9-11 WTC Firefighters Report Huge Secondary Explosions in WTC Towers
What Me Worry?
Theory) is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
Disinfo Operatives/Amateur Shills: Cite chapter and verse from the Holy
Preliminary NIST Report. Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains (or
even attempts to explain) this object:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
Next up: You get to outline the OCT and then present incontrovertible proof
that verifies every assertion. I know you'll enjoy that.
What Me Worry?
Vandar
> Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
> Theory)
currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
> is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
> WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large fires
that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will completely
collapse.
And you expect silence because...?
> Disinfo Operatives/Amateur Shills
> Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
Guess you lose then.
> When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains (or
> even attempts to explain) this object:
>
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
>Theory) is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
>WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
There isn't ANY fireman at WTC on 9/11 that says he thinks that he saw
evidence of man-made explosives or thermate/thermite. Any quote you
have that looks like that is a lie by omission and words have been
left out by the Twoofer that shows it to you.
The balls in your court.
>
>Disinfo Operatives/Amateur Shills: Cite chapter and verse from the Holy
>Preliminary NIST Report. Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
>
>When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains (or
>even attempts to explain) this object:
>
>http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
That's a chunk of 4 floors compressed into one lump. It's got paper
scraps in it which means that it never for hot enough to burn paper.
I could dig up documentation but why should I do all the work.
Someone else will probably come up with teh description.
BTW: On your first URL, the quote, "There's a bomb in the building -
start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"
on your first URL is from a bomb call from some building mile
from WTC It was a false alarm.
I bet the Twoofers never tell you that. They lie by omission.
--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>Theory) is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
>WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
There is NO eyewitness to WTC that reports evidence of man-made
explosives.
>
>Disinfo Operatives/Amateur Shills: Cite chapter and verse from the Holy
>Preliminary NIST Report. Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
>
>When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains (or
>even attempts to explain) this object:
>
>http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
Here's a better picture.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogallery?index=31
Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists,
are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as
the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and
even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a
humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International
Airport. (Photo by Lane Johnson)
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
> What Me Worry? wrote:
> > Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
> > Theory)
>
> currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
LOL!
>
> > is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
> > WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>
> A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large fires
> that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will completely
> collapse.
Sorry to interrupt your delusion with inconvenient facts, but there's
simply no way that fire could have meaningfully contributed to the
collapse of WTC2, for example.
It's impossible to build a fire hot enough (and/or large enough in
extent), in only 56 minutes time, to bring 2E6 kg of construction
materials (i.e., the approximate amount of steel and concrete
associated with one WTC floor) from ambient temperature, up to, even,
say, 700 degrees C.
In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
require an absurd amount of airflow.
Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
degreec C.
Erich
wrote:
Nice find.
Papers with legible type wouldn't have survived long in the presence of
molten steel as claimed in the earlier video.
--
Erich
David Moffitt
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187916918....@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
%%%% I forge steel with nothing more than charcoal all of the time. You do
not need to melt steel just get it hot enough to bend.
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
>
>
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <jpsmith...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Please read my post before responding to it. Thanks.
Al Dykes
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 23, 8:05 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What Me Worry? wrote:
>> > Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
>> > Theory)
>>
>> currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
>
>LOL!
>
>>
>> > is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
>> > WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>>
>> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>>
>> A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large fires
>> that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will completely
>> collapse.
>
>Sorry to interrupt your delusion with inconvenient facts, but there's
>simply no way that fire could have meaningfully contributed to the
>collapse of WTC2, for example.
>
>It's impossible to build a fire hot enough (and/or large enough in
>extent), in only 56 minutes time, to bring 2E6 kg of construction
>materials (i.e., the approximate amount of steel and concrete
>associated with one WTC floor) from ambient temperature, up to, even,
>say, 700 degrees C.
>
Strawman, You don't have to heat up the entire tower to initiate
collapse.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
> In article <1187916918.874092.25...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> <jpsmith...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 23, 8:05 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> What Me Worry? wrote:
> >> > Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
> >> > Theory)
>
> >> currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
>
> >LOL!
>
> >> > is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
> >> > WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
> >> >http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>
> >> A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large fires
> >> that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will completely
> >> collapse.
>
> >Sorry to interrupt your delusion with inconvenient facts, but there's
> >simply no way that fire could have meaningfully contributed to the
> >collapse of WTC2, for example.
>
> >It's impossible to build a fire hot enough (and/or large enough in
> >extent), in only 56 minutes time, to bring 2E6 kg of construction
> >materials (i.e., the approximate amount of steel and concrete
> >associated with one WTC floor) from ambient temperature, up to, even,
> >say, 700 degrees C.
>
> Strawman, You don't have to heat up the entire tower to initiate
> collapse.
Good point! That's right you don't! Not if you're using explosives, or
thermite, or some other judiciously placed, concentrated energy
source, at least. But in any other situation, I'm sorry but you'll
have to model it basically as an oven, with lots and lots of thermal
mass that you'll have to deal with with. Nice try though.
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Moffitt
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187919160.7...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
%%%% I read it. Did you read and comprehend what I wrote?
David Moffitt
"Al Dykes" <ady...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:falcgb$k72$1...@panix5.panix.com...
%%%% Correct.
"Ignorance gives politicians a free
hand to exploit the politics of envy. Our education system creates a
growing surplus of that ignorance." --Walter E. Williams
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
Then you apparently need to find a helpful adult in your neighborhood
and get him or her to explain it to you.
> Did you read and comprehend what I wrote?
What you wrote has no relevance to what I wrote. If you understood
what I wrote, you would not have responded the way you did. Do you
follow?
>
> GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
> make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
What Me Worry?
"David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
news:13csec2...@corp.supernews.com...
You're behaving exactly as predicted: Total avoidance of the original
subject.
So how does the Official Conspiracy Theory explain the numerous firefighter
reports of huge secondary explosions in the WTC towers prior to collapse?
Failure to cite evidence = you fail
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
Name one fireman so we can discuss his full quote.
There are lots of other things in any big building that go "boom".
These include high-voltage power lines, high pressure steam used by
the air conditioning system (which may be unique to NYC).
Two Electric power explosions (there were a bunch of similar
transformers in the WTC complex.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756447341495312394
Manhattan has an underground piple system to distribute superheated
steam. All big buildings use it, even in the summer as part of the
air conditioning system. WTC did.
Manhattan steam explosion, July 2007
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yc6IVZ2chY
New York Explosion Causes Injuries, Disrupts Commute (Update3)
By David M. Levitt and Henry Goldman
July 18 (Bloomberg) -- An explosion near the intersection of
Lexington Avenue and 41st Street near Manhattan's Grand Central
Terminal sent plumes of smoke or steam into the air, injured six
people and forced building evacuations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKR0eXfJ39.k
Vandar
> On Aug 23, 8:05 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>What Me Worry? wrote:
>>
>>>Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
>>>Theory)
>>
>>currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
>
>
> LOL!
>
>
>>>is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
>>>WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>>
>>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>>
>>A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large fires
>>that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will completely
>>collapse.
>
>
> Sorry to interrupt your delusion with inconvenient facts, but there's
> simply no way that fire could have meaningfully contributed to the
> collapse of WTC2, for example.
Yes, there is.
> It's impossible to build a fire hot enough (and/or large enough in
> extent), in only 56 minutes time, to bring 2E6 kg of construction
> materials (i.e., the approximate amount of steel and concrete
> associated with one WTC floor) from ambient temperature, up to, even,
> say, 700 degrees C.
Who said it had to get up to 700°C to fail?
> In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
> fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
> calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
> minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
> require an absurd amount of airflow.
>
> Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
> tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
> engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
> degreec C.
Which has nothing to do with anything.
Vandar
Like the upper 30 floors and gravity.
> But in any other situation, I'm sorry but you'll
> have to model it basically as an oven, with lots and lots of thermal
> mass that you'll have to deal with with. Nice try though.
Your assumption is incorrect.
Not even a nice try on your part. The WTC wasn't a heatsink.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
> jpsmith...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Aug 23, 8:05 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>What Me Worry? wrote:
>
> >>>Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
> >>>Theory)
>
> >>currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
>
> > LOL!
>
> >>>is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
> >>>WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
> >>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>
> >>A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large fires
> >>that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will completely
> >>collapse.
>
> > Sorry to interrupt your delusion with inconvenient facts, but there's
> > simply no way that fire could have meaningfully contributed to the
> > collapse of WTC2, for example.
>
> Yes, there is.
No, there isn't, not by a long shot.
>
> > It's impossible to build a fire hot enough (and/or large enough in
> > extent), in only 56 minutes time, to bring 2E6 kg of construction
> > materials (i.e., the approximate amount of steel and concrete
> > associated with one WTC floor) from ambient temperature, up to, even,
> > say, 700 degrees C.
>
> Who said it had to get up to 700°C to fail?
That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
lot hotter. You want to use a different temperature point for a
calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
away from the realm of plausibility.
>
> > In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
> > fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
> > calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
> > minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
> > require an absurd amount of airflow.
>
> > Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
> > tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
> > engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
> > degreec C.
>
> Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, how I hate arguing "technical" subject matter with technically
illiterate people like you. You expect me to give you an education in
basic physics here in this forum?
Al Dykes
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:c6qdnU0q0-bu21Pb...@insightbb.com...
%%%% There are many things in buildings that will explode when heated. Throw
a bottle of toner from a copier machine into a fire but don't back up so you
can get the full effect. How did tyhe people who set the thermite charges
know exactly where the jets would crash into the building? How were they
able to wire the whole tower for explosives without any of the people who
worked there see them?
GUN CONTROL: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and
strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman
explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
>
>
What Me Worry?
"Erich" <oet...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:oetting-A19DB0...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
> In article <fal8or$jqn$1...@panix5.panix.com>, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <lLednfWV5ZYFh1Pb...@insightbb.com>,
>> What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>> >
>> >Disinfo Operatives/Amateur Shills: Cite chapter and verse from the Holy
>> >Preliminary NIST Report. Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
>> >
>> >When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains
>> >(or
>> >even attempts to explain) this object:
>> >
>> >http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
>>
>> Here's a better picture.
>>
>> http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,6613706.photogall
>> ery?index=31
>>
>> Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists,
>> are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as
>> the buildings collapsed.
LOL! Some people actually believe this crap. I guess ignorance is bliss.
>> Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and
>> even papers with legible type are visible.
OOPS! The metal in the "meteorite" was formerly molten, as were other
materials. Gravity collapse doesn't cause materials to melt and fuse in
this way (except if Arab hijackers wave their magic wand...)
Also, this compression of floors is a reference to the laughably amateurish
and thoroughly-discredited "pancake theory" of WTC collapse, abandoned by
NIST because it was not supported by evidence
>> The pieces are kept in a
>> humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International
>> Airport. (Photo by Lane Johnson)
>
> Nice find.
If you're an ignorant shill who ignores evidence and the laws of physics.
> Papers with legible type wouldn't have survived long in the presence of
> molten steel as claimed in the earlier video.
The paper has been carbonized by the high heat. It's no longer paper, per
se. That information is publicly available - all you have to do is look.
Still no official explanations for the explosions that WTC firefighters
reported prior to the Tower collapses.
Where could those explanations be? Isn't *anybody* going to tell us how the
Official Conspiracy Theory explains the corroborated eyewitness accounts of
numerous large explosions in the Twin Towers prior to collapse?
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
> In article <1187925417.251721.176...@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
Ok, let's start with something simple. Go buy a frozen pie at your
local grocery store, read the directions carefully, bake the pie, and
then come back and we'll discuss the physics of what you've just
done.
We'll talk about preheating the oven, and why it takes a finite amount
of time for the oven, and then the pie, to reach a given temperature.
We'll discuss the relevant factors like the thermal mass of the
materials of the oven's construction, the thermal mass of the pie, the
power input to the oven, and how heat loss may effect the process.
At the end of the first lesson, hopefully you'll have learnt why you
generally cannot in practice significantly raise the temperature of a
thermal mass instantaneously.
>
> --
> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide quoted text -
What Me Worry?
The fires were confined to a few upper floors. The multiple huge explosions
were heard and felt all over the building. But that doesn't matter. I
don't care about your explanation. I want to know how the *Official
Conspiracy Theory* explains the multiple huge explosions witnessed by many
WTC firefighters, office workers and others.
> How did tyhe people who set the thermite charges know exactly where the
> jets would crash into the building?
So you agree that thermite was used to demolish the WTC towers.
> How were they able to wire the whole tower for explosives without any of
> the people who worked there see them?
They worked at night as security guards, I presume. Any other stupid
questions?
David Moffitt
(1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
(2) Why did they wire the towers with thermite?
(3) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers set the thermite charges
off?
(4) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers burn up the wiring to the
thermite charges?
(5)Why did they wait 56 minutes to set off the thermite charges?
(6)How did they know exactly where to set the thermite charges ahead of time
where the jets would hit the towers?
Use all of the white space you need below. Cut and paste is not acceptable.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
---- John Stuart Mill
Al Dykes
"What Me Worry" has never managed a 24 hour operation in a Manhattan highrise.
What Me Worry?
> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>
> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
How do you know it was thermite that they used to demolish the WTC towers?
> (2) Why did they wire the towers with thermite?
Because fire wasn't enough to get the public's attention.
> (3) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers set the thermite charges
> off?
Because they were piloted by Magic Arabs who have super powers.
> (4) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers burn up the wiring to the
> thermite charges?
How do you know they didn't?
> (5)Why did they wait 56 minutes to set off the thermite charges?
To offer a moderately plausible cover story. The official explanation
(collapse due to crash damage and fire) was already written prior to
9/11/01.
