermite can create a hot jet of air capable of pulverising concrete

 

[dtugg]

Ok sure,directed thermite can create a hot jet of air capable of pulverising concrete

I am sure you can prove this. I await my pwning.