Re: September 11 Coverup Unraveling (WTC Collapses)
<SmirkS>
> Kevin Ryan
> Underwriters Laboratories
enter kevin ryan underwriters laboratories in google.
not a single leftist conspiracy website in sight.
> Thursday, Nov 11, 2004
>
> The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of
> Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters
> Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets
> used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The
> information in this letter is of great importance.
>
~~~~~~~~
>
> I think we can all agree that
> even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot
> temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply
> that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those
> buildings makes no sense at all.
>
> The results of your recently published metallurgical tests
> seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August
> 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which
> you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing
> factor in the collapse."
>
>
> the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore
> your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures
> caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften
> and buckle."
>
> Additionally this summary states that the
> perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that
> "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above
> 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally
> temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new
> summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be
> able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but
> lead to rapid structural collapse.
>
> This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings
> did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was
> certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the
> briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of
> great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention
> that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests
> that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a
> safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great
> concern to my company.
>
>
> do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding
> the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural
> steel.
>
~~~~~~~~
or maybe the moon IS made of cheese.
--
TheTruthHurts.
Art
> http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
>
> The collapse of the WTC
> by Kevin Ryan
> Underwriters Laboratories
> Thursday, Nov 11, 2004
>
> The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of
> Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National
> Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters
> Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets
> used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The
> information in this letter is of great importance.
>
> Dr. Gayle,
>
> Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I
> felt the need to contact you directly.
>
> As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the
> steel components used in the construction of the WTC
> buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and
> Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that
> they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story,
> except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all
> requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand
> that UL was working with your team, and that tests would
> continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to
> help, including performing tests on models of the floor
> assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate
> that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal
> stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.
[...]
And yet, we're faced with the fact that the towers DID fall in less than
an hour after the first plane struck.
Being usenet, I'm sure there are many who will read this and proclaim
some sort of massive conspiracy involving everyone but themselves. But
then, tin foil hats seem to be required posting attire for many around here.
I, myself, wondered at the estimated figure 2000 degrees F. However, 500
degrees F seems a rather unrealistic low-ball estimate.
This letter you posted states that:
"most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above
250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally
temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new
summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be
able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but
lead to rapid structural collapse."
However, it is important to note that an ordinary candle flame has an
average temperature of approx. 1700 C. Having seen the videos, it is
easy for me to believe that the temperatures on the effected floors
generally would have exceeded the temperature of an ordinary candle flame.
Perhaps the effect was caused not by melting structural steel, but by
melting or softened rivets? Substandard welds? Or, perhaps, they did not
recover the actual failed structural materials from the debris?
---
Art
<SmirkS>
> they did not
> recover the actual failed structural materials from the debris?
>
the actual debris was being hauled out within hours, not days.
it's as if there was a contract ready to go to haul away tons of steel,
with no apparent plans for an "autopsy", so to speak.
--
TheTruthHurts.
Ted Gittinger
"Art" <arty_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2vkb5jF...@uni-berlin.de...
Steel need not reach the melting point to lose its structural strength,
not even close. At about 1500 degrees fahrenheit, steel glows cherry red,
and hasn't much strength The fires in the towers would have burned very
hot, fed by updrafts through the central shafts and stairwells: the chimney
effect. Ask any fireman. Any experienced barbequer knows to pile the
charcoal into a pyramid when lighting it; the fire will catch much quicker
and burn much, much hotter. Once the coals are ignited, they are spread out
flat and cool down considerably..
The nearer to the center of the tower, the hotter the fire. The steel
supports were in the center of the towers, where the fire was hottest. At
the external walls, the fire might not have been nearly as hot, but that
didn't matter. Once the steel supports for one floor failed and it
collapsed, it began the chain reaction we saw.
ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Doughboy
> Tim Howells posted:
>
> > Kevin Ryan
> > Underwriters Laboratories
>
> enter kevin ryan underwriters laboratories in google.
>
> not a single leftist conspiracy website in sight.
The letter is a fraud. I know who Kevin Ryan is and what sort of
business his division of UL does. It has nothing to do with architecture
or engineering. Since he is not an architect or engineer, he would have
to be out of his mind to write this letter, and the NIST people would
promptly get him fired for doing so, since they know exactly who would
have the expertise to conjure up theories about the WTC disaster. I will
be contacting them to let them know this fraud is circulating.
Bud
It`s as if you had no brain to call upon for reasoning purposes.
beber
wrote:
I am no conspiracy nut, but I have long wondered about the
temperatures claimed on 9-11. Melting steel in burning diesel fuel
(which is what jet aircraft fuel is) is not possible unless somehow
huge amounts of oxygen are imported into the flame, and it occurs
within some sort of confinement. (That's what a jet engine does)
That's just common sense. If you want to find out for yourself, place
some steel in a trash can along with a lot of paper and a couple of
gallons of diesel fuel and light the fire. See what happens.
Nothing.
It won't even melt copper. Probably not even beer cans.
<SmirkS>
>> it's as if there was a contract ready to go to haul away tons of steel,
>> with no apparent plans for an "autopsy", so to speak.
>
> It`s as if you had no brain to call upon for reasoning purposes.
>
you think i'm missing something, hey?
whereas your reasoning says it's perfectly logical that an airplane hitting
a wtc tower causes it to come straight down to the ground. not a mystery at
all, right?
say - the pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the united
states. why not ONE photo of the jet coming in?
--
TheTruthHurts.
Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
Yup - lots of firemen complained about this destruction of evidence
but it happened and the press blacked out the story.
Ted Gittinger
"beber" <be...@gbta.net> wrote in message
news:ue9cp0pagfq2cg48a...@4ax.com...
The fire in the towers benefitted from the chimney effect, which gives a
much, much hotter fire than burning diesel fuel in a garbage can. An
exaggerated version of that effect is the old-fashioned blow torch, which
uses gasoline and air. I use a version of that tool every day, and it gives
a flame hot enough to bring steel to the failure point, i.e., past cherry
red. I can melt fine silver with it. Jewelers and plumbers know about this
quite well.
ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Anthony Marsh
No one is talking about MELTING steel. The point is that at high
temperatures below the melting point, steel as well as other metals
becomes soft and malleable. Look at some films or TV shows about
blacksmithing. In order to work with the metal and bend it into shape
they do not have to get the temperature all the way up to the melting
point. Just high enough that it loses its strength.
beber
That's interesting; what served as a chiminey; the elevator shafts?
beber
wrote:
However, unless there was some sort of "chimney" effect, as mentioned
in a previous post, the temperature of burning diesel fuel would not
be hot enough to do that. I work with a torch; I'm not saying it's
impossible. I'm saying unless there was some sort of confinement or
influx of air, the temperature should not have even weakened that
massive a slab of steel. Other things could have occurred in
conjunction.