> (6)How did they know exactly where to set the thermite charges ahead of
> time where the jets would hit the towers?
See above. The Magic Arabs are better than seasoned fighter pilots.
> Use all of the white space you need below. Cut and paste is not
> acceptable.
Thanks for proving that the Official Conspiracy Theory cannot explain the
multiple huge secondary explosions heard and felt by firefighters and other
eyewitnesses at the WTC towers prior to collapse.
Since the OCT cannot explain key evidence, then it must be seen as
incomplete or just plain wrong. Thus, anyone still clinging to the OCT as
the one true theory of 9/11 is a fool.
You are a fool.
Al Dykes
And how do you know this ?
"Gravity collapse doesn't cause materials to melt and fuse in this way"
And how do you know this?
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
What evidence, key or otherwise?
You have yet to name a fireman reporting "huge secondary explosions
heard" so we can see all of what he and the rest of his crew said.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>
> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
You likely couldn't trust Joe Schmoe, secret agent, or anyone that
might have some moral scruples or reasoning ability. It probably would
have to have been done by a trusted team of fanatical ideologues,
e.g., the dancing Jews and/or their coterie of fellow Jewish
supremacist operatives.
>
> (2) Why did they wire the towers with thermite?
Um, to bring the towers down, thereby creating a much more dramatic
effect upon the target audience (and maybe also because it made good
business sense, what with insurance companies and asbestos, and all
kinds of other complications).
>
> (3) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers set the thermite charges
> off?
Who knows, maybe it did. Maybe they used the heat from the resultant
fires to trip an ignition mechanism.
>
> (4) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers burn up the wiring to the
> thermite charges?
Maybe they used high temperature wire. Maybe they used a redundant
system...not all the wires would be damaged.
>
> (5)Why did they wait 56 minutes to set off the thermite charges?
Depending on the *details* of exactly how it was rigged, they may not
have had much choice.
>
> (6)How did they know exactly where to set the thermite charges ahead of time
> where the jets would hit the towers?
They probably had a general idea of which floors would be involved and
rigged several floors, just to be on the safe side.
>
> Use all of the white space you need below. Cut and paste is not acceptable.
>
> War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
> degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
> is worth war is much worse.
What's even worse is when cowardly, arrogant, ignorant, delusional,
morally bankrupt warmongers (like U.S. rulers and their Jewish
supremacist handlers) start illegal, immoral, utterly pointless wars,
for other people to fight.
The person who has nothing for which he is
> willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
> safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
> made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
LOL! In the sense that our perverse government warmongers are not
*personally* willing to fight for anything, you're damn right!
David Moffitt
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187925275.1...@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
%%%% I have some knowledge and appreciation of the physics involved and it
says you are full of shit.
Through a bureaucratic error, you are made county coroner. You seriously
consider the job because it gives you:
(1) Lots of unclaimed wedding rings and watches.
(2) Lots of gold fillings and bridges.
(3) Free blood.
(4) A constantly changing array of new friends who aren't at all stuffy
about what happens to their genitalia.
Vandar
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <jpsmith...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Then you better not listen to what "it" says, because then you'd
actually be the one that's "full of shit".
>
> Through a bureaucratic error, you are made county coroner. You seriously
> consider the job because it gives you:
> (1) Lots of unclaimed wedding rings and watches.
> (2) Lots of gold fillings and bridges.
> (3) Free blood.
> (4) A constantly changing array of new friends who aren't at all stuffy
> about what happens to their genitalia.- Hide quoted text -
So, in addition to make-believe physics, i.e., "magic", you're also
into necrophilia? Can't say I'm surprised.
David Moffitt
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187926998.3...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
%%%% Yesterday a tanker truck wrecked on the interstate in Nashville Tn.
Within 10 minutes of the wreck molten metal was flowing and the truck was
not in an oven. How did that happen? Use all of the white space you need.
Cut and paste is not acceptable.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
---- John Stuart Mill
Vandar
>>Who said it had to get up to 700蚓 to fail?
>
>
> That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
> starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
> lot hotter.
No it wouldn't.
> You want to use a different temperature point for a
> calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
> won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
> away from the realm of plausibility.
600蚌 is sufficient.
You were saying?
>>>In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
>>>fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
>>>calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
>>>minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
>>>require an absurd amount of airflow.
>>
>>>Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
>>>tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
>>>engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
>>>degreec C.
>>
>>Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
> concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
> and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
> the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
Physicists everywhere would disagree, but you keep telling yourself that.
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
%%%% Building structures collapsing. Remember the building was hit by an
airplane full of fuel.
>
>> How did tyhe people who set the thermite charges know exactly where the
>> jets would crash into the building?
>
> So you agree that thermite was used to demolish the WTC towers.
%%%% Nope. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the conspiracy supporters.
>
>> How were they able to wire the whole tower for explosives without any of
>> the people who worked there see them?
>
> They worked at night as security guards, I presume. Any other stupid
> questions?
%%%% You assume? Sounds like your whole position is----> Shall we say an
assumption?
Can't you feel them circling, honey? Can't you feel 'em schooling around?
You've got fins to the left, fins to the right, and you're the only bait in
town. -- Fins, Jimmy Buffett
>
>
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
>
> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
> news:13csl4c...@corp.supernews.com...
>> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>>
>> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
>
> How do you know it was thermite that they used to demolish the WTC towers?
%%%% That is the substance most mentioned by the conspiracy loons.
>
>> (2) Why did they wire the towers with thermite?
>
> Because fire wasn't enough to get the public's attention.
%%%% How did they know years ahead of time there would be a fire on those
specific floors?
>
>> (3) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers set the thermite charges
>> off?
>
> Because they were piloted by Magic Arabs who have super powers.
%%%% That makes a much sense as your conspiracy story.
>
>> (4) Why didn't the jets crashing into the towers burn up the wiring to
>> the thermite charges?
>
> How do you know they didn't?
%%%% Then the charges wouldn't have gone off. You just blew up your own
conspiracy. ":o)
>
>> (5)Why did they wait 56 minutes to set off the thermite charges?
>
> To offer a moderately plausible cover story. The official explanation
> (collapse due to crash damage and fire) was already written prior to
> 9/11/01.
%%%% Credible cite please.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
>
> > That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
> > starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
> > lot hotter.
>
> No it wouldn't.
>
> > You want to use a different temperature point for a
> > calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
> > won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
> > away from the realm of plausibility.
>
>
> You were saying?
ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
> >>>fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
> >>>calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
> >>>minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
> >>>require an absurd amount of airflow.
>
> >>>Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
> >>>tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
> >>>engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
> >>>degreec C.
>
> >>Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
> > concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
> > and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
> > the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
>
> Physicists everywhere would disagree, but you keep telling yourself that.
Sorry but hand waving wont work for you here. You are obviously
completely over your head, and just making yourself look more foolish,
accordingly. Give it up.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <jpsmith...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
First, what kind of metal was it? Lead? Aluminum? And what was the
physical situation? Obviously the "model" used in any analysis would
need to comport with the reality of the specific physical situation,
no?
Use all of the white space you need.
> Cut and paste is not acceptable.
>
> War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
> degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
> is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
> willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
> safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
> made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
> ---- John Stuart Mill
>
>
>
>
>
> >> --
> >> a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
> >> Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001- Hide
> >> quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
What Me Worry?
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187931162.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
These "True Believers" of the grossly incomplete and thoroughly disproven
Official Conspiracy Theory exist in a black-and-white world where fire melts
steel skyscrapers (despite numerous contrary events, including a raging
inferno in the WTC towers years prior to 9/11/01). Acting alone, Magic
Arabs can violate the laws of physics with one hand and stand-down the most
sophisticated Air Force in the world with the other, and all while piloting
jumbo jets better than veteran fighter pilots ever could (on their first
try). To the True Believer, this is perfectly acceptable, despite the
near-total lack of evidence, with their infallible Holy Theory based
entirely upon the flimsiest of hearsay, planted talking points
("boxcutters") and laughably unsupportable and incomplete hypotheses from an
agency that is not trained in criminal forensic investigation. But it
*must* be the truth, because Rush Limbaugh says it is! And what about that
venerable paragon of scientific veracity, the Hearst-owned 'Popular
Mechanics?' Every year they promise us that the flying car is "coming
soon," and they're always wrong; but when they do a hatchet job on some
cherry-picked 9/11 theories, to the True Believer this is clinching proof
that the Official Conspiracy Theory *must* be 100% accurate and
unimpeachable (because Popular Mechanics "debunked" the other theories!)
It gives me a headache just trying to imagine what goes on in the moronic
minds of these drooling brainwashed True Believers.
What Me Worry?
NIST has stated that the airplane crashes did not cause the collapses.
Please try to keep up.
>>> How did tyhe people who set the thermite charges know exactly where the
>>> jets would crash into the building?
>>
>> So you agree that thermite was used to demolish the WTC towers.
>
> %%%% Nope. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the conspiracy supporters.
Hey, you're the one who brought up the thermite.
>>> How were they able to wire the whole tower for explosives without any of
>>> the people who worked there see them?
>>
>> They worked at night as security guards, I presume. Any other stupid
>> questions?
>
> %%%% You assume? Sounds like your whole position is----> Shall we say an
> assumption?
I don't know what they were wearing, either. Does that mean they didn't
plant the explosives? Your strawmen do not an argument make.
Try again, shill. I'm having fun pissing all over your idiocy. Keep
entertaining me.
What Me Worry?
>
> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
> news:UfCdnUaqgYFGy1Pb...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>> news:13csl4c...@corp.supernews.com...
>>> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>>>
>>> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
When are you going to tell us how the official conspiracy theory explains
the massive secondary explosions witnessed by the WTC firefighters?
The lack of an explanation suffices to disprove the Official Conspiracy
Theory. You know that, don't you?
That means it's a lie. And you're a liar.
What Me Worry?
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187930636.3...@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
> > starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
> > lot hotter.
>
> No it wouldn't.
>
> > You want to use a different temperature point for a
> > calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
> > won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
> > away from the realm of plausibility.
>
>
> You were saying?
ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
> >>>fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
> >>>calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
> >>>minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
> >>>require an absurd amount of airflow.
>
> >>>Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
> >>>tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
> >>>engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
> >>>degreec C.
>
> >>Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
> > concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
> > and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
> > the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
>
> Physicists everywhere would disagree, but you keep telling yourself that.
Sorry but hand waving wont work for you here. You are obviously
completely over your head, and just making yourself look more foolish,
accordingly. Give it up.
-----
This is why it's difficult to tell what motivates these
shills/morons/disinfo agents. Do they really think they're fooling anyone?
Are they just trying to waste our time? Do they really believe the official
version is infallible? Do you have any insights here? What motivates these
morons to keep posting the same drivel, to keep igoring the basic physics,
etc?
David Moffitt
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187931162.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
%%%% The aluminum parts of the tanker flowed like water and the steel parts
were curled up and twisted. The tanker caught on fire. The twisting was
caused by the fire and not from any impact.
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
David Moffitt
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
%%%% The removal of some of the suport structure and fire did.
>
>>>> How did tyhe people who set the thermite charges know exactly where the
>>>> jets would crash into the building?
>>>
>>> So you agree that thermite was used to demolish the WTC towers.
>>
>> %%%% Nope. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the conspiracy
>> supporters.
>
> Hey, you're the one who brought up the thermite.
>
>>>> How were they able to wire the whole tower for explosives without any
>>>> of the people who worked there see them?
>>>
>>> They worked at night as security guards, I presume. Any other stupid
>>> questions?
>>
>> %%%% You assume? Sounds like your whole position is----> Shall we say an
>> assumption?
>
> I don't know what they were wearing, either. Does that mean they didn't
> plant the explosives? Your strawmen do not an argument make.
>
> Try again, shill. I'm having fun pissing all over your idiocy. Keep
> entertaining me.
%%%% LMAO! You have yet to explain how the structures were brought down by
any other means than the fire.
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
>
> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
> news:13csnuv...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
>> news:UfCdnUaqgYFGy1Pb...@insightbb.com...
>>>
>>> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>>> news:13csl4c...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>>>>
>>>> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
> <insufferable bullshit snipped>
>
> When are you going to tell us how the official conspiracy theory explains
> the massive secondary explosions witnessed by the WTC firefighters?
%%%% Post a credible source of your claim of unexplained secondary
explosions.
>
> The lack of an explanation suffices to disprove the Official Conspiracy
> Theory. You know that, don't you?
>
> That means it's a lie. And you're a liar.
%%%% See above.
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
%%%% If a common fire is not hot enough to deform steel how did earlier
civilizations forge steel weapons? I await your answer. (I bet you can't do
it)
Al Dykes
Maybe the fact that the core beliefs of the "Truth Movement", that
man-made explosives or thermate was used at WTC at 9/11 and there was
"molten metal" seen on the pile was unsuppoerted by any
evidence. There are assertions. There is no evidence. An arguement
for what "can't happen" isn't an arguement for what did happen. The
later could be tested against the public record and the laws of
physics. That's the last thing that some people in the "Truth
Movement" wants.
Maybe the fact that essentially every quote provided by the Twoofers
of some eyewitness to something on 9/11 is a lie by omission. Twoofers
leave out words that go againnst Twoofer claims. This is verifiable
by looking at the original full text quote from a non-Truthy source.
Maybe the fact that the these edited quotes make the NY Firemen look
like part of the coverup.
No eyewitness reports evidence of man-made explosives or thermate at
WTC on 9/11.
There is no known eyewitness for "molten metal" at the pile. All
accounts we have are second hand when they acre shecked.
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> has typed more and said less than just a about
any other Truther.
The Truth Movement consists of three groups of people;
- The people that take quotes and videos from the public record and
mash them together, add an ominous sound track and a voice-over
alleging all sorts of things that are not supported by the images on
the screen. The video and quotes are out of context and all
information that is contrary to Truthy claims is edited out with no
hint that there is an edit. These people don't cite sources, and
they do their best to obscure the fact that there IS a huge public
record and many, many, many thousands of eye witnesses to the events
of 9/11. The public record and what these people saw is consistent
with the simple explanation for 9/11, that 4 commercial jets,
hijacked, caused all the destruction.
- The people that, out of ignorance of the public record and without
any first-hand experience with the events of 9/11, parrot the
fiction created by the first group. The people in this class never
have any relevant expertise or bring any information to the
discussion that they didn't get from a Truthy web site or something
that they made up.
- The people that have been shown information from the public record
that contradicts the Truth claims and then refuse to engage in
discussion of their claims and the evidence. They just change the
topic and start the discussion all over again or respond with
groundless ad hominem attacks on the source of the contrary claims.
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
"fire melts steel"?
Only the "Truth Movement" says that and only to use it as a strawman arguement,.
Al Dykes
ALL known demolition experts say that WTC towers were NOT collapsed by
man-made explosives. The "truth movement has no expert supporting
man-made explosives on it's side.
There were no reports of evidence of man-made explosives made by any
eyewitness at WTC.
There is no technical evidence that shows of the use of explosives or
Thermite/thermate at WTC. (for instance, Thermite/thermate produces a
huge amount of slag.)
The "Truth Movement" has never produced a paper showing how explosives
or Thermite/thermate would be places and how much would be required to
replicate the collapse of a WTC tower consistant with the visual
record, the lwas oft physics and technical data such as the seismic
record.
Demilition experts have suggested that the quantity and placement
would be such that man-made explosives can be ruled out.
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
>"David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>news:13csnuv...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
>> news:UfCdnUaqgYFGy1Pb...@insightbb.com...
>>>
>>> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>>> news:13csl4c...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>>>>
>>>> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
><insufferable bullshit snipped>
>
>When are you going to tell us how the official conspiracy theory explains
>the massive secondary explosions witnessed by the WTC firefighters?
No eyewitness reported "massive secondary explosions"
Show me the specfic quote.
Grendel
While his temperature estimate is off, your entire theory is off.
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
Fahrenheit). At 1,000°C, steel softens and its strength reduces to
roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.
Your assertion that 2E6 kg of construction materials must be heated
for the building to collapse is bullshit (and you know this). You are
attempting to say you would have to heat an entire structure for it to
fail, when this is patently false. You only have to heat (thus
weaken) enough key support areas to cause a collapse.
Do you want a true example of physics (besides your bullshit apple pie
example, where you are intentionally attempting to heat the entire
pie)?
Take a steel bar of any significant length (say 10'). Support both
ends like this:
__________________________________________
^
^
Set a hot torch under the middle...before long, the center will become
soft enough to bend, while the ends will still be cool to the touch.
Gravity will cause the center to bend, thus the entire bar will have
failed.
Anyone who has absolutely ANY experience working with steel knows
this, and knows that your assertion that 2E6 kg must all be heated for
failure to occur is bullshit.
That fact that you put forth such bullshit scenarios further
demonstrates how much bullshit your entire 'truther' movement is.
Now, if you actually had some serious questions about something that
was actually questionable, it would make your side more credible. But
you don't and you ain't.
Got any experience working with steel? Got any experiece as a
firefighter? Demonstratably, that would be no.
> > >>>In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
> > >>>fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
> > >>>calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
> > >>>minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
> > >>>require an absurd amount of airflow.
>
> > >>>Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
> > >>>tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
> > >>>engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
> > >>>degreec C.
>
> > >>Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
> > > concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
> > > and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
> > > the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
>
> > Physicists everywhere would disagree, but you keep telling yourself that.
>
> Sorry but hand waving wont work for you here. You are obviously
> completely over your head, and just making yourself look more foolish,
> accordingly. Give it up
I've also noticed, although asked repeatedly, that you keep mentioning
these "corroborated eyewitness accounts of numerous large explosions "
you never actually PROVIDE cites for these accounts..which SHOULD be
easy, as you claim they have been 'corroborated'.
Is your failure to provide such cites because you realize that if put
out such a cite someone will find the FULL quote and it's ACTUAL
context..and thus your argument will be ruined?
I think so.
Yol Bolsun, Grendel.
"Have all the opinions you want. They're free. Just don't confuse
them with reality."-Solomon Short.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
In your utterly uninformed opinion, that is.
>
> Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
> temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
> Fahrenheit).
Under highly ideal conditions, perhaps. You can't do it, especially
over any large volume, in only 56 minutes. You would need to basically
set up a blast furnace.
At 1,000°C, steel softens and its strength reduces to
> roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.
So what? You cannot do that in 56 minutes, do you follow? You cannot
get anywhere near those temperatures. You cannot selectively heat just
those critical parts you deem necessary to induce structural failure.
You cannot heat a pie to 400 degrees F in the oven without heating the
thermal mass of the oven as well.
>
> Your assertion that 2E6 kg of construction materials must be heated
> for the building to collapse is bullshit (and you know this).
Not at all. Each floor has roughly 5.5E6 kg of steel and 1.4E6 kg of
concrete.
You cannot generate a magical fire that heats only the parts you want
heated to the exclusion of all the surrounding material. (Well
actually you can, through the judicious placement of energetic
materials like thermite).
In any case, you don't like my numbers? Pick a different volume
element for your analysis, it will make no difference.
You are
> attempting to say you would have to heat an entire structure for it to
> fail, when this is patently false.
Nonsense. I'm picking a volume element for an analysis. I chose to
model one floor. You want to use two floors, or maybe three floors?
Fine, just double or triple everything.
You only have to heat (thus
> weaken) enough key support areas to cause a collapse.
Exactly! And that's what you would do by the judicious placement of
energetic materials. Sorry but any other scenario requires a model
similar to what I've proposed.
>
> Do you want a true example of physics (besides your bullshit apple pie
> example, where you are intentionally attempting to heat the entire
> pie)?
>
> Take a steel bar of any significant length (say 10'). Support both
> ends like this:
>
> __________________________________________
> ^
> ^
>
> Set a hot torch under the middle...before long, the center will become
> soft enough to bend, while the ends will still be cool to the touch.
> Gravity will cause the center to bend, thus the entire bar will have
> failed.
LOL! That's irrelevant. We don't have a hundred elves inside the tower
heating critical parts with a torch, we have scattered fires. We have
a structure with walls. We'll break the problem down into smaller
pieces and consider one floor. We know the approximate thermal mass we
need to heat. We know we need to reach temperatures of, at least,
close to 1000 degrees C. We know we have 56 minutes to do it.
Calculate the energy that needs to be released to do it. It's over
3E12 Joules (to go from ambient to just 700 degrees C). A hell of a
lot of energy. (And that's not even including losses, a ridiculously
generous situation). Most informatively, in order to heat just one
floor's worth of material (of which the steel is a part) to even 700
degrees you would need to flow over 1.2E6 CFM of air to the fire
(assuming the convective flow only carries away half your heat). Do
you comprehend that number?
>
> Anyone who has absolutely ANY experience working with steel knows
> this, and knows that your assertion that 2E6 kg must all be heated for
> failure to occur is bullshit.
>
> That fact that you put forth such bullshit scenarios further
> demonstrates how much bullshit your entire 'truther' movement is.
You imply that the heat from randomly scattered fires inside a
building will only go precisely where you need it to go to cause a
collapse. Do you realise the utter ridiculousness of what you're
saying?
When you cook a pie in your oven at home, does the heat only go to the
pie? Do you have in your house a magic oven that only heats what you
want it to heat? Maybe you can tell me where you got this magic oven?
I have an old-fashioned, shitty oven that wastes energy by heating the
inside walls of the oven and even the kitchen itself to a certain
extent, just to heat the damn pie.
>
> Now, if you actually had some serious questions about something that
> was actually questionable, it would make your side more credible. But
> you don't and you ain't.
>
> Got any experience working with steel? Got any experiece as a
> firefighter? Demonstratably, that would be no.
LOL! I'm an engineer with over 20 years design experience, part of it
designing cooling systems for power dissipating electrical loads.
Al Dykes
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 24, 10:13 am, Grendel <wstho...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 11:43 pm, jpsmith...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 24, 12:29 am, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > jpsmith...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > > On Aug 23, 10:59 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>jpsmith...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > > >>>On Aug 23, 8:05 pm, Vandar <vanda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >>>>What Me Worry? wrote:
>>
>agic Arabs
>> > > >>>>>Theory)
>>
>> > > >>>>currently known as the only theory supported by all facts.
>>
>> > > >>>LOL!
>>
>> > > >>>>>is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
>ters)?
>>
>> > > >>>>>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>>
>> > > >>>>A 110-story skyscraper is hit by a 767 and is experiencing large =
>fires
>> > > >>>>that are slowly weakening the structure to the point it will comp=
>letely
>> > > >>>>collapse.
>>
>> > > >>>Sorry to interrupt your delusion with inconvenient facts, but ther=
>e's
>> > > >>>simply no way that fire could have meaningfully contributed to the
>> > > >>>collapse of WTC2, for example.
>>
>> > > >>Yes, there is.
>>
>> > > > No, there isn't, not by a long shot.
>>
>> > > >>>It's impossible to build a fire hot enough (and/or large enough in
>> > > >>>extent), in only 56 minutes time, to bring 2E6 kg of construction
>> > > >>>materials (i.e., the approximate amount of steel and concrete
>en,
>> > > >>>say, 700 degrees C.
>>
>>
>> > > > That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
>> > > > starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
>> > > > lot hotter.
>>
>> > > No it wouldn't.
>>
>> > > > You want to use a different temperature point for a
>> > > > calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
>far
>> > > > away from the realm of plausibility.
>>
>>
>> > > You were saying?
>>
>> > ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
>> > that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
>> > refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
>> > wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>>
>> While his temperature estimate is off, your entire theory is off.
>
>In your utterly uninformed opinion, that is.
>
>>
>> Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
>> temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
>> Fahrenheit).
>
>
>Under highly ideal conditions, perhaps. You can't do it, especially
>over any large volume, in only 56 minutes. You would need to basically
>set up a blast furnace.
>
You spend lots of words like "must and "can't" with no work on your
part or citations as to who you think came to those conclusions. That
gets you an "F" in school and gets your paper rejected for
publication.
LOTS of people with much more relevant credentials than youirs have
looked at how WTC1,2 and 7 collapsed. The insurance companies have
deep pockets for research and lawyers and will look for any excuse not
to pay off. All of them have done so for WTC (subject to some
lawsuits that were about th eAMOUNT or payment, not how the WTC towers
collapsed.)
Here are a bunch of relevant links. If you go to the URL, you will
see a neater list with clickable links. Most of these links come from
the insurance fire saftey people who make a big effoert to learn from
every fire to prevent the next one.
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/firesafetyengineering%26theperformanceofst
FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING & THE PERFORMANCE OF STRUCTURAL STEEL IN FIRES
Unprotected steel fails in Madrid's Windsor Building fire, concrete core stands. Go
Collapse mechanism of the Madrid Windsor Building Go
Three multistory steel-framed factory buildings quickly collapse due to fire Go
Unprotected steel truss roof quickly fails in fire at McCormick Place, Chicago Go
Fire damage to protected steel in One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia Go
Noises in steel buildings during fire equals danger! Go
NIST: Fire Protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise buildings (white paper) Go
Underwriters Labs post-9/11 WTC fire testing, ASTM E119 standard Go
The discipline of structural fire protection after 9/11 Go
Performance of unprotected steel and composite steel frames exposed to fire (Master's Thesis) Go
Effect of Support Conditions on Steel Beams Exposed of Fire (Master's Thesis) Go
Fire safety engineering forum (numerous papers) Go
Eurocode: Introduction to Structural Fire Engineering (Powerpoint presentation) Go
Determination of fire induced collapse mechanisms of multi-story steel framed structures Go
Some interesting thoughts on WTC fire protection, steel vs. concrete, redundancy, new materials Go
Restrained fire resistance ratings in structural steel buildings Go
Fire Protection Engineering: The future of fire simulation at NIST Go
NIST early WTC fire simulation experiments and photos Go
(Posted again) NIST WTC 7 Interim Report June, 2004 Go
FEMA Report 403, Appendix C: Limited Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Go
NIST best practices for reducing the potential for progressive collapse in buildings (draft) Go
NYC Dept. of Buildings WTC Task Force recommendations report Go
NIST NCSTAR1-1C Maintenance and Modifications to WTC 1, 2 &7 Structural Systems Go
Silverstein & Insurers commissioned own WTC failure studies Go
Scientific American: New Thinking to Make Skyscrapers Safer Go
Manuel Garcia Jr.: The Thermodynamics of 9/11 Go
Chris Marrion of ARUP USA Go
FIRE CHIEFS REPORT ON 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT
Fire Engineering archives (subscription) and FDNY Chief Hayden podcasts (free)
NIST WTC Fire Safety
Interact Fire Solutions--Passive Fire Protection using cast epoxy intumescent
Did the Ban on Asbestos Lead to Loss of Life? (Guy Tozzoli, 707, PA discontinued asbestos use before required to do so. $ NYT 9/18/01)
Engineering Journal: Restrained Fire Resistance in Structural Steel Buildings (PDF)
NIST Gallery of WTC Fire Experiment #6
NIST project 6 structural fire response & collapse analysis
NIST's Safety of Threatened Buildings Research Projects
NIST: 2-D Analysis of a Building Frame Under Gravity Load and Fire.