Ted Gittinger
Prolly, and stairwells. Hot air rises. As it does, fresh air--and
oxygen--rush in behind it. Firemen know that a conflagration in a high-rise
is their worst nightmare, for that reason. God help those on the upper
floors.
ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ted Gittinger
There was no "massive slab of steel." There were girders, I-bars and
T-bars, like straws in a meringue. If you work with a torch you should know
how the chimney effect works. It would be quite enough to fatally weaken
the girders.
ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Bud
> Bud posted:
>
> >> it's as if there was a contract ready to go to haul away tons of steel,
> >> with no apparent plans for an "autopsy", so to speak.
> >
> > It`s as if you had no brain to call upon for reasoning purposes.
> >
>
>
> you think i'm missing something, hey?
Yah, common sense. The streets around what used to be the WTC were
choked with thousands of tons of debris following the collapse of
those buildings. Now, what do you suppose *must* be the first step
before any real rescue effort can be made? Clear the debris, no? So,
they mobilized quickly to do that. The alternative you suggest has the
workers in the employ of this contractor you imagine sitting around,
waiting for this catastrophe. What does this guy you imagine tell his
employees, go here, I have a feeling we will we are going to come into
a lot of work? It`s stupidity, through and through. That you suggest
this suggests you are stupid.
>
> whereas your reasoning says it's perfectly logical that an airplane hitting
> a wtc tower causes it to come straight down to the ground. not a mystery at
> all, right?
As opposed to falling straight up? You have heard of gravity,
right? The towers were not constructed using the standard girder
method. They were constructed to maximize floor space by having no
pillars or girders blocking sight lines on each floor. Normally, in a
building the outer wall are just a facade, a covering with little or
no structural value. With the Towers, the outer wall was the main load
bearing walls, alomg with the inner walls surrounding the elevator
shafts. A standard girder building wouldn`t have collapsed like these
did, but the peculiar construction of these buildings led to what you
saw happen.
>
> say - the pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the united
> states. why not ONE photo of the jet coming in?
So, you think the Pentagon had cameras facing every possible
direction taking pictures every single second of every single day?
This is typical conspiracy-think. Create a condition, even though you
have no idea whether that condition should exist, and then become
suspicious when that condition you imagine is not fulfilled. BTW, I
have seem a picture of the plane heading into the Pentagon. It was on
the crackpot montage that Ann Archy gave an URL to.
Bud
What would fireman know about the destruction of "evidence", don`t
they just put out fires? Why would the fireman think that any evidence
was important, when it was evident what caused the damage?
Don
>> say - the pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the united
>> states. why not ONE photo of the jet coming in?
>
> So, you think the Pentagon had cameras facing every possible
>direction taking pictures every single second of every single day?
I think that there were cameras and tapes that were seized by the government,
and not released.
(December 11, 2001) Velasquez [NEXCOM Citgo station supervisor] says the gas
station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded
the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he
said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." Richmond
Times-Dispatch
(September 21, 2001) A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may
have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it
slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching
the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the
video as part of its investigation. It may be the only available video of the
attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security
cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's
heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance,
including video monitoring.
There may be yet another video of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The
trajectory of the aircraft flew in low across a cloverleaf that is under
constant monitoring of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The
view from their camera would clearly show the trajectory of any sized
aircraft.
The manufacturers of the CCTV system used by VDOT boast on their web site:
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) CCTV system used to manage
the Northern Virginia freeway network had cameras in place that observed the
September 11 crash site at the Pentagon. This CCTV system and the VDOT Smart
Traffic Center were used as a command center for emergency responders and
cleanup and recovery crews following the incident.
<SmirkS>
>> So, you think the Pentagon had cameras facing every possible
>>direction taking pictures every single second of every single day?
>
> I think that there were cameras and tapes that were seized by the
> government, and not released.
points he's no doubt read before.
note his reply to me. full of facts about construction of the wtc.
--
TheTruthHurts.
<SmirkS>
> What would fireman know about the destruction of "evidence", don`t
> they just put out fires? Why would the fireman think that any evidence
> was important, when it was evident what caused the damage?
you're a smart guy and you don't know that fire people conduct
investigations? lord.
--
TheTruthHurts.
Bud
What the fuck are "fire people"? The sworn enemies of the "water
people"? The poster I made the comment to said "Lots of firemen
complained about the destruction of evidence...". Seemed he was
refering to the garden variety fire fighter, and not fire
investigators. Even a fire investigator wouldn`t have much experience
in such a situation. And what is this "evidence"? All the rubble is
evidence, yet some of that rubble needed to be moved, in an attempt to
find survivors. And what would this "evidence" tell you? That a plane
hit the building? Lord.
Bud
In answer to your suspicions about how the buildings fell. You do
realize that the manner these buildings were constructed might impact
the way they fall, right?
Bud
> >> say - the pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the united
> >> states. why not ONE photo of the jet coming in?
> >
> > So, you think the Pentagon had cameras facing every possible
> >direction taking pictures every single second of every single day?
>
> I think that there were cameras and tapes that were seized by the government,
> and not released.
>
> (December 11, 2001) Velasquez [NEXCOM Citgo station supervisor] says the gas
> station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded
> the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he
> said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." Richmond
> Times-Dispatch
>
> (September 21, 2001) A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon may
> have captured dramatic footage of the hijacked Boeing 757 airliner as it
> slammed into the western wall of the Pentagon. Hotel employees sat watching
> the film in shock and horror several times before the FBI confiscated the
> video as part of its investigation.
<snicker> What was on the tape that shocked and horrified them?
Wouldn`t that information be useful to support a premise? Or, you can
support your premise without the necessary information.
> It may be the only available video of the
> attack. The Pentagon has told broadcast news reporters that its security
> cameras did not capture the crash. The attack occurred close to the Pentagon's
> heliport, an area that normally would be under 24-hour security surveillance,
> including video monitoring.
All that is needed to be shown is that the camera was facing where
the plane hit, and it was running. On your mark, get set, GO!
>
> There may be yet another video of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The
> trajectory of the aircraft flew in low across a cloverleaf that is under
> constant monitoring of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). The
> view from their camera would clearly show the trajectory of any sized
> aircraft.
All that is needed is to show that it was facing the path the plane
must have taken, and it was running at the time. On your mark, get
set, GO!