Sally Regenhard Calls for New High-Rise Codes and Code Group
Composition (Fire Engineering Mag. 4/02) Engineering News-Record
Skyscrapers' Supporters Infuriated By Fire Fearmongers (response to
Regenhard & SyscraperSafety.org)
Structural Fire Engineering, World Trade Center Incident (9-11) & Fire
Serviceability Limit States Interesting approach to protecting steel
using fluid in channels
Bill Manning (Fire Engineering Editor) Welcomes NIST investigation
Structural Fire Engineering One Stop Shop
A BUILDING FIRE AND STRUCTURAL FAILURE (Steel buildings collapse due to fire)
A New Approach to Multi-Storey Steel Framed Buildings Fire and Steel Construction.
NYC Building Code . Fire Protection
Fire Protection Engineering Magazine on Computer Modeling / NIST
NYC Dept of Bldgs Task force recommendations
Paper factory steel fails
Cables hold promise in protecting existing buildings from bombs, researchers find
Asbestos Use in the Construction of the World Trade Center
Astaneh recommends concrete shear walls
Scientific American: New thinking to make skyscrapers safer
Lloyd's commissions study: King Concrete - 08 December 2001 - New Scientist
The Fire Next Time: Skyscraper safety: the push for NY's high-rises to learn not to burn (VV July 5, 2005)
Faulty Fireproofing Is Reviewed as Factor in Trade Center Collapse (Frederick Mowrer, Alan REiss, Roger Morse. $ NYT Dec 13, 2001)
Report Sees Lower Towers That Can Empty Faster ($ NYT March 28, 2002)
9/11 Prompts New Caution In Design of U.S. Skyscrapers (300 Mad., NYT Bldg, AOL Time Warner. $ NYT Sept. 9, 2002)
JREF: Dave_46 on the Cardington Lab Tests
JREF: R.Mackey on fire at the WTC
FEMA WTC Structural Steel & Connections
NIST Fire protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise Buildings
NIST Collected Publications Related to the Use of Elevators During Fires
Charles H. Thornton, a structural engineer who is co-chairman of the Thornton-Tomasetti Group and also a member of the investigation's advisory committee, said the work would go a long way toward putting the field on a par with research on weaponry and space travel, which also require precise calculation of the effects of heat and blast on structures. ''It's never been done before in the building industry,'' said Mr. Thornton, who collaborated in the design of the Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, currently the world's tallest structures. Especially puzzling is that the analysis of hazards posed by earthquakes and high winds has far outstripped similar work on fires. But just as earthquake engineering lurched forward after the major California quakes of 1971, 1989 and 1994, fire science is advancing after the events of Sept. 11, 2001.Reliving 9/11, With Fire as Teacher ($ NYT Jan 6, 2004)
ARCHITECTURE; High Anxiety (Freedom Tower. $ NYT March 14, 2004)
Comparing 2 Sets Of Twin Towers; Malaysian Buildings Offered as Model (Charles Thornton on Petronas Towers / High-strength concrete / Robertson / Nordenson $ NYT Oct. 23, 2002)
TOWERS' COLLAPSE RAISES NEW DOUBTS ABOUT FIRE TESTS ($ NYT April 8, 2002)
''If I say, 'That product passed the test,' you as John Q. Public may be happy,'' said Dr. James G. Quintiere, a professor in fire protection engineering at the University of Maryland. ''But if we say, 'It passed the test, but we don't know how it will function in your house,' you would not be happy.''
TOWERS UNTESTED FOR MAJOR FIRE, INQUIRY SUGGESTS ($ NYT May 8, 2003)
Federal investigators studying the collapse of the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, say they now believe that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the government agency that built the towers, never performed the fundamental tests needed to determine how their innovative structures would perform in a fire.
SWEEPING CHANGES PUSHED FOR CODE ON CITY HIGH-RISES ($ NYT Aug 2, 2002)
City Reshaping Building Codes To U.S. Model ($ NYT May 17, 2004)
9/11 Has Spurred Only Modest Changes in New York City and National Building Codes ($ NYT 9/9/06)
A Midtown Skyscraper Quietly Adds Armor (Citigroup Center $ NYT Aug 15, 2002)
AIA Building Security Through Design
Concrete: Changing Uses Post-9/11 (New York Construction News May, 2003)
Public Issues and the World Trade Center Disaster (Masonry Contractors Association)
Oil rig destroyed in two hours by fire.
Where does black smoke come from? (dark vs. light smoke explanation)
From the FEMA report:
"The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area." http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf
Links to several fire studies from Peter, an architect with experience in designing high-rises
Publications of the University of Sheffield Fire Engineering Research Program Go
The behavior of lightweight composite floor trusses in fire Go
Arup Fire on Tall Buildings and the Events of 9/11 Go
Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms of Multi-Storey Steel Framed Structures Go
Book: Why Buildings Fall Down (great for the layman)
Publications of the Fire Safety Association
Main 9/11 Links Page
Vandar
> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
> news:13csnuv...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
>>news:UfCdnUaqgYFGy1Pb...@insightbb.com...
>>
>>>"David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>>>news:13csl4c...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>>%%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>>>>
>>>>(1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
>
> <insufferable bullshit snipped>
>
> When are you going to tell us how the official conspiracy theory explains
> the massive secondary explosions witnessed by the WTC firefighters?
When are you going to cite one?
Vandar
>>>>Who said it had to get up to 700蚓 to fail?
>>
>>>That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
>>>starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
>>>lot hotter.
>>
>>No it wouldn't.
>>
>>
>>>You want to use a different temperature point for a
>>>calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
>>>won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
>>>away from the realm of plausibility.
>>
>>600蚌 is sufficient.
>>
>>You were saying?
>
>
> ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
> that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
> refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
> wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
Riiight. Dismiss it and run away, as expected.
>>>>>In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
>>>>>fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
>>>>>calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
>>>>>minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
>>>>>require an absurd amount of airflow.
>>
>>>>>Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
>>>>>tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
>>>>>engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
>>>>>degreec C.
>>
>>>>Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>>At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
>>>concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
>>>and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
>>>the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
>>
>>Physicists everywhere would disagree, but you keep telling yourself that.
>
>
> Sorry but hand waving wont work for you here.
The hand waving is entirely yours, skippy.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
> In article <1187967335.966968.326...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
<snip>
> You spend lots of words like "must and "can't" with no work on your
> part or citations as to who you think came to those conclusions.
Actually, these are simple calculations. If the results were not so
absurdly dispositive of the claims, you would have to do some computer
modeling. As it stands however, especially in the case of WTC2, you
don't need to be an "expert" to conclude that fire could not have
meaningfully contributed to the collapse.
That
> gets you an "F" in school and gets your paper rejected for
> publication.
Well I'm posting to a newsgroup, not submitting a thesis.
>
> LOTS of people with much more relevant credentials than youirs have
> looked at how WTC1,2 and 7 collapsed.
The issue is not "relevant credentials"; rather, the issue is how many
"honest people" have looked at it...honest people willing to come
under attack, risk their careers, reputations, etc., that is.
Moreover, how many media outlets do you expect would champion the
cause if some honest, gutsy person with "relevant credentials" did
speak out? How many investigative agencies, courts, etc. would follow
through? None, that's how many. Why risk your career, reputation, etc.
just to spin your wheels?
As I've often said: It wouldn't matter if you had a video tape showing
Bush and Cheney and a coterie of fascist collaborators personally
carrying explosives in to the towers, who's going to do anything about
it? Who?
In any case, look at history. How many people were involved with the
Vietnam war? How many people knew the whole thing was pure bullshit,
yet only one man, Dan Ellsberg, had the guts to do what needed to be
done.
How did Israel get away with attacking the USS Liberty in a deliberate
attack in broad daylight, for example?
Examples of "successful" government orchestrated conspiracies and
cover-ups are all around you. And this is no different.
The insurance companies have
> deep pockets for research and lawyers and will look for any excuse not
> to pay off. All of them have done so for WTC (subject to some
> lawsuits that were about th eAMOUNT or payment, not how the WTC towers
> collapsed.)
That's because it's a purely political, government protected issue.
Let's face it, we can't even get a meaningful investigation. Do you
realize what's actually going on here? Try it yourself and see how far
you get:
Go buy a house out in the countryside somewhere. Insure it heavily.
Then call the local TV station and tell them it caught fire and burnt
down. Then wait a day or so, then burn it down. Then, take pictures of
it burning down. Then, before the state police fire marshall can do a
proper forensic examination of the remains of the structure, haul the
debris away. Then try to collect the insurance. Have your lawyer post
back here with your status if you have no internet access from your
jail cell.
Vandar
>>>>>Who said it had to get up to 700蚓 to fail?
>>
>>>>That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
>>>>starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
>>>>lot hotter.
>>
>>>No it wouldn't.
>>
>>>>You want to use a different temperature point for a
>>>>calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
>>>>won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
>>>>away from the realm of plausibility.
>>
>>>600蚌 is sufficient.
>>
>>>You were saying?
>>
>>ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
>>that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
>>refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
>>wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>
>
> While his temperature estimate is off, your entire theory is off.
It's a temperature that would be sufficient to cause failure. A
difference of just a few hundred degrees is enough to weaken the overall
strength of a beam.
Vandar
> On Aug 24, 11:26 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article <1187967335.966968.326...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>You spend lots of words like "must and "can't" with no work on your
>>part or citations as to who you think came to those conclusions.
>
>
> Actually, these are simple calculations. If the results were not so
> absurdly dispositive of the claims, you would have to do some computer
> modeling. As it stands however, especially in the case of WTC2, you
> don't need to be an "expert" to conclude that fire could not have
> meaningfully contributed to the collapse.
Al Dykes
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 24, 11:26 am, ady...@panix.com (Al Dykes) wrote:
>> In article <1187967335.966968.326...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>>
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> You spend lots of words like "must and "can't" with no work on your
>> part or citations as to who you think came to those conclusions.
>
>Actually, these are simple calculations. If the results were not so
>absurdly dispositive of the claims, you would have to do some computer
>modeling. As it stands however, especially in the case of WTC2, you
>don't need to be an "expert" to conclude that fire could not have
>meaningfully contributed to the collapse.
>
> That
>> gets you an "F" in school and gets your paper rejected for
>> publication.
>
>Well I'm posting to a newsgroup, not submitting a thesis.
>
>>
>> LOTS of people with much more relevant credentials than youirs have
>> looked at how WTC1,2 and 7 collapsed.
>
>The issue is not "relevant credentials"; rather, the issue is how many
>"honest people" have looked at it...honest people willing to come
Relevant expertise is essential and all the "honesty" in the world is
irrelevant in the absence of the former.
It's funny you should bring up honesty. The "Truth Movement" shows a
distinct lack of intellectual honesty in the way they lie by omission
in most of their quotes from eyewitnesses. They leave out any words
that don't support their assertions. See [1] for a long list of A-B
comparisons of Truthy quotes to real quotes.
Are you accusing essentially all the people in the world with
professional expertise relevant to civil engineering and fire
response, as represented by this list, below, of being dishonest? All
of them have signed off on the basic story of WTC; two jets caused the
collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 (they are not done with the WTC7 study,
yet.)
Yes or No?
The following is a list of organizations that have studied aspects of
the TWC collapse. Most of these organizations represents thousads of
their own professional people, worldwide, most of whom pay attention
to what their oragization does in their name and the major
professional even in their lifetime, the events of 9/11.
Any conspiracy or coverup would entail asking thousands of these
poeple to lie, wich would be a criminal offense in many cases. Any
conerup would risk future disclosure, which would make any of these
organizations candidates for lawsuits, prosecution or loss of
membership.
Also see http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
Fire & Emergency Service
IAFC,
NASFM,
IAFF,
FDNY,
NYPD
Academics (lots of luck telling a tenured professor what to say.)
IAFSS,
ASME,
LANL,
MIT,
Princeton,
Northwestern,
UT
Austin,
Georgia
Tech,
Penn State,
Drexel,
Wharton,
Columbia,
Lehigh,
UMd,
WPI
Industry Suppliers
W.R. Grace,
United Technologies
Construction Industry
CII,
IAI,
CERF,
FIATECH,
NIBS
Codes and Standards Organizations
ASCE,
AISC,
ACI,
ICC
NFPA,
ASHRAE
ASTM,
ANSI,
ISO
Structural Engineering and Design
AIA,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat,
SEAoNY,
TMS,
NCSEA,
CASE,
NYC/DDC,
NYNJ Port Authority
Insurance/Testing labs
UL,
FM Global,
SwRI,
IRI
Other Government Agencies
FEMA,
ATF,
FBI,
DOD,
USACE,
DOE,
DTRA,
NIOSH,
CDC,
GSA,
State,
NSTB,
NRC,
IRC/NRCC,
NCSBCS,...