> The manufacturers of the CCTV system used by VDOT boast on their web site:
>
> The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) CCTV system used to manage
> the Northern Virginia freeway network had cameras in place that observed the
> September 11 crash site at the Pentagon. This CCTV system and the VDOT Smart
> Traffic Center were used as a command center for emergency responders and
> cleanup and recovery crews following the incident.
Yah, the manufacturers of Captain Crunch claim it stays crunchy in
milk, too. anyway,I did see one picture of the plane as it flew
towards the Pentagon, not sure of the source, it was included in a
pro-conspiracy piece that Ann Archy provided the URL to.
Unfourtunately, that site is no longer up.
<SmirkS>
>> note his reply to me. full of facts about construction of the wtc.
>
> In answer to your suspicions about how the buildings fell. You do
> realize that the manner these buildings were constructed might impact
> the way they fall, right?
you do realize that buildings don't fall from fuel fire, hey?
care to explain wtc-7? it was singed by falling debris and decided to
collapse from sympathy? it was brought down, admittedly so.
therefore.......
--
TheTruthHurts.
<SmirkS>
> Even a fire investigator wouldn`t have much experience
> in such a situation. And what is this "evidence"? All the rubble is
> evidence, yet some of that rubble needed to be moved, in an attempt to
> find survivors. And what would this "evidence" tell you? That a plane
> hit the building? Lord.
so, you maintain that jet fuel melted the steel and the building dropped.
no need to investigate.
i see now. you're an idiot.
nevermind.
--
TheTruthHurts.
<SmirkS>
> Yah, the manufacturers of Captain Crunch claim it stays crunchy in
> milk, too.
cute.
> anyway,I did see one picture of the plane as it flew
> towards the Pentagon, not sure of the source, it was included in a
> pro-conspiracy piece that Ann Archy provided the URL to.
> Unfourtunately, that site is no longer up.
try this one:
http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf
--
TheTruthHurts.
Marcello Penso
says...
> Bud posted:
>
> >> it's as if there was a contract ready to go to haul away tons of steel,
> >> with no apparent plans for an "autopsy", so to speak.
> >
> > It`s as if you had no brain to call upon for reasoning purposes.
> >
>
>
> you think i'm missing something, hey?
>
> whereas your reasoning says it's perfectly logical that an airplane hitting
> a wtc tower causes it to come straight down to the ground. not a mystery at
> all, right?
Not at all. As an architect, I can tell you that given the mass of the
buildings, above all, the tube design of the building, the lack of
intermediate structural support (except for the core bays) and the
design of the steel tube connections, a straight down fall would have
been expected.
It's a common misunderstanding to think that buildings will fall like a
tree. In fact, every floor to floor connection is welded or bolted in
steel structures, and each of these connections can easily fail from
superior gravity loads.
This not withstanding, the fact that NMCC was down on 911 remains
troubling.
Marcello
Anthony Marsh
> Bud posted:
>
>
>>Even a fire investigator wouldn`t have much experience
>>in such a situation. And what is this "evidence"? All the rubble is
>>evidence, yet some of that rubble needed to be moved, in an attempt to
>>find survivors. And what would this "evidence" tell you? That a plane
>>hit the building? Lord.
>
>
> so, you maintain that jet fuel melted the steel and the building dropped.
>
No one said "melted." The operative word is "softened."
Bud
> Bud posted:
>
> > Even a fire investigator wouldn`t have much experience
> > in such a situation. And what is this "evidence"? All the rubble is
> > evidence, yet some of that rubble needed to be moved, in an attempt to
> > find survivors. And what would this "evidence" tell you? That a plane
> > hit the building? Lord.
>
> so, you maintain that jet fuel melted the steel and the building dropped.
Is that what you think I said? No wonder you are having trouble
figuring this thing out.
>
> no need to investigate.
And I said this, also? What I implied was that there was no reason
to believe that anything other than what was evident transpired,
damage to those building by those planes, leading to thier collapse..
>
> i see now. you're an idiot.
One of is, for sure.
>
> nevermind.
Anthony Marsh
It's more than just the jet fuel.
Bud
> Bud posted:
>
> >> note his reply to me. full of facts about construction of the wtc.
> >
> > In answer to your suspicions about how the buildings fell. You do
> > realize that the manner these buildings were constructed might impact
> > the way they fall, right?
>
>
> you do realize that buildings don't fall from fuel fire, hey?
>
material they are constructed of? Just never happens, eh?
>
> care to explain wtc-7?
Can you explain it from a conspiracy perspective? What purpose is
served by causing this building to fall? If the towers fall, and this
building stands, do we not go to war in Afghanistan? Is this less a
tragedy? Please, explain why conspirators would feel it was important
for WTC-7 to fall.
> it was singed by falling debris and decided to
> collapse from sympathy?
Who performed the structural inspection before it collapsed, and
declared it only "singed"?
> it was brought down, admittedly so.
Ah, this is the first I heard of this, someone has admitted to
bringing this building down? I could see it being done, if it was
immanently dangerous,but this is news to me that it was done. Who did
the admitting?
>
>
> therefore.......
Please, finish your thoughts, or at least start them...
Marcello Penso
says...
structurally fail, particularly under the conditions that were present
at the towers. Steel will generally start to lose it's structural
integrity at 500F to 750F, and it rapidly goes from there. In the case
of the WTCs, steel columns at the core and possibly the perimeter were
exposed to heat, would have started to lose their capacity to axially
resist the dead weight of the floors above. If one or two floors were
missing, the unbraced length of these 'longer' columns would have been
the critical factor. Since the towers only had a core of columns and the
outer skin of columns, with no intermediate vertical structural
redundancy, collapse was inevitable.
Marcello Penso
m.p...@worldnet.att.net says...
within the range of normal office fires.
First_Blood
"Marcello Penso" <m.p...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c01dcc75...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
Dr. Gayle,
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to
contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components
used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information
from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned
that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for
one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They
suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your
team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's
attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor
assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the
buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of
burning jet fuel.
There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how
the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC
construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F
melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is
the airplane fuel.burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that
five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says
"Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards
and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's
theory."
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time
temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to
temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel
applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree
that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot
temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would
melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear
things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the
Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a
contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation
and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the
samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest
that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F
(250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the
situation.
However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as
it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building'
s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states
that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most
perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften
steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be
above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower
temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of
minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or
melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel
fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That
fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the
contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests
that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure.
That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force
behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux
of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the
crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really
happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face
the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on
disinformation and "chatter".
Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know
that there are a number of other current and former government employees
that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one
of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe
your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and
thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to
quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to
soften or melt structural steel.