From http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC%20Response%20Presentation%2011122002%20text.pdf
--------------------------------------------
Organizers
2007 SPEAKERS
Douglas Adams
Dr. Richard Benkin
Prof. Louis Rene Beres
James Blom
Kevin Casey
Col. Bill Cowan
Dr. Andrew M. Colarik
Kevin Coleman
Col. Gordon Cucullu
Tom Darcy
Nonie Darwish
Drs. Jill Dekker
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
Ilana Freedman
Dave Gaubatz
Ra-anan Gissin
Jerry Gordon
Col. Jonathan Halevi
Scott Jackson
Alireza Jaffarzadeh
Lee Kaplan
Joe Kaufman
Clare Lopez
Laura Mansfield
Cdr. Richard Marcinko
Ryan Mauro
Gen. Thomas McInerney
Richard Miniter
LTC. Joe Myers
Bob Newman
Patrick Poole
Konstantin Preobrazhensky
Dr. William Radasky
Klaus Schmidt
Avi Shachar
Wayne Simmons
Alon Stivi
Dr. Babu Suseeian
Gen. Paul E. Vallely
Chris Westphal
Dr Paul Williams
Terri K. Wonder
Secular Islam Summit:
Walid Phares
Shaker al-Nabulsi
Irshad Manji
Amir Taheri
Magdi Allam
Ibn Warraq
Fatemolla
Afshin Ellian
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi
Tawfik Hamid
Advisory Council
Louis Rene Beres
Yossef Bodansky
Brent Budowsky
Col. Gordon Cucullu
Col. Bill Cowan
Nonie Darwish
Drs. Jill Dekker
Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld
Brigitte Gabriel
Yoram Hessel
Tawfik Hamid
Clare Lopez
Gen. Thomas McInerney
Cdr. Richard Marcinko
Dame Pauline
Neville-Jones
Bahukutumbi Raman
Tashbih Sayyed
Wayne Simmons
Bruce Tefft
Gen. Paul E. Vallely
Organizers
Dr. Robert Katz
John J. Loftus
Executive Board
Talia Adar
Ilana Freedman
Eugene Lebovitz
Carl Sontz
----------------------------------------------------
[1]
There is a pattern and practice of some people in the "Truth Movement"
committing fraud and a huge echo chamber of people mindlessly
repeating things. I check quotes, That's how I came across this crap.
There is *zero* effort by the Truthies to fact check and correct their
own material. The worst are the alleged "peer reviewed" sites. They
contain fraudlent quotes by NYFD/EMS personel that can be shown to
differ from the public record. One of the steps in peer review is
fact checking.
Examples;
Washington Newsman Mike Walters shown how Truthys have twisted his
9/11 reporting;
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1177892305
------------------------
"Todd Beamer is Alive"
Truthys have said that Beamer (Flt93) is alive becuase and
used this faek quote
"Todd Beamer's wife told Larry King on CNN on 23 Aug 2002 that he
is still alive.",
When we find the real quote, we see that she means he's in heavan.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html
KING: So you feel Todd is somewhere now?
BEAMER: Absolutely. Todd is still alive. He is alive in a much
different scenario than he was last year at this time, but...
KING: Watching you and the babies?
BEAMER: I don't know how much influence he has or knowledge he has
of what goes on here. The Bible doesn't give us really a complete
picture of the connection between Heaven and Earth. But I do know
that he's experiencing the presence of God. And he is more alive now
than he was before. And I'll join him some day
--------------------------------------------
An Aside: Mr. Jones's Dishonest Illogic.
>From the very same Debunking911 page I referenced above,
check out this litte gem as an aside.
---
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to
support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at
levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of
thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers
to know.
----------------------
Here's another bit of fraud by someone that uses "truth" a lot. Many
911 web sites, http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for
one) have this quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...
The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF
Many Truthy sites have this quote from a firemen. This
URL, for example; http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
"It was like a professional demolition where they set the charges on
certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."
- NYC Paramedic Daniel Rivera
The Truthies edited Rivera's text to obscure the fact that Rivera
knew it was just syuff collapsing.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN
A: THAT NOISE IT WAS NOISE
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR WHAT DID YOU SEE
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE.
AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL
DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN
FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR POP POP POP POP
POP THAVS EXACTLY WHAT BECAUSE THOUGHT
IT WASTHAT WHEN HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE
THAVS WHEN SAWTHE BUILDING COMING DOWN
Q: WHAT DID YOU DO
A: RUN MOST OF THE PEOPLE RAN INTO THE
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF
Here is the page of official testimony for about 500 first responders.
You can check lots of trythy quotes here, and if the Truty site says
something different, it's not impossible to contact any of them and
verify quote.
I first came across these fraud edited NYFD quotes on Jones' "peer
reviewed" 911 site. (there are more misleadingly edited quotes
there). One task of peer review is fact checking. It's clear that the
site is bullshit.
That's enough of the fine people in NYFD and EMS. Here are more;
------------------------------------------------------------
Many sites have quotes similar to this;
Danielle O'Brien commenting on how air traffic
controllers thought Flight 77 was a military plane based on
its maneuverability;
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/aerobatics.html
but it leaves out the end of the statement,
"... you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."
My point isn't that the quote is goldplate accurate,
it's that the Truthies have edited pertenant info out,
not told us, and not given URLs to sources.
----------------------------------------------------------
Loose Change quotes the coroner, Wally Miller,
as seeing no bodies or blood the day of Flight 93's crash;
over the next several weeks Miller goes on to identify 12
passengers "using mostly dental records."[31]
http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp
------------------------------------------------------
You.ll often find transcripts of witness statements used on 9/11 sites. Here.s one used to support a .controlled demolition at the WTC argument, for instance.:
A description of what appeared to be a ring of explosions was also given by Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick, who said: "We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4131
Convincing? Looks that way, but then that.s because you.re not reading the original. Where Fitzpatrick says he doesn.t recall thinking he saw explosions at all, and offers an alternative explanation, but mysteriously that.s been edited out:
We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Fitzpatrick_Tom.txt
You always need to look at the complete transcript, then, and the 9/11 Transcripts Blog is designed to help you do just that. Interesting transcripts are highlighted regularly, there.s a search engine to look for quotes, and links to help you find out more. Visit it here.
----------------------------------------------------------
There are quotes like thisinterview of chief flight instructor Marcel
Bernard focusing on the weaknesses of Hani Hanjour's flying skills
when he took
Flight Academy] Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite,
meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said,
they considered him a very bad pilot. "I'm still to this day amazed
that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee
said. "He could not fly at all.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html
It fails to clarify Bernard's expert opinion on Hanjour's ability to
hit the Pentagon. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that
[hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a
building and hit it."
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
-------------------------
http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
---------
My favorite example of how these conspiracy theorists such as the guys
behind Loose Change selectively edit information in order to get the
desired conclusion is the CNN interview with the guy outside the
Pentagon right after the plane hit. The guy said (and I'm
paraphrasing) "It was a red and blue plane, clearly a United Jet, and
it crashed into the side of the Pentagon. It looked like a missile
when it was coming toward the building and there was a giant explosion
when I saw the plane hit the building." The conspiracy theorists edit
out everything except for "It looked like a missile" and use that as
absolute proof that a missile and not a plane hit the Pentagon.
-----------
I've been asking for months about where this 35 seconds of video came
from. I'd like to know what the Truthies edited out, given the above.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287
-----------
Home
Arabs and Osama
First Time in History
The Fires
The Twin Towers
World Trade Cener 7
The Free Fall Fallacy
Molten Steel Explained
Sounds of Explosions
The Firemans Quotes
Civil Engineers Quotes
Peer Reviewed Paper
Professor Steven E Jones
Massive Conspriracy
The Real Conspiracy
Government Planning
The 911 Zogby Poll
Debunking 911 Links
Quotes
.I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?.--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory
Now the WHOLE QUOTE without the taking out of context...
I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.
I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt
Let me guess why they left that important part out..
.t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera
SO WE WERE PRETTY MUCH-MOST OF THE WORKERS WERE INSIDE THIS BUILDING. I LIKE SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF ITS FIVE WORLD TRADE CENTER OR FOUR WORLD TRADE CENTER. MOST OF THEM WERE IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE CHIEF OR THE CAPTAIN SAID IF YOU WANT YOU CAN STAY INSIDE THAT BUILDING. BUT I DIDN'T FEEL SAFE BECAUSE I KNEW IT WAS TERRORIST ATTACK SO I WAS SCARED. EVERY TIME YOU HEAR PLANE EVERYONE WOULD RUN. SO I PRETTY MUCH STOOD AROUND HERE SOMEWHERE. I WOULD SEE TRIAGE, BUT I WAS PRETTY MUCH IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
THEN THAT'S WHEN-I KEPT ON WALKING CLOSE TO THE SOUTH TOWER, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT BUILDING COLLAPSED.
Q: HOW DID YOU KNOW THAT IT WAS COMING DOWN?
A: THAT NOISE .IT WAS NOISE.
Q: WHAT DID YOU HEAR? WHAT DID YOU SEE?
A: IT WAS A FRIGGING NOISE. AT FIRST I THOUGHT IT WAS-DO YOU EVER SEE PROFESSIONAL DEMOLITION WHERE THEY SET THE CHARGES ON CERTAIN FLOORS AND THEN YOU HEAR "POP, POP, POP, POP, POP"? THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT-BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS THAT WHEN I HEARD THAT FRIGGING NOISE, THAT'S WHEN I SAW THE BUILDING COMING DOWN.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110035.PDF
First, notice he and everyone else was scared of TERRORISTS. What do TERRORIST DO? So it's not unreasonable for someone who is thinking TERRORIST to hear the sound of huge concrete floors falling one on top of the other to think "BOMB" first. As I said, No one has ever seen an airplane hit buildings constructed like this and the collapse of this odd combination.
.There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse." --Chief Frank Cruthers
there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. it appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
And why wouldn't floors falling around the building NOT APPEAR to be an EXPLOSION... :blink:
"I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.. --Paramedic Kevin Darnowski
Again, just more sounds like explosions as floors ram into each other. Note he doesn't say he SAW three explosions.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110202.PDF
And here is the outright LIE...
. we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.. -- Firefighter Craig Carlsen
Note where these liars put the "...."
Now for the REAL quote...
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110505.PDF
With that alone I should rest my case. ;) These CT sites are dishonest.
Here is the other lie, they split up those quotes to make it seem like there are more people hearing explosions than there really are. You have paramedic Daniel Rivera's interview split in two and Stephen Gregory's interview split in two, as if there are different people hearing different explosions. They flood you with quotes hoping you won't notice. What other reason would they have for splitting them up???
.Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." -- Captain Karin Deshore
MY BACK WAS TOWARDS THE BUILDING, TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY UP.
GRASSY HILL WAS THERE AND UP UNDERNEATH THAT OVERPASS, WHEN SOMEBODY JUST SIMPLY SHOUTED AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IT WAS, "IT'S BLOWING".
I HAD NO CLUE WHAT WAS GOING ON. I NEVER TURNED AROUND BECAUSE A SOUND CAME FROM SOMEWHERE THAT NEVER HEARD BEFORE. SOME PEOPLE COMPARED IT WITH AN AIRPLANE. IT WAS THE WORST SOUND OF ROLLING SOUND, NOT A THUNDER CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, WHAT IT WAS. ALL I
KNOW IS -- AND FORCE STARTED TO COME HIT ME IN MY BACK. I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT. YOU HAD TO BE THERE. ALL I KNOW IS -- HAD TO RUN BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN EXPLOSION.
...I WAS UNAWARE WHAT WAS HAPPENING. I THOUGHT
IT WAS JUST MAJOR EXPLOSION I DIDN'T KNOW THE BUILDING WAS COLLAPSING
SOMEWHERE AROUND THE MIDDLE OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, THERE WAS THIS ORANGE AND RED FLASH COMING OUT. INITIALLY IT WAS JUST ONE FLASH. THEN THIS FLASH JUST KEPT POPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BUILDING AND THAT BUILDING HAD STARTED TO EXPLODE. THE POPPING SOUND, AND WITH EACH POPPING SOUND IT WAS INITIALLY AN ORANGE AND THEN RED FLASH CAME OUT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN IT WOULD JUST GO ALL AROUND THE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES AS FAR AS COULD SEE. THESE POPPING SOUNDS AND THE EXPLOSIONS WERE GETTING BIGGER GOING BOTH UP AND DOWN AND THEN ALL AROUND THE BUILDING.
It's time to see a transformer explosion.
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
All these buildings had transformers and transformer vaults.
SO HERE THESE EXPLOSIONS ARE GETTING BIGGER AND LOUDER AND BIGGER AND LOUDER AND I TOLD EVERYBODY IF THIS BUILDING TOTALLY EXPLODES, STILL UNAWARE THAT THE OTHER BUILDING HAD COLLAPSED, IM GOING IN THE WATER.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110192.PDF
.I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.. -- Captain Jay Swithers
When I was giving her the oxygen, setting up the tank, you could hear a loud rumble. Somebody said run for your life. I turned to see who was yelling "run".
At that point I looked back and most of the people who were triaged in that area with the triage tags on them got up and ran. I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go.
But one thing that did happen was an ambulance pulled up which was very clean. So I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110172.PDF
First he heard the rumble. Not the so called "Explosion" which he never saw. Then he thought he heard an explosion because he saw the debris falling away from the building. He had TERRORIST on his mind and jumped to the conclusion that it was a bomb. You don't have to be a psychologist here.
Fire officer Paul Isaac Jr. asserted that 9-11 was an inside job last September 11 at ground zero where mourners and protesters were gathered; .I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it.s an inside job; and the firemen know it too., said Isaac.
"there were definitely bombs in those buildings,. Isaac added that .many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they.re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the .higher-ups. forbid discussion of this fact.. --Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac
Paul Isaac never said anything of the kind. Another Conspiracy Theorist deception.
A video is shown on just about every conspiracy web site which shows a few fireman discussing what they heard and saw.
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch-poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out .
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det.
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom.
In the context of reading it off a conspiracy site, this may sound like damning evidence. They are saying .detonated. and .they had planned to take down a building.. They even say .Boom. to describe the sound. But if you hear the other things they.re saying, their body language and context outside the conspiracy theory setting, something else emerges. Before or after every description is .As if.. .As if they had planned to take down a building.. .It was as if as if they had detonated.. They also use body language to show it was the sound of the floors crashing into one another.
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom.
This could be just as powerful evidence of pancaking as the use of explosives. But the real evidence isn.t so much examining the video as examining the actions taken, or NOT taken, by the NYC Fire Department after the event. The NYC Fire Department hasn.t rallied its members to force an investigation into the possible murder of over 300 of its members. Some sites offer an explanation of this saying there was a gag order placed on the Fire Department. The only place you will find this is on conspiracy theory sites. No mention from main stream press about the hundreds if not thousands of fireman on the scene not being allowed to talk.
A glaring example of picking and choosing what to focus on is the interview with Mary Baldizzi... They point to a BBC article that says
The jet fuel caused the fire to spread so far and so fast that it effectively cut the building into two. For the 6,000 people below where the plane had hit the staircases still offered a means of escape, but for the 950 caught above the point of impact and the fire there was no way out.
The argument is made that towers fell because of separate detonations. As proof, they offered the case of Mary Baldizzi who supposedly had escaped the 104th floor of the World Trade Center's North Tower by elevator. Thus, the only way she could have escaped via elevator was if the core was intact at least to the 104th floor.
When I watched the video, I thought, if there had been a survivor from above the impact zone in Tower 1, it would have been widely broadcast. So, logically, I searched online for either confirmation or repudiation. I found neither. What I did find was the repeated use of Ms. Baldizzi's story as evidence in various alternative theories (i.e., other than fire) for the collapse of the towers.
Returning to the original video, I watched it several more times. After listening closely to Ms. Baldizzi's interview, I came to the conclusion that Mary Baldizzi was not on the 104th floor of the North Tower (WTC1) but was on the 104th floor of the South Tower (WTC2) and that this was a misrepresentation of her escape as having been from WTC1. Here are the reasons I came to this conclusion:
1. Although the newswomen began the interview stating that Mary Baldizzi had come down the elevators from the 104th floor and was in the "first tower when it was struck," at no time during the interview does Ms. Baldizzi state that she was in the North Tower. In addition, none of the graphics that accompany the interview claim that Ms. Baldizzi was in the North Tower. When Ms. Baldizzi is asked if she felt the impact, she says "Oh yeah." But the effects she describes -- feeling the heat, experiencing the shaking, hearing the explosion -- are all effects experienced by those who were in the South Tower on the floors adjacent to the impact zone (see:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-02-choices-usat_x.htm ). If she had been in the North Tower when it was hit then she would have described the impact in much less casual terms.
2. Around 5 minutes and 20 seconds into the interview, the interviewers ask about Ms. Baldizzi's coworkers. Ms. Baldizzi's states that she does not know the whereabouts of her fellow employees and proceeds to state, around 5:55 of the interview, that she has no way of contacting them other than to "call [the] main office in Illinois." Now, the offices on the 104th floor of the North Tower were occupied exclusively by Cantor Fitzgerald, while offices on the 104th floor of the South Tower were occupied by Sandler O'Neill (see: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html). Cantor Fitzgerald does not have a main office in Illinois (see: http://www.cantor.com/contact/). Sandler O'Neill, on the other hand, does have a central office in Chicago (see: http://www.sandleroneill.com/). This suggests that Ms. Baldizzi was an employee of Sandler O'Neill (in the South Tower) rather than Cantor Fitzgerald (in the North Tower).
3. Finally, and conclusively, at 6:15 in the interview Ms. Baldizzi begins a discussion about what she and her coworkers did when they exited the building. She clearly says: "There were police officers, thank God, that were aiming us towards Liberty St. because we stupidly walked towards One World Trade because we didn't know; we had no idea it was a terrorist attack." Now, if Ms. Baldizzi had been in One World Trade Center (i.e., the North Tower) there is no way she would have described her egress as "towards One Word Trade" because no matter in which direction she walked she would have been going away from One World Trade. This point proves, beyond any doubt, that Ms. Baldizzi exited from the South Tower and that the mistaken announcement at the beginning of the interview that she was in the North Tower was just one of the miscommunications and misunderstandings in the chaos of those early days.
I concluded that Ms. Baldizzi exited Tower 2 at the same time many others in the building did: after the North Tower was hit but before the South Tower was hit. If she was "dragged" into the elevator within seconds after the first tower was hit, and if the elevator ride took about 4 minutes, she would've been out of the building well before the South Tower was hit.
USA Today
As you can see the South Tower core was not damaged as much because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it anyway.
There were two freight elevators that serviced the 104th floor.
Cars #6 and #50 serviced the 104th floor, lobby and basement levels.
----------
. Car #5: B1-5, 7, 9-40, 44
. Car #6: B1-5, 44, 75, 77-107 *
. Car #17: B1-1, 41, 43-78
. Car #48: B1-7, 9-40
. Car #49: B1-5, 41-74
. Car #50: B6-108 *
. Car #99: 107-110
There were two express elevators to Windows on the World (and related conference rooms and banquet facilities) in WTC 1 and two to the observation deck in WTC 2.
pg 34 (adobe pg 72)
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster
Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications (Draft)
There were firemen who radioed in after being stuck in the elevator moments before the south tower collapsed.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio8.html
So there were elevators working in the south tower AFTER the impact. But what's important here is that the interview is being taken out of context. A theme which seems to run strong with these conspiracy theorists.
Thanks to Scott S Coastal and Drval.
-------------------------------------
The Airfone "Smoking Gun"
It has been going around the truther community the last week or so that they have found a "smoking gun" proving that 9/11 was a government conspiracy, because AA flight 77 did not have airfones. This has most recently been mentioned in a David Ray Griffin interview posted on 911 Blogger:
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/airfone-smoking-gun.html
-----------------------------------------------
In article <469e4115$0$16397$8826...@free.teranews.com>,
Ramabriga <Rama...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3KcT_LVM0E
>
>--
Everyone, watch that video, it's only a minute long (unlike most Truth
Movement videos) and it shows the "Truth Movement" one more time
misusing the words of others to make us believe that someone believes
Truthy claims.
------------------
he BBC doesn't claim "that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos".
The BBC does claim that it has lost all of its 9/11 videos from BBC World Service. The tapes from BBC News 24 for example are not lost.
Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234
Said Richard Porter, Head of News, BBC World, 27 Feb 07, 05:12 PM:
Quote:
We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor...onspiracy.html
I love quote-mining!
The very next sentence in your source reads:
Quote:
We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
So, TruthSeeker1234, why don't you try to get hold of these tapes and prove your point?
And don't forget the many other European broadcasters in your quest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
------------------------------
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
BTW: On that same URL, the quote, "There's a bomb in the building -
start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building"
on your first URL is from a bomb call from some building mile
from WTC It was a false alarm.
I bet the Twoofers never tell you that. They lie by omission.
------------------------------------
Al Dykes
Add the additional 100+ tons of of unplanned weight of the aircraft,
distributed asymmetrically, and the destruction by impact of two or
three floors which were structural braces for the vertical beams.
jpsmi...@yahoo.com
>
> >>>That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
> >>>starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
> >>>lot hotter.
>
> >>No it wouldn't.
>
> >>>You want to use a different temperature point for a
> >>>calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
> >>>won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
> >>>away from the realm of plausibility.
>
>
> >>You were saying?
>
> > ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
> > that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
> > refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
> > wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>
> Riiight. Dismiss it and run away, as expected.
Well, what do you expect me to do when you've said nothing deserving
of a substantive reply? Your problem is that you take yourself far too
seriously.
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>In fact it doesn't matter if the whole building was filled with jet
> >>>>>fuel (or the hydrocarbon fuel of your choice); if you do some simple
> >>>>>calculations to estimate the energy you'd have to release (in only 56
> >>>>>minutes time), assuming an unlimited supply of fuel, it turns out to
> >>>>>require an absurd amount of airflow.
>
> >>>>>Basically, you'd need to build a super-efficient (i.e. low-loss), high-
> >>>>>tech blast furnace, with about a dozen blowers, each the size of a jet
> >>>>>engine, to burn enough fuel in 56 minutes time to even get to 700
> >>>>>degreec C.
>
> >>>>Which has nothing to do with anything.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>>At least as far as a technically illiterate person like you is
> >>>concerned. To anyone such as myself, however, who has some knowledge
> >>>and appreciation of the physics involved, it drives a stake through
> >>>the heart of the absurd fire-mediated collapse theories.
>
> >>Physicists everywhere would disagree, but you keep telling yourself that.
>
> > Sorry but hand waving wont work for you here.
>
> The hand waving is entirely yours, skippy.
I gotta tell ya, "Vandar", what you lack in technical savvy and
critcal thinking skills, you almost make up for in entertainment
value.
Grendel
Ahh...Does not agree with your bullshit = 'uninformed'...convenient,
that.
> > Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
> > temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
> > Fahrenheit).
>
> Under highly ideal conditions, perhaps. You can't do it, especially
> over any large volume, in only 56 minutes. You would need to basically
> set up a blast furnace.
Again, you do not need to heat the entire volume to cause failure at
individual spots. (I thought you were 'informed').
> At 1,000°C, steel softens and its strength reduces to
>
> > roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.
>
> So what? You cannot do that in 56 minutes, do you follow?
Yes, you can do that in 56 minutes. You can heat exposed steel with a
structure fire in a matter of minutes. (Agian, please quit claiming
you have to heat the entire volume...this is not true)
> You cannot
> get anywhere near those temperatures.
Again, you can. AGAIN. Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g.,
jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees
Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). This is not opinion, this if
fact. And not under 'ideal' conditions..under 'NORMAL' conditions.
(Obviously, you have a reading comprehension problem along with
everything else).
> You cannot selectively heat just
> those critical parts you deem necessary to induce structural failure.
This is not required, nor did I state such. But, any sufficiently hot
fire will heat whatever is in the area. Obviously, in the WTC case,
enough steel was weakened to allow gravity to take over.
> You cannot heat a pie to 400 degrees F in the oven without heating the
> thermal mass of the oven as well.
No, but take a cold oven, put in your pie, throw gas on it and strike
a match. The rest of the oven does not have to get warm for the pie
to be burnt. Also, part of the pie will remain frozen and part burnt.
Do this with steel and you get warpage and failure.
> > Your assertion that 2E6 kg of construction materials must be heated
> > for the building to collapse is bullshit (and you know this).
>
> Not at all. Each floor has roughly 5.5E6 kg of steel and 1.4E6 kg of
> concrete.
All of which, does not have to be heated to induce a failure. There
were MANY areas on each floor that, if heated beyond tolerances, would
propagate a failure..and only a few failing would accomplish this.
> You cannot generate a magical fire that heats only the parts you want
> heated to the exclusion of all the surrounding material.
Actually, I never made the claim, but you try to divert my argument by
claiming that I did. The tactics of one losing an argument.
I didn't not claim the fire heated ONLY the parts, but a fire that
heated SUFFICIENT parts. YOU, on the other hand, claim the EVERY
SINGLE PART must be heated, when this is demonstratedly false.
> (Well
> actually you can, through the judicious placement of energetic
> materials like thermite).
And your evidence of thermite would be.....?
> In any case, you don't like my numbers? Pick a different volume
> element for your analysis, it will make no difference.
>
> You are
>
> > attempting to say you would have to heat an entire structure for it to
> > fail, when this is patently false.
>
> Nonsense. I'm picking a volume element for an analysis.
And that is where your theory is flawed. There is no set volume that
needed to be heated. Just structural strong points that only required
a fire that would weaken just enough to be sufficient to cause a
collapse.
> I chose to
> model one floor. You want to use two floors, or maybe three floors?
> Fine, just double or triple everything.
Again, your premise is wrong. And if your premise wrong, your entire
theory is, also.
> You only have to heat (thus
>
> > weaken) enough key support areas to cause a collapse.
>
> Exactly! And that's what you would do by the judicious placement of
> energetic materials.
Or by a fire sufficiently hot enough, and just big enough, to weaken
enough support areas to cause a collapse.
> Sorry but any other scenario requires a model
> similar to what I've proposed.
Your scenario is flawed based on faulty logic.
> > Do you want a true example of physics (besides your bullshit apple pie
> > example, where you are intentionally attempting to heat the entire
> > pie)?
>
> > Take a steel bar of any significant length (say 10'). Support both
> > ends like this:
>
> > __________________________________________
> > ^
> > ^
>
> > Set a hot torch under the middle...before long, the center will become
> > soft enough to bend, while the ends will still be cool to the touch.
> > Gravity will cause the center to bend, thus the entire bar will have
> > failed.
>
> LOL! That's irrelevant. We don't have a hundred elves inside the tower
> heating critical parts with a torch, we have scattered fires.
And you have fires sufficient to cause weaking and failure of the
stucture.
> We have
> a structure with walls.
Again, building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
Fahrenheit). This is sufficient to weaken steel.
> We'll break the problem down into smaller
> pieces and consider one floor. We know the approximate thermal mass we
> need to heat.
Again, the false premise that you have to heat the enitive volume. You
do not. Thus your following theory is false.
> We know we need to reach temperatures of, at least,
> close to 1000 degrees C. We know we have 56 minutes to do it.
> Calculate the energy that needs to be released to do it. It's over
> 3E12 Joules (to go from ambient to just 700 degrees C). A hell of a
> lot of energy. (And that's not even including losses, a ridiculously
> generous situation). Most informatively, in order to heat just one
> floor's worth of material (of which the steel is a part) to even 700
> degrees you would need to flow over 1.2E6 CFM of air to the fire
> (assuming the convective flow only carries away half your heat). Do
> you comprehend that number?
Yes, if we needed to heat the entire volume of 1 floor, and its
constituent materials, that is approximately how much you would need.
BUT, again, heating of the entire structure throughout is not needed,
and thus your 'logic' in only an exercise in what it takes to heat
that much volume and mass.
Again, this was not needed. Your theory fails in that respect.
> > Anyone who has absolutely ANY experience working with steel knows
> > this, and knows that your assertion that 2E6 kg must all be heated for
> > failure to occur is bullshit.