1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html
2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187
3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf
4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php
5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf
(pg 11)
6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
Marcello Penso
First...@exposed.net says...
<snip>
>
> However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as
> it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building'
> s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states
> that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most
> perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften
> steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be
> above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower
> temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of
> minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.
This last statement is not totally accurate. The outer skin tube steel
columns, as well as the modest amount of inner core steel columns, were
already extraordinarily loaded, with some exterior panels missing, and,
more importantly, some floors missing. With the lengthening of the
unbraced length of outer skin and inner core steel columns, even a
modest weakening by heat would have been enough to initiate collapse,
and this could have happened in several different ways. One way would
have been that the open web joists of some of the floors could have
further sagged from uneven heat by fire, and sheered away from their
supports at the outer columns. This would have made further lengthened
the unbraced length of the outer steel, to the point of buckling.
It is the combination of extreme loading AND fire which caused the
collapse.
First_Blood
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
Bud
The fire was not the only factor in the collapse. Here is what G.
Charles Clifton of the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research
Association has to say about why they fell... "The force exerted by
the impact of the planes took out the core supporting structures of at
least 3 floors, causing the floors above them to sag. As the fire
weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
until the floors collapsed on top of each other..." If you go to this
site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what happened,
many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are evil
engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
Not to one possessing your math skills.
> If steel from those buildings did soften or
> melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel
> fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That
> fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the
> contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests
> that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure.
> That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
>
> There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force
> behind the War on Terror.
He gives away the game here. This isn`t a fact finding effort, it`s
agenda-driven.
> And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux
> of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the
> crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really
> happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face
> the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on
> disinformation and "chatter".
This article is a good example of "disinformation". The kooks
responses here are a good example of the "chatter".
First_Blood
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...
To bad Mr Clifton provides nothing to back this claim up, nor you.
As the fire
> weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
"But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
have
easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Kevin Ryan
Site Manager
Environmental Health Laboratories
A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
If you go to this
> site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what happened,
> many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are evil
> engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
>
> http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
Your lame article is nothing more than hearsay and even discredits the NIST
report. This must be the reason for your ad-hominem's.
Maybe you could email his superiors and inform them what the problem is?
Be sure to include some more ad-hominems.
>
> > If steel from those buildings did soften or
> > melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet
fuel
> > fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
That
> > fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the
> > contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests
> > that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related
failure.
> > That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
> >
> > There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
force
> > behind the War on Terror.
>
> He gives away the game here. This isn`t a fact finding effort, it`s
> agenda-driven.
In light of you having problems with factual statements from your previous
responses
I'd now would ask the following.
Is this statement:
"There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
force
behind the War on Terror" not factual? Yes or no?
>
> > And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux
> > of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at
the
> > crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really
> > happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all
face
> > the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based
on
> > disinformation and "chatter".
>
> This article is a good example of "disinformation". The kooks
> responses here are a good example of the "chatter".
More ad-hominems when you offered nothing but the following which even
goes against the NIST findings.
http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2001/11/000021.html
If you will notice the link to G. Charles Clifton is
http://brian.carnell.com/archives/years/2001/11/PDF%20Files/World%20Trade%20Centre.pdf
404 No page found No page content found.
Very compelling.
Bud
Of course it is. And what alternative is there to this obvious
occurance? That conspirators had previously set charges to blow up the
buildings? I saw a program where they showed how they explode (usually
implode)buildings. It takes many people weeks to set the charges. It
requires that the main structural members be exposed. They cut a notch
into the structural member they want to cut, and they set up a rig
that fires a hard metal wedge across the member, severing it. Now, no
one has mentioned scores of demolitions personal, opening walls, and
setting charges that I have heard. But, just say you are the kind of
retarded jerkoff that thinks this could be done without notice. And,
for the sake of argument, you think the charges could be set without
notice, and then a plane driven into the very place where those
charges were set. Now, imagine that a plane hitting where you placed
the charges, but not disrupting them, or causing them to go off
prematurely. Then, further imagine that the high heat from the burning
fuel does not set off the charges you have placed. OK, can you see how
easy it is to pull this thing off? If you can, you are a member of a
generation raised on comic books and television. Your mind is mush.
Marcello Penso
First...@exposed.net says...
> > It is the combination of extreme loading AND fire which caused the
> > collapse.
>
> http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
This rebuttal article is erroneous on practically every key point.
It mentions that the top of the South Tower would have continued tipping
had 'it not exploded in mid air'. This is inaccurate from the videos of
the collapse. The tower did not explode in mid air and did continue
tipping during the collapse.
It then mentions WTC-7 and inaccurately states that 'it sustained no
impacts with aircraft or large debris. It just had a few small fires
that were barely visible.' The building suffered enough damage on the
south face that fires were visible on the 5th to 7th floors, right where
the transfer trusses and key two structural columns were that supported
the upper floors of the building. The FEMA report on the building's
collapse, and the NIST follow up, are not only entirely plausible, but
highly likely, and generally accepted by most design building
professionals.
It then goes on to mention a 'dense grid of long vertical columns in the
WTC's core'. This is inaccurate. In fact the cores' structural grid (for
both WTC 1 and 2) were fairly sparse, considering how high rises are
normally built today. There were approximately 50 inner columns, for AN
ACRE of floor space (200 x 200 feet) That is a sparse structural grid by
any standard, considering the towers were 110 stories tall.
The article then continues to erroneously contend the towers would have
'fallen like a tree'. No building falls like 'a tree', because buildings
are not that structurally dense or cohesive. Only Hadrian's column or an
Imhotep obelisk MIGHT fall 'like a tree', depending on the joints of the
stone. And a building with an ACRE of floor area would hardly lose its
center of gravity with a head on impact.
WTC 2 did topple to one side because of corner destroyed by the impact.
But given the weight of the floors above, the overriding forces would go
down, not sideways, and that is exactly what happened.
The only force which could have potentially toppled the towers would
have a been strong winds, which fortunately were not present that day.
The page then erroneously contends that black smoke is a sign of
dwindling fires. This is inaccurate. Smoke color is largely dependant on
the combustible being burned.
The page then erroneously contends 'There is no evidence that fires ever
covered more than a half of any floor in the South Tower.' I have to
assume the author was there and able to accurately measure up the exact
percantage of floor areas burning over 1.5 hours.