>
> > That fact that you put forth such bullshit scenarios further
> > demonstrates how much bullshit your entire 'truther' movement is.
>
> You imply that the heat from randomly scattered fires inside a
> building will only go precisely where you need it to go to cause a
> collapse. Do you realise the utter ridiculousness of what you're
> saying?
Do you realise the rediculousness of your attempt to claim that that
is what I said, when I said no such thing?
I did not mention radomly scattered fires at all, nor did I say they
will only go precisely where you need it to go. Your attempt to say
that I did only demonstrats you realize you've lost this argument.
I stated that you only needed a sufficiently hot fire heating a
sufficient number of steel to propagate a collapse. I've also stated
that normal buidling fires reach a sufficient temperature in a matter
of minutes. You do NOT need to heat the entire structure of volume of
that floor, as you claim.
> When you cook a pie in your oven at home, does the heat only go to the
> pie?
Well, if the terrorist ever try to cook a pie, your information will
be invaluable. In this case, it in no way is congruent to the WTC.
> Do you have in your house a magic oven that only heats what you
> want it to heat? Maybe you can tell me where you got this magic oven?
> I have an old-fashioned, shitty oven that wastes energy by heating the
> inside walls of the oven and even the kitchen itself to a certain
> extent, just to heat the damn pie.
Anyone that can equat structural damage to heating a pie is fucked.
> > Now, if you actually had some serious questions about something that
> > was actually questionable, it would make your side more credible. But
> > you don't and you ain't.
>
> > Got any experience working with steel? Got any experiece as a
> > firefighter? Demonstratably, that would be no.
>
> LOL! I'm an engineer with over 20 years design experience, part of it
> designing cooling systems for power dissipating electrical loads.-
So, no structural experience then. Not to mention, you main problem
is you're an engineer. (Engineer: A person who has been educated far
beyond his intelligence.) I have a nice long theory on engineers.
People with no social skill, just enough intelligence to be dangerous,
and can design anything on paper but get confused in real life.
I've known engineers that design and build loading racks for 18
wheeler tank cars, without first finding out how tall a 18 wheeler
with a tank car is. (true occurrence)
I've known engineers that couldn't figure out, through the process of
elimination, which way to turn a lug nut to get a flat tire off his
car. (true occurrence)
A disproportionate number of engineers tend to marry elementary school
teachers and day care providers...as these women are used to dealing
with petulent little children.
I've know many good engineers, but they are the exception, not the
rule.
Again, your premise is faulted, thus your theory is faulted.
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Yes, you have the right to be offended. So fucking what?"-Solomon
Short.
Kevin Cunningham
> Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic Arabs
> WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>
> Preliminary NIST Report. Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
>
> When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains (or
> even attempts to explain) this object:
>
> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
>
> Next up: You get to outline the OCT and then present incontrovertible proof
> that verifies every assertion. I know you'll enjoy that.
Just once I'd like a quote from one of the thousands of person
representing every body from the realty company that owned the
building to the NIST that the building went up from anything except an
airplane. I've never, ever heard that.
With thousands of rescuers, doctors, nurses, psychologists,
psychiatrists, EMTs', architects, builders, engineers you'd think one
of them would spill the beans but so far no one has. Why? It
happened just as you saw. Two planes hit two buildings, thousands
died.
On the other side you have third rate people, way out side their field
criticizing who, they don't know, and what, they have no idea.
Everybody Knows
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA&mode=related&search=
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287&sourceid=docidfeed&hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx33GuVsUtE&mode=related&search=
--------------------------------
"If we are really fighting terror, why is our southern border completely
wide open? It's a joke."
Ross Wittenberg
Former Viet Nam fighter pilot
Everybody Knows
I can appreciate Gillettes Principle.
It seems that those with rage are the ones clinging to the official (fairy
tale ) story. THEY'RE the ones that are afraid of the truth.
They're "dug in" and are not open to anything new to their belief system
(narrow-mindedness).
And of course many are just government shills.
---------------------------------------
Al Dykes
Is there anything in those links that's less than 5 years old?
There are no eyewitnesses to "molten metal" on the pile at WTC. All
the stories turn out to be second-hand when researched.
There are no eyewitnesses that say they saw evidence of man-made
explosives at WTC.
At the Pentagon, There are no eyewitnesses to a big commercial jet
approaching the building low, flying over it and leaving. There are
hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane approach the
building. many of them saw it crash.
In PA, 95% of the aircraft debris of Flight 93 has been recovered and
identified as have DNA samples of all the passangers.
Everybody Knows
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1187979542.0...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That's pretty silly to think that everyone has to be in on it.
Why don't you stop being lazy and take a look at the information. The
information is screaming "lots of holes in the official (fairly tale)
story."
Listening to right-wing talk radio will just make you stupid. You're not
stupid are you? Of course not.
Don't be lazy....turn off the Hannity/O'Reilly/Limbaugh and READ!
-----------------
"If we are really fighting terror, why is our southern border completely
What Me Worry?
>
> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
> news:xdKdnV1VeJ6B4lPb...@insightbb.com...
>>
>> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>> news:13csnuv...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
>>> news:UfCdnUaqgYFGy1Pb...@insightbb.com...
>>>>
>>>> "David Moffitt" <dmof...@stompingweasels.org> wrote in message
>>>> news:13csl4c...@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> %%%% I have 6 question for the conspiricy people.
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) Who wired the towers with thermite?
>> <insufferable bullshit snipped>
>>
>> When are you going to tell us how the official conspiracy theory explains
>> the massive secondary explosions witnessed by the WTC firefighters?
>
> %%%% Post a credible source of your claim of unexplained secondary
> explosions.
Are you questioning the credibility of these firefighters?
David Moffitt
%%%% Actually yes. How do you think steel is melted and made phaser pistols?
I was specifically talking about melting aluminum. At the temp it takes to
melt aluminum steel id=s red hot and can be bent by a child. Gravety does
the rest.
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
>
Vandar
>>>>>>Who said it had to get up to 700蚓 to fail?
>>
>>>>>That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
>>>>>starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
>>>>>lot hotter.
>>
>>>>No it wouldn't.
>>
>>>>>You want to use a different temperature point for a
>>>>>calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
>>>>>won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so far
>>>>>away from the realm of plausibility.
>>
>>>>600蚌 is sufficient.
>>
>>>>You were saying?
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
>>>that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
>>>refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
>>>wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>>
>>Riiight. Dismiss it and run away, as expected.
>
>
> Well, what do you expect me to do when you've said nothing deserving
> of a substantive reply? Your problem is that you take yourself far too
> seriously.
Your problem is that you want everyone to think you're much smarter than
you actually are.
You said "pick a reasonable temperature".
600蚌 is a reasonable temperature.
Knowing full well that it completely annihilates your claim, you
dismissed it and ran away.
Now you're back, but only to attempt changing the subject.
Al Dykes
NO.
I show how the Truth Movement has taked FDNY testimony and selectively
uses quotes that support Truthy claims and omit any worlds that
contradict Truthy claims.
Here's an example"
Many 911 "Truth"web sites,
(http://911review.com/coverup/oralhistories.html for one) have this
quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was."
Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 8] ...
The sites never provide a link to the original testmony to see the
entire quote;
"you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south
tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten
explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. WE REALIZED
LATER AFTER TALKING AND FINDING OUT THAT IT WAS THE FLOORS
COLLAPSING TO WHERE THE PLANE HAD HIT.
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF
Examples;
------------------------
"Todd Beamer is Alive"
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/23/lkl.00.html
--------------------------------------------
---
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to
support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at
levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never
observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of
thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers
to know.
----------------------
Many Truthy sites have this quote from a firemen. This
Source:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110035.PDF
------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.postgazette.com/headlines/20011003crash1003p3.asp
------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hanjour.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/disinfo/deceptions/nynewsday_sep23.html
-------------------------
http://www.911lies.org/fire_fighters_911_wtc_tapes.html
---------
-----------
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287
-----------
Quotes
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Gregory_Stephen.txt
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110035.PDF
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/Cruthers.txt
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110202.PDF
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110505.PDF
http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110192.PDF
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC
/9110172.PDF
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom- (hand moves down)
boom.
USA Today
----------
NIST NCSTAR 1-7 (Draft)
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/wtcaudio/wtcaudio8.html
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/airfone-smoking-gun.html
-----------------------------------------------
------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
------------------------------
>http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
------------------------------------
David Moffitt
<jpsmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1187967335.9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > That's just a ball-park point I picked for a (very conservative)
> > > > starting point. Of course, in reality, it would likely need to get a
> > > > lot hotter.
>
> > > No it wouldn't.
>
> > > > You want to use a different temperature point for a
> > > > calculation? Fine, pick any reasonable temperature, and it really
> > > > won't change anything, as the numbers show the scenario is just so
> > > > far
> > > > away from the realm of plausibility.
>
>
> > > You were saying?
>
> > ROTFLMAO! Like most everything else you've said in this discussion,
> > that's quite absurd on its face; so absurd that it stands as its own
> > refutation and requires no substantive reply from me. (In any case it
> > wouldn't even have gotten that hot, under the circumstances.)
>
> While his temperature estimate is off, your entire theory is off.
In your utterly uninformed opinion, that is.
>
> Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
> temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
> Fahrenheit).
Under highly ideal conditions, perhaps. You can't do it, especially
over any large volume, in only 56 minutes. You would need to basically
set up a blast furnace.
At 1,000蚓, steel softens and its strength reduces to
%%%% Take your oven at home and build a fire in it. How long did it take for
the pie to cook? You are mixing apples and oranges. One fire was fuel ie:
instant heat and the other is electic slow heat. One wooden match puts off
more heat in 5 seconds than a light bulb does in 5 minutes.
>
> Now, if you actually had some serious questions about something that
> was actually questionable, it would make your side more credible. But
> you don't and you ain't.
>
> Got any experience working with steel? Got any experiece as a
> firefighter? Demonstratably, that would be no.
LOL! I'm an engineer with over 20 years design experience, part of it
designing cooling systems for power dissipating electrical loads.
%%%%% Then you should have a understanding of my wood match. Does you
designing deal with tensile strength of steel under 1,200 degrees of heat?
How much cooling do you need to deal with 3,000 gallons of burning JP5? Use
all the white space you need.
Al Dykes
Obviously, the building didn't get your memo.
Your presentation is all smoke and no fire.
David Moffitt
"Everybody Knows" <Everybo...@USA.com> wrote in message
news:L-idnU-MzfDNp1Lb...@trueband.net...
%%% Cuckoo --- Cuckoo
>
>
>
> "If we are really fighting terror, why is our southern border completely
> wide open? It's a joke."
>
> Ross Wittenberg
>
> Former Viet Nam fighter pilot
%%%% Now that is the most intelligent thing you have posted!
Can't you feel them circling, honey? Can't you feel 'em schooling around?
You've got fins to the left, fins to the right, and you're the only bait in
town. -- Fins, Jimmy Buffett
>
>
David Moffitt
"Everybody Knows" <Everybo...@USA.com> wrote in message
%%%% Good now answer my question: If a common fire is not hot enough to
deform steel how did earlier civilizations forge steel weapons?
>
> It seems that those with rage are the ones clinging to the official (fairy
> tale ) story. THEY'RE the ones that are afraid of the truth.
> They're "dug in" and are not open to anything new to their belief system
> (narrow-mindedness).
>
> And of course many are just government shills.
%%%% Many can think for theirself and not fall of kuckoo conspiracy tripe.
Those links are as silly as no jet hit the Pentagon. ":o)
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
What Me Worry?
"Kevin Cunningham" <sms...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1187979542.0...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> Where in the Official Conspiracy Theory (formerly known as the Magic
>> Arabs
>> Theory) is the explanation of numerous large secondary explosions in the
>> WTC towers reported by numerous eyewitnesses (including firefighters)?
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
>>
>> Disinfo Operatives/Amateur Shills: Cite chapter and verse from the Holy
>> Preliminary NIST Report. Ad Hominem = You Lose (as always).
>>
>> When you're done with that one (heh heh), show me where the OCT explains
>> (or
>> even attempts to explain) this object:
>>
>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2qq3b_wtcmeteorite_politics
>>
>> Next up: You get to outline the OCT and then present incontrovertible
>> proof
>> that verifies every assertion. I know you'll enjoy that.
>
> Just once I'd like a quote from one of the thousands of person
> representing every body from the realty company that owned the
> building to the NIST that the building went up from anything except an
> airplane. I've never, ever heard that.
1) Which building?
2) The WTC buildings went down, not up.
3) NIST has stated that the airplane crash damage did not cause the
collapse.
Have you tried actually researching before spouting your uninformed
opinions?
> With thousands of rescuers, doctors, nurses, psychologists,
> psychiatrists, EMTs', architects, builders, engineers you'd think one
> of them would spill the beans but so far no one has.
Spilled the beans on what?
> Why? It
> happened just as you saw. Two planes hit two buildings, thousands
> died.
What are you babbling about? Of course two planes hit. Of course thousands
died. Why do you think we're trying to solve this terrible crime using
rational, methodical forensic investigative methodologies? What would you
prefer?
> On the other side you have third rate people, way out side their field
> criticizing who, they don't know, and what, they have no idea.
Like you, for instance? A person who can't even be bothered to do minimal
research, and then makes a fool of themselves by offering an uninformed
opinion stated as fact?
Go educate yourself, and get back to us.
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
%%%% ROTFLMAO! "he thinks, he speculates " I said a credible source. "he
thinks, he speculates" is not credible.
What Me Worry?
More dishonesty and childish sidestepping. Still no explanations. Still
can't address the firefighters' corroborated eyewitness reports of massive
secondary explosions in the WTC towers prior to collapse.
You're digging your own grave here. You know that don't you? Every time you
are challenged to provide basic proof to verify the Official Story of the
WTC collapses on 9/11, you sidestep, attack, deny, build strawmen, etc. NOT
ONCE have you offered proof to validate your (implicit) claim that the
Official Story is indeed, true and accurate.
If you can't prove it, and if key evidence disproves it, then the Official
Theory is wrong. That means you're wrong. By continuing to support a
disproven theory, you have proven that you are either ignorant or a liar, or
both.
Which is it?
What Me Worry?
EK, we're debating someone who quotes Jimmy Buffett. He's just here to
waste our time, because he has nothing better to do. It's killfile time.
Bye Muppett. You won't be missed.
<plonk>
Everybody Knows
Did you mean to say that many can think for THEMSELVES and not fall FOR
KOOKOO conspiracy tripe?
Perhaps you'd think better if you could put together a decent sentence?
Looks like you fell for the government's tripe.
Vandar
Let's try this real slow this time...
Y O U H A V E N ' T C I T E D A N Y
Everybody Knows
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
Hmmmm...quoting Jimmy (parrot head) Buffett.
"He has a devoted base of fans known as "Parrotheads."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Buffett
http://www.phip.com/
Is it also possible that David Moffitt admires Rush (DittoHead) Limbaugh?
I'm certainly leaning that way.
---------------------------------
"If we are really fighting terror, why is our southern border completely
Vandar
Morgan Reynolds, one of the only "truthers" who thinks his evidence can
stand up in court, disagrees.
http://nomoregames.net/911/federal_case/07cv4612unsealedcomplaint.pdf
When will you be filing a lawsuit?
Al Dykes
There are no "firefighters' corroborated eyewitness reports of massive
secondary explosions" at WTC.
You can prove me wrong by naming one. Just one.
Al Dykes
There is big bucks to be had if you win.
http://www.quitamonline.com/index.html
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
news:YNCdnSZjwfD7_FLb...@insightbb.com...
%%%% Simple. Portions of the building were collapsing.
>
> You're digging your own grave here. You know that don't you? Every time
> you are challenged to provide basic proof to verify the Official Story of
> the WTC collapses on 9/11, you sidestep, attack, deny, build strawmen,
> etc. NOT ONCE have you offered proof to validate your (implicit) claim
> that the Official Story is indeed, true and accurate.
>
> If you can't prove it, and if key evidence disproves it, then the Official
> Theory is wrong. That means you're wrong. By continuing to support a
> disproven theory, you have proven that you are either ignorant or a liar,
> or both.
>
> Which is it?
%%%% The buildings were brought down not by explosives but by being hit by
aircraft and the damage and fires they caused.
David Moffitt
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote in message
%%%% Had you cornered so you ran away crying. BRAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA------
David Moffitt
"Everybody Knows" <Everybo...@USA.com> wrote in message
%%%% Sorry but you are----> Wrong. I work from past expierence doing heavy
steel work before I came to my senses and went to college. Now answer my
question: If a common fire is not hot enough to deform steel how did
earlier civilizations forge steel weapons?
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
>
David Moffitt
"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yAJzi.14605$B25....@news01.roc.ny...
%%%%% He also hasn't answered my simple question: If a common fire is not
hot enough to deform steel how did earlier civilizations forge steel
weapons?
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
David Moffitt
"Everybody Knows" <Everybo...@USA.com> wrote in message
%%%% Nope. Can you answer my simple question?: If a common fire is not hot
enough to deform steel how did earlier civilizations forge steel weapons?
GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE: "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to
make them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."
> ---------------------------------
Erich
jpsmi...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
> > temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
> > Fahrenheit).
>
>
> Under highly ideal conditions, perhaps. You can't do it, especially
> over any large volume, in only 56 minutes. You would need to basically
> set up a blast furnace.
>
> At 1,000°C, steel softens and its strength reduces to
> > roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.
>
> So what? You cannot do that in 56 minutes, do you follow? You cannot
> get anywhere near those temperatures. You cannot selectively heat just
> those critical parts you deem necessary to induce structural failure.
> You cannot heat a pie to 400 degrees F in the oven without heating the
> thermal mass of the oven as well.
It's time to look at some actual data.
Here an experiment where NIST put thermal measurement equipment in a
rather typical house and then set it on fire.
<http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/PDF/f00136.pdf>
Look at figure 6 on page 11. This is a graph of temperature vs time in
the living room of the house. The temperatures measured near the
ceiling were over 1000 degrees F. about 100 seconds after ignition.
Temperatures drop at 350 seconds when the fire was extinguished.
As we all know, heat goes up. Just like in the house fire, heat from a
fire in on a floor of the WTC would rise and be trapped against the
ceiling. There it would heat the concrete slab of the next higher floor
and the steel trusses holding up the slab. Due to the low thermal
conductivity of concrete, the slab will act as an insulator and trap the
heat.
The only question is how fast will the lightweight floor trusses heat up
when exposed to these temperatures.
--
Erich
What Me Worry?
"Erich" <oet...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:oetting-AD3667...@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
> In article <1187967335.9...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> jpsmi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> > Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate
>> > temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees
>> > Fahrenheit).
>>
>>
>> Under highly ideal conditions, perhaps. You can't do it, especially
>> over any large volume, in only 56 minutes. You would need to basically
>> set up a blast furnace.
>>
>> At 1,000°C, steel softens and its strength reduces to
>> > roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value.
>>
>> So what? You cannot do that in 56 minutes, do you follow? You cannot
>> get anywhere near those temperatures. You cannot selectively heat just
>> those critical parts you deem necessary to induce structural failure.
>> You cannot heat a pie to 400 degrees F in the oven without heating the
>> thermal mass of the oven as well.
>
> It's time to look at some actual data.
>
> Here an experiment where NIST put thermal measurement equipment in a
> rather typical house and then set it on fire.
> <http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire00/PDF/f00136.pdf>
>
> Look at figure 6 on page 11. This is a graph of temperature vs time in
> the living room of the house. The temperatures measured near the
> ceiling were over 1000 degrees F. about 100 seconds after ignition.
> Temperatures drop at 350 seconds when the fire was extinguished.
Do you know the difference between 1000 deg. F and 1000 deg. C?
Was NIST heating up a steel structure, or were they measuring air
temperature?
(I think I know the answer to both questions.)
> As we all know, heat goes up.
Thank you, professor.
> Just like in the house fire, heat from a
> fire in on a floor of the WTC would rise and be trapped against the
> ceiling. There it would heat the concrete slab of the next higher floor
> and the steel trusses holding up the slab.
Yet another thermal mass to heat up, reducing the amount of energy available
to heat the steel structure.
> Due to the low thermal
> conductivity of concrete, the slab will act as an insulator and trap the
> heat.
It will also absorb a lot of the heat.
> The only question is how fast will the lightweight floor trusses heat up
> when exposed to these temperatures.
This has already been discussed. You're out of your league, junior. Know
when to give up and go home.
Erich
Yup, the last poster made the silly claim that you can't cook a pie
without heating the entire mass of the oven as well. Before that he
claimed that an entire floor of a building must be heated to heat up any
specific part and thus temperatures can't rise fast in a building that
is on fire.
> Was NIST heating up a steel structure, or were they measuring air
> temperature?
>
> (I think I know the answer to both questions.)
In this experiment they measured air temperature. If you don't believe
hot air can transmit heat to other objects, don't try to prove it by
sticking your head in a pizza oven.
> > As we all know, heat goes up.
>
> Thank you, professor.
>
> > Just like in the house fire, heat from a
> > fire in on a floor of the WTC would rise and be trapped against the
> > ceiling. There it would heat the concrete slab of the next higher floor
> > and the steel trusses holding up the slab.
>
> Yet another thermal mass to heat up, reducing the amount of energy available
> to heat the steel structure.
>
> > Due to the low thermal
> > conductivity of concrete, the slab will act as an insulator and trap the
> > heat.
>
> It will also absorb a lot of the heat.
Concrete will only absorb heat slowly.
You might consider taking a thermodynamics class someday.
> > The only question is how fast will the lightweight floor trusses heat up
> > when exposed to these temperatures.
>
> This has already been discussed. You're out of your league, junior. Know
> when to give up and go home.
Whenever someone asks you to back up your claims or posts information
showing a problem with your theory, you respond with insults and attacks
instead of evidence.
--
Erich
What Me Worry?
He is correct. You're an idiot, as you keep proving over and over.
> Before that he
> claimed that an entire floor of a building must be heated to heat up any
> specific part and thus temperatures can't rise fast in a building that
> is on fire.
You're misquoting him because you have a foregone conclusion that you are -
for whatever reason - compulsively bending reality to attempt to prove.
Your statements make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking
about.
>> Was NIST heating up a steel structure, or were they measuring air
>> temperature?
>>
>> (I think I know the answer to both questions.)
>
> In this experiment they measured air temperature.
Yeah, I knew that.
> If you don't believe
> hot air can transmit heat to other objects, don't try to prove it by
> sticking your head in a pizza oven.
Tell ya' what, junior: Try baking a pizza without getting the inside
surfaces of the oven up to baking temperature. Once you've succeeded
(snicker), get back to us.
Hint: It can't be done. Only a fool would even try to do it. But then,
you're that guy.
>> > As we all know, heat goes up.
>>
>> Thank you, professor.
>>
>> > Just like in the house fire, heat from a
>> > fire in on a floor of the WTC would rise and be trapped against the
>> > ceiling. There it would heat the concrete slab of the next higher
>> > floor
>> > and the steel trusses holding up the slab.
>>
>> Yet another thermal mass to heat up, reducing the amount of energy
>> available
>> to heat the steel structure.
>>
>> > Due to the low thermal
>> > conductivity of concrete, the slab will act as an insulator and trap
>> > the
>> > heat.
>>
>> It will also absorb a lot of the heat.
>
> Concrete will only absorb heat slowly.
>
> You might consider taking a thermodynamics class someday.
<snicker> You're telling us that *you* have taken a thermodynamics class?
Then you should have no trouble showing us the math to back up your claims.
Show us, or admit that you can't and you're talking out your ass.
>> > The only question is how fast will the lightweight floor trusses heat
>> > up
>> > when exposed to these temperatures.
>>
>> This has already been discussed. You're out of your league, junior.
>> Know
>> when to give up and go home.
>
> Whenever someone asks you to back up your claims or posts information
> showing a problem with your theory, you respond with insults and attacks
> instead of evidence.
You STILL have not provided ANY proof to back up your claims. When are you
going to show us the proof, junior? When hell freezes over?
I'm saying you're full of shit. Prove me wrong.
Erich
"What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
> Tell ya' what, junior: Try baking a pizza without getting the inside
> surfaces of the oven up to baking temperature. Once you've succeeded
> (snicker), get back to us.
>
> Hint: It can't be done. Only a fool would even try to do it. But then,
> you're that guy.
Heating up the inner surfaces is different that heating the entire mass
of the oven. The false claim made earlier is that heating up steel in
the WTC floor trusses required heating up the entire mass of one floor.
This would only be true if the WTC was composed of material that had
perfect thermal conductivity. In fact, much of the WTC mass was
concrete, a material with poor thermal conductivity.
--
Erich
What Me Worry?
> In article <cOKdnTIybsVCbFLb...@insightbb.com>,
> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
>
>> Tell ya' what, junior: Try baking a pizza without getting the inside
>> surfaces of the oven up to baking temperature. Once you've succeeded
>> (snicker), get back to us.
>>
>> Hint: It can't be done. Only a fool would even try to do it. But then,
>> you're that guy.
>
> Heating up the inner surfaces is different that heating the entire mass
> of the oven. The false claim made earlier is that heating up steel in
> the WTC floor trusses required heating up the entire mass of one floor.
The floor trusses weren't the only parts that collapsed. You're ignoring 47
giant steel box columns, each 22" wide and 4" thick, which formed the
"spine" of the Twin Towers. Recall that the Twin Towers collapsed in
free-fall. This means that these gigantic *vertical* columns of steel
provided zero resistance to collapse.
You get to prove how fire could have caused all that, unless you want to
admit that you can't. NIST has all but admitted that they can't prove it.
What makes you think you can?
BTW: I don't see any math. Where is it?
> This would only be true if the WTC was composed of material that had
> perfect thermal conductivity. In fact, much of the WTC mass was
> concrete, a material with poor thermal conductivity.
jpsmith already did the math, and he's saying you're full of shit. Use your
"thermodynamics training" (LOL!) and show us your calculations, or STFU.
Al Dykes
What Me Worry? <__@____.___> wrote:
>
>"Erich" <oet...@qwest.net> wrote in message
>news:oetting-4728B2...@mpls-nnrp-03.inet.qwest.net...
>> In article <cOKdnTIybsVCbFLb...@insightbb.com>,
>> "What Me Worry?" <__@____.___> wrote:
>>
>>> Tell ya' what, junior: Try baking a pizza without getting the inside
>>> surfaces of the oven up to baking temperature. Once you've succeeded
>>> (snicker), get back to us.
>>>
>>> Hint: It can't be done. Only a fool would even try to do it. But then,
>>> you're that guy.
>>
>> Heating up the inner surfaces is different that heating the entire mass
>> of the oven. The false claim made earlier is that heating up steel in
>> the WTC floor trusses required heating up the entire mass of one floor.
>
>The floor trusses weren't the only parts that collapsed. You're ignoring 47
>giant steel box columns, each 22" wide and 4" thick, which formed the
>"spine" of the Twin Towers. Recall that the Twin Towers collapsed in
>free-fall. This means that these gigantic *vertical* columns of steel
>provided zero resistance to collapse.
"the Twin Towers collapsed in free-fall."
That's false.