The page then erroneously contends 'It's ridiculous to assert that the
designers assumed a fire would only burn on some portion of a floor at
any one time.' In fact, at the time of the design in the early to mid
60s, fire sprinklers were not even required as a fire suppression
system, and the engineers took the UNUSUAL measure of specifying an
inordinate amount of spray on fire retardant in the exterior tube
columns. Fire sprinklers and more retardant on the OWJs was added later,
after building completion during the 70s. Secondly, it is NOT absurd to
assume fire would burn only a small floor area. 99% of fires are small
and limited, not catastrophic from plane impact. Leslie Robertson and
his team did consider plane impact (a 707) at the time of design, but
only for structural impact- NEVER for effects of fire.
The page then erroneously contends 'There is no evidence the fires were
anywhere near that hot (1500F). To be that hot they would have required
good air supplies, which they did not have as shown by the black smoke.'
This all entirely innaccurate. It is well known that office fires no
matter the starting fuel, will reach upwards of 1500F to 1800F, even in
enclosed spaces. The WTC fires had plenty of outside ventilation, from
the gaping holes left by the impact. Finally, smoke color is not an
indicator of lack of air, but only of the type of combustible burning.
As an example, burning tires will give off black smoke. Upholstery will
as well.
The page then erroneously contends 'He speaks of beams, but box columns
supported the towers. If the columns distorted enough to lose their
rigidity, it would have been apparent before the towers exploded.' In
fact Eagar is giving an example of how susceptible to bending steel
beams are, versus steel columns. As for evidence of distorted columns,
evidence is apparent before the towers COLLAPSED (the author engages in
his own whitewashing tactics), as indicated in the NIST report.
The page then erroneously contends that 'At 1300º F, the steel would
have been glowing red hot'. This is inaccurate, and implies that steel
needs to be red hot in order to fail. In reality, steel begins to fail
structurally way before it changes color from heat.
The page then erroneously contends that 'The only time the fire had any
chance to soften the steel was before the jet fuel burned off. Eagar
makes the false implication that the softening of steel due to heating
is cumulative and irreversible.' Both statements are totally wrong.
Steel can be softened by repeated exposure to high heat, and it is not
true that steel would have been compromised only when the jet fuel
burned. Steel would have been compromised even during a normall office
fire, at 1300F-1800F. No extraordinary heat needed.
The page then erroneously contends that 'Not only is Eager's ridiculous
zipper theory incompatible with the fact that neither of the towers had
fires covering an entire floor, it is also relies on the deliberate
omission of any mention that there were cross-trusses, which were
perpendicular to and interlocked with the trusses shown in the
animation.' While the animation does leave out the tranverse trusses and
bracing, the zipper theory is still highly plausible. In fact, if the
floor structure were as cohesively tied together as the author suggests
(at this point accurately), the likelihood of the floors detaching from
the outer columns wholesale becomes an even greater possibility, given
that the floor structure would have acted as a unit. In fact, the floor
structure was bolted to the outer columns at every third column, so any
detachment would have occurred over a significant portion of the facade,
leaving a significant quantity of outer columns unbraced. Secondly, the
theory does NOT rely on fire being over the whole floor. The fire need
only be at the core, for the trusses to detach from the core columns,
sagging, and then detaching from the outer columns when fire and weight
became too great.
Finally, the page then erroneously contends that 'Those angle clips!
Well, I guess we'll have to take Eagar's word that the designers
stupidly underengineered them, because the blueprints remain sealed and
unavailable for inspection by the public. Actually they weren't "clips",
they were brackets welded to the columns.' Both statements are
inaccurate. The connections are described in the FEMA report, chapter 2,
and the clips were not welded but bolted to the OWJ, to provide flexible
moment end conditions so that the building could sway without tilting
the floors (which would have happened with rigid end conditions for each
OWJ (open web joist).
The rest is jibberish.
In short, the rebuttal author has no idea what he's talking about, and
would do better leaving the analysis of buildings and structures to the
building design professionals.
Marcello Penso
sirs...@fast.net says...
There were roughly 320 outer columns plus roughly 50 columns per floor.
Assuming that you would only need to plant small explosives at half of
these, that would be 185 packs per floor. In order to access the
connection points without anyone knowing, work could only be done at
night, when facility managers, security personnel and cleaning staff was
not around, get access to each and every perimeter office and core room,
move people's furniture and equipment, break open the gyp bd ceiling,
knock away the spray on fire retardant, place the packs, close up the
ceiling, patch and repaint, move the furniture and equipment back in
exactly the same position... for 13,420 locations [that's 185/3 (3 packs
per office, say) x 110 x 2].
That would be roughly 40,700 demo packs between the two towers.
You would need a four man team to place the packs a night: drywall guy
to demo and patch the gyp bd ceiling; an electrician to take care of
wires and JBs; a demolitions expert/handler and a painter to patch and
paint the ceiling, with an EXACT paint match. You also might need an
HVAC guy in case a diffuser got damaged. Assume such team could do a
pack an hour, the most they could do is probably 4 packs a night,
between midnight and 4 AM. Assuming such a schedule 13,420 / 4 would
take the team 3,355 days. If you had an eight man team, that would be
1,678 days or 4.6 years.
Apart from the impossibility of patching ceilings to perfection, in 4
years, a facility manager, security guard, cleaning staff would have
noticed the activity. Not to mention the subcontractors, the orders for
demolition, paint, etc. An interesting logistical puzzle, but totally
untenable.
First_Blood
In article <eQ8md.6347$GV4.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
First...@exposed.net says...
> > It is the combination of extreme loading AND fire which caused the
> > collapse.
>
>
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/experts/articles/eagar_nova/nova_eagar1.html
This rebuttal article is erroneous on practically every key point.
It mentions that the top of the South Tower would have continued tipping
had 'it not exploded in mid air'. This is inaccurate from the videos of
the collapse. The tower did not explode in mid air and did continue
tipping during the collapse.
The only thing inaccurate here is your assertion that that is what was
stated. It was not
"Actually the top would only have had to tip 50 feet before its center of
gravity cleared the building's core -- the gravity load bearing component.
The top of the South Tower had already tipped that much and, given the law
of preservation of angular momentum, would have continued to tip more had it
not disintegrated in mid-air."
The whole building did disintigrate and your word parse is suspect.
It then mentions WTC-7 and inaccurately states that 'it sustained no
impacts with aircraft or large debris. It just had a few small fires
that were barely visible.' The building suffered enough damage on the
south face that fires were visible on the 5th to 7th floors, right where
the transfer trusses and key two structural columns were that supported
the upper floors of the building. The FEMA report on the building's
collapse, and the NIST follow up, are not only entirely plausible, but
highly likely, and generally accepted by most design building
professionals.
FEMA's BPAT, the only official organization that reported on Building 7's
collapse, was completely indecisive. Their report stated
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the
premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a
low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses
are needed to resolve this issue.
I guess you were privy to more information than the "official" team was even
though it was described as "tourist trip".
Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official
investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil
Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by
political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield
of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a
three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE
investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist
trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.- Bill Manning. Fire
Engineering Magizine, JAN 2002
It then goes on to mention a 'dense grid of long vertical columns in the
WTC's core'. This is inaccurate. In fact the cores' structural grid (for
both WTC 1 and 2) were fairly sparse, considering how high rises are
normally built today. There were approximately 50 inner columns, for AN
ACRE of floor space (200 x 200 feet) That is a sparse structural grid by
any standard, considering the towers were 110 stories tall.
This description of the core is meant to mislead the reader by directing
attention away from the cores main purpose, which was to support most, if
not all, of the gravity load (weight) of the building and to reduce it to a
poorly designed structure. The core provided the strength needed to support
the weight of the structure, while the outer wall provided the necessary
rigidity to resist lateral loading due to the wind.
The article then continues to erroneously contend the towers would have
'fallen like a tree'. No building falls like 'a tree', because buildings
are not that structurally dense or cohesive. Only Hadrian's column or an
Imhotep obelisk MIGHT fall 'like a tree', depending on the joints of the
stone. And a building with an ACRE of floor area would hardly lose its
center of gravity with a head on impact.
WTC 2 did topple to one side because of corner destroyed by the impact.
But given the weight of the floors above, the overriding forces would go
down, not sideways, and that is exactly what happened.
Another example which attempts to mislead the reader of the cores main
purpose to support most, if not all, of the gravity load (weight) of the
building. This was not a poorly designed structure. The core provided the
strength needed to support the weight of the structure, while the outer wall
provided the necessary rigidity to resist lateral loading due to the wind.
Remember now, the NIST has already determined that the fire wasn't hot
enough to cause thermal stress.
"But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
fuel."- Kevin Ryan UL Laboratories.
The only force which could have potentially toppled the towers would
have a been strong winds, which fortunately were not present that day.
The page then erroneously contends that black smoke is a sign of
dwindling fires. This is inaccurate. Smoke color is largely dependant on
the combustible being burned.
And we await your analysis of what material caused this massive amount of
black smoke.
"The reality is that more than two years later, investigators are still
uncertain why the towers fell. No one has ever attempted a simulation this
large."
http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807
The page then erroneously contends 'There is no evidence that fires ever
covered more than a half of any floor in the South Tower.' I have to
assume the author was there and able to accurately measure up the exact
percantage of floor areas burning over 1.5 hours.
The South Tower was attacked @ 9:02, then collapsed @ 9:59. Do the math.
May I suggest that you are the erroneous one.
The page then erroneously contends 'It's ridiculous to assert that the
designers assumed a fire would only burn on some portion of a floor at
any one time.' In fact, at the time of the design in the early to mid
60s, fire sprinklers were not even required as a fire suppression
system, and the engineers took the UNUSUAL measure of specifying an
inordinate amount of spray on fire retardant in the exterior tube
columns. Fire sprinklers and more retardant on the OWJs was added later,
after building completion during the 70s.
Strawman.
Secondly, it is NOT absurd to
assume fire would burn only a small floor area. 99% of fires are small
and limited, not catastrophic from plane impact. Leslie Robertson and
his team did consider plane impact (a 707) at the time of design, but
only for structural impact- NEVER for effects of fire.
It has already beeen established that the fire wasn't hot enough to cause
any thermal stress.
The page then erroneously contends 'There is no evidence the fires were
anywhere near that hot (1500F). To be that hot they would have required
good air supplies, which they did not have as shown by the black smoke.'
This all entirely innaccurate. It is well known that office fires no
matter the starting fuel, will reach upwards of 1500F to 1800F, even in
enclosed spaces.
"...results of your (NIST) recently published metallurgical tests" which
"support your team's August 2003 update"..."suggest that the steel was
probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what
one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation."
The NIST has show now in two tests that you are and continue to be
erouneous.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
The WTC fires had plenty of outside ventilation, from
the gaping holes left by the impact. Finally, smoke color is not an
indicator of lack of air, but only of the type of combustible burning.
As an example, burning tires will give off black smoke. Upholstery will
as well.
The page then erroneously contends 'He speaks of beams, but box columns
supported the towers. If the columns distorted enough to lose their
rigidity, it would have been apparent before the towers exploded.' In
fact Eagar is giving an example of how susceptible to bending steel
beams are, versus steel columns. As for evidence of distorted columns,
evidence is apparent before the towers COLLAPSED (the author engages in
his own whitewashing tactics), as indicated in the NIST report.
So you admit to whitewashing tactics from the NIST also. Again for the
reader I must again remind them of the test results.
The page then erroneously contends that 'At 1300ē F, the steel would
have been glowing red hot'. This is inaccurate, and implies that steel
needs to be red hot in order to fail. In reality, steel begins to fail
structurally way before it changes color from heat.
Strawman. Again for the reader I must remind them of the test results and
its findings.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
The page then erroneously contends that 'The only time the fire had any
chance to soften the steel was before the jet fuel burned off. Eagar
makes the false implication that the softening of steel due to heating
is cumulative and irreversible.' Both statements are totally wrong.
Steel can be softened by repeated exposure to high heat, and it is not
true that steel would have been compromised only when the jet fuel
burned. Steel would have been compromised even during a normall office
fire, at 1300F-1800F. No extraordinary heat needed.
Strawman. For the reader, I must again remind them of the test results and
its findings. 500F
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
The page then erroneously contends that 'Not only is Eager's ridiculous
zipper theory incompatible with the fact that neither of the towers had
fires covering an entire floor, it is also relies on the deliberate
omission of any mention that there were cross-trusses, which were
perpendicular to and interlocked with the trusses shown in the
animation.' While the animation does leave out the tranverse trusses and
bracing, the zipper theory is still highly plausible.
Steawman: 1) it has been determined temperatures were 500F.
2) there is nothing erroneous in pointing out the
ommission of cross-trusses.
In fact, if the
floor structure were as cohesively tied together as the author suggests
(at this point accurately), the likelihood of the floors detaching from
the outer columns wholesale becomes an even greater possibility, given
that the floor structure would have acted as a unit.
If in fact there was wholesale failure of these cross-trusses. But of course
then one needs to ask if this is so helpful to Eager's "theory" why did he
not include an accurate description of the structure? The author points out
that Eager's suggestion "that the designers stupidly underengineered them"
even though they had a Boeing 707 in mind when doing so must be taken as
valid.
In fact, the floor
structure was bolted to the outer columns at every third column, so any
detachment would have occurred over a significant portion of the facade,
leaving a significant quantity of outer columns unbraced.
Now you also are suggesting that the design was underengineered even with a
Boeing 707 in mind.
Secondly, the
theory does NOT rely on fire being over the whole floor. The fire need
only be at the core, for the trusses to detach from the core columns,
sagging, and then detaching from the outer columns when fire and weight
became too great.
He throw it all up out there and hope something sticks. It has already been
determined the fire was only 500F. Keep repeating that strawman, it might
actually start being believed.
Finally, the page then erroneously contends that 'Those angle clips!
Well, I guess we'll have to take Eagar's word that the designers
stupidly underengineered them, because the blueprints remain sealed and
unavailable for inspection by the public. Actually they weren't "clips",
they were brackets welded to the columns.' Both statements are
inaccurate.
Hey, moron. You're criticizing the author for correctly pointing out Eager's
error. Furthermore, they were most certainly welded to the columns (FEMA) in
context of Eager's theory: "inner core of columns and the exterior columns"
The connections are described in the FEMA report, chapter 2,
and the clips
I thought "clips" was erroneous?
were not welded but bolted to the OWJ, to provide flexible
moment end conditions so that the building could sway without tilting
the floors (which would have happened with rigid end conditions for each
OWJ (open web joist).
Was the author more erroneous than Eager and Musso?
The rest is jibberish.
In short, the rebuttal author has no idea what he's talking about, and
would do better leaving the analysis of buildings and structures to the
building design professionals.
In short, you're more disingenuos and eroneous than Eager and Musso
Bud
Well, this engineer offers a reasonable explaination for the
collapse of those towers. That the planes that everyone saw strike the
buildings caused sufficient damage to the towers to lead to thier
collapse. Since no other reasonable explaination exists to explain
thier collapse, we are left with hypothesis such as this as the only
explaination there could be.
> > As the fire
> > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
>
> "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
> have
> easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
supports.
>
> Kevin Ryan
>
> Site Manager
> Environmental Health Laboratories
> A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
>
>
> If you go to this
> > site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what happened,
> > many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are evil
> > engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
> >
> > http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
>
> Your lame article is nothing more than hearsay and even discredits the NIST
> report. This must be the reason for your ad-hominem's.
>
My "lame article" is a site offering referals to numerous sites
which address different aspects of the crackpot conspiracy claims.
His problems are obvious. He isn`t taking into account all the
information nessessary to draw conclusions, only the burn temperature
of the fuel, and melt temperature of the steel, not the impact of the
planes, or the weakening of the steel by extreme heat. If his
superiors can`t see this on thier own, I should be contacting *thier*
superiors.
> Be sure to include some more ad-hominems.
>
>
> >
> > > If steel from those buildings did soften or
> > > melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet
> fuel
> > > fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers.
> That
> > > fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the
> > > contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests
> > > that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related
> failure.
> > > That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.
> > >
> > > There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
> force
> > > behind the War on Terror.
> >
> > He gives away the game here. This isn`t a fact finding effort, it`s
> > agenda-driven.
>
> In light of you having problems with factual statements from your previous
> responses
> I'd now would ask the following.
>
> Is this statement:
> "There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
> force
> behind the War on Terror" not factual? Yes or no?
What bearing does this have on the collapse of these buildings? Why
include it in a fact finding venture? It betrays the "emotional
driving force" behind his questions, and that he is a crackpot
conspiracy kook.
First_Blood
First off, there are no reasonable explanations surrounding the 9/11 attack.
Secondly Clifton's theory (which appears nowhere) that was referenced has
no validity since one cannot see how he arrives at his conclusions. He makes
statements like 4 - 6 floors were taken out. Everyone seems to forget the
buildings
designers had Boeing 707's in mind when drawing it up.
>
> > > As the fire
> > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> >
> > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings
should
> > have
> > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
fuel."
>
> Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> supports.
Everyone seems to forget the buildings designers had Boeing 707's in mind
when drawing
the structure up. They also now are forgetting that the temperatures are now
known not
to have reached anywhere near its thermal stress point.
> >
> > Kevin Ryan
> >
> > Site Manager
> > Environmental Health Laboratories
> > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
>
> These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
Strawman> >
> >
> > If you go to this
> > > site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what happened,
> > > many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are evil
> > > engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
> > >
> > > http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
> >
> > Your lame article is nothing more than hearsay and even discredits the
NIST
> > report. This must be the reason for your ad-hominem's.
> >
> My "lame article" is a site offering referals to numerous sites
> which address different aspects of the crackpot conspiracy claims.
I must point out again that this link above, "ourworld" (whose world), has
no such
data on the findings of what you quoted, Mr. Clifton's theory. It simply
quotes him itself.
Perhaps you should so they could have a laugh, Bud.
From the American Inst. of Steel Construction:
At what temperature does a typical fire burn?
The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment
depends on several factors, including the amount and configuration of
available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the
compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the
maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed
1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely
to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to
post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F.
The building was designed to withstand a Boeing 707 crash.
It doesn't but I ask myself and other readers why then did you bring it up?
I ask myself why you didn't give a yes or no answer that the statement:
"There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
force
behind the War on Terror" (was "not" factual and that it is simply "agenda
driven")?
What, no witty rebuttal ad hominems?
Mongo The Magnificent
Sherlock Holmes, you ain't.
Something that agrees with the laws of physics is very likely the real
cause
of the collapse.
I'll bet that you couldn't take down a single reinforcement collumn with
a 747.
Jet fuel is merely 110 octane gasoline.
You are talking about melting steel walls into puddles, not weakening
them.
Weakened steel doesn't melt.
It requires that it be melted.
In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
They failed.
And gasoline worked?
Afraid not.
>
> > > As the fire
> > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> >
> > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
> > have
> > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
>
> Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> supports.
Aluminum doesn't displace steel at any speed.
You must be a booger engineer, because you don't know shit.
> > Kevin Ryan
> >
> > Site Manager
> > Environmental Health Laboratories
> > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
>
> These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
Credentials don't negate physics.
Just to Bush and his supporters.
Kinda like invading Iraq after no Iraqi killed any Americans.
It isn't supported by physics.
Retalliation without a cause is against the laws of physics.
Aluminum doesn't weaken steeel at any speed.
Go outside and make an aluminum foil airplane and take down a stop sign.
Then come back and explain "force equals mass times accelleration" to us
all.
The airliners contained insuffient mass or acceleration to weaken the
steel
by force.
Even explosives would have a hard time.
Thermite is the most likely cause of the collapse.
It burns through steel easily.
The explosives used in 1993 were inneffective too.
It's very hard to explode through a steel support collumn.
The force required would be astronomical.
Physics isn't a conspiracy.
Mongo The Magnificent
Aluminum can't penetrate steel support collumns at any speed that a US
airliner could achieve.
Bud
Since you have decided that, what use are the explainations of
engineers to you? They can only confuse you with facts, and your mind
is already made up.
> Secondly Clifton's theory (which appears nowhere)
Have you checked everywhere? I read and repeated a synopsis of his
hypothesis at one of those sites (Why did the Towers fall so quickly,
or something close to that), but you are right, the link to his full
argument didn`t work. What a produced was a summary of his hypothesis,
by the author of the article.
> that was referenced has
> no validity since one cannot see how he arrives at his conclusions. He makes
> statements like 4 - 6 floors were taken out. Everyone seems to forget the
> buildings
> designers had Boeing 707's in mind when drawing it up.
Then that design was obviosly flawed, wouldn`t you say? The towers
stood many years without falling. The first time they were struck by
planes, they fell. I know you are avoiding the obvious, in order to
imagine alternatives, but thats really not necessary. Building contain
structural members. A multi-ton object hurtling through them will
damage, severe, and destroy them, regardless of design. You don`t need
to be an engineer to know that. The hign heat from the burning fuel
and other combustibles is another factor. The explosives you imagine
were not.
>
> >
> > > > As the fire
> > > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > >
> > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings
> should
> > > have
> > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
> fuel."
> >
> > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > supports.
>
> Everyone seems to forget the buildings designers had Boeing 707's in mind
> when drawing
> the structure up. They also now are forgetting that the temperatures are now
> known not
> to have reached anywhere near its thermal stress point.
Hot enough to effect the strength of the steel.
>
>
>
> > >
> > > Kevin Ryan
> > >
> > > Site Manager
> > > Environmental Health Laboratories
> > > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
> >
> > These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
>
> Strawman> >
You think? What is a "site manager"? Do you have any idea what this
guy does, and his knowledge on the subject in the letter? Please,
tell me Kevin Rayan`s qualifications, other than he works for
Underwriters (as do numerous janitors).
> > >
> > > If you go to this
> > > > site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what happened,
> > > > many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are evil
> > > > engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
> > > >
> > > > http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
> > >
> > > Your lame article is nothing more than hearsay and even discredits the
> NIST
> > > report. This must be the reason for your ad-hominem's.
> > >
> > My "lame article" is a site offering referals to numerous sites
> > which address different aspects of the crackpot conspiracy claims.
>
> I must point out again that this link above, "ourworld" (whose world)
The real world, a place you should try visiting.
>, has
> no such
> data on the findings of what you quoted, Mr. Clifton's theory. It simply
> quotes him itself.
And then I quoted that. Problem?
Yah, according a post by Tim Howell, they were laughing so hard,
they fired Kevin Ryan. I suppose they didn`t like him using thier name
to push his own agenda.
>
> From the American Inst. of Steel Construction:
> At what temperature does a typical fire burn?
>
> The duration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment
> depends on several factors, including the amount and configuration of
> available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the
> compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances, the
> maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely exceed
> 1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not likely
> to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to
> post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F.
At what temperature does heat begin to effect the strength of
steel?
>
>
>
> The building was designed to withstand a Boeing 707 crash.
Bullet proof vest are designed to stop bullets, yet people have
died from bullets passing through them. This building was designed
taking into account many things, wind, fire, maximum square footage of
floor space, ect. A bomb shelter is designed for mainly one thing,
surviving a bomb blast. A high rise is *not* built to survive plane
crashes, although some design features may be incorporated which help
it resist such forces. A skyscraper built with the sole purpose of
withstanding a plane crash would look a lot different then the Twin
Towers did. It would be built with angles to deflect the force of a
place impact, like tank are built to deflect shells. This is just
another example of a little information, not fully understood, is used
by the conspiracy crowd to start imaging alternatives to what is
obvious. Planes hit the Towers, and the resulting damage caused them
to fall.
I brought it up because Kevin Ryan included that line in what was
supposed to be an information request directed at Gayle. It stuck out,
because it was so irrelevant to that request. I brought it up because
it betrays Kevin Ryan`s agenda for asking Gayle those questions. It
was billed as one professional asking another for data, but that line
showed it for what it was, an opinion piece made for distribution.
> I ask myself why you didn't give a yes or no answer that the statement:
> "There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
> force
> behind the War on Terror" (was "not" factual and that it is simply "agenda
> driven")?
Thats fine, for a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Dubious to
inject into a data request between professonals looking into a matter
of physics.
That link didn`t seem to work, what do you want me to do? Do you
think that G. Charles Clifton does not exist, or he just doen`t have a
hypothesis about why those towers fell?
Bud
Well, for appearing nowhere, it only took me a few seconds to find
it numerous places. Heres one of them...
http//www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
Since I`m so bad at providing URLs, I`ll give the site that gives
an introduction about Clifton, and leads to the one above, in case I
fucked up the one above...
http://www.tenlinks.com/ABOUT/people?AUTHORS/clifton.htm
First_Blood
You referenced it. Umm, you referenced someones personal web page that
mentioned it.
Whoop-tee-do.
>
> > that was referenced has
> > no validity since one cannot see how he arrives at his conclusions. He
makes
> > statements like 4 - 6 floors were taken out. Everyone seems to forget
the
> > buildings
> > designers had Boeing 707's in mind when drawing it up.
>
> Then that design was obviosly flawed, wouldn`t you say?
Prove it, moron.
The towers
> stood many years without falling. The first time they were struck by
> planes, they fell.
They collapsed. They became dust. The 1993 bombing didn't affect the
buildings structural integrity
yet the scenario that they were specificaly designed around failed. OK,
you've convinced me, BUD.
I know you are avoiding the obvious, in order to
> imagine alternatives, but thats really not necessary. Building contain
> structural members. A multi-ton object hurtling through them will
> damage, severe, and destroy them, regardless of design. You don`t need
> to be an engineer to know that. The hign heat from the burning fuel
> and other combustibles is another factor. The explosives you imagine
> were not.
THE FIRES CAUSED BY THE ATTACK WERE NO WHERE NEAR STRESS LEVELS.
This has been confirmed by two seperate tests now. Do you understand?
THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A BOEING 707.
Do you understand? Your own idiot heros say this to be true. Do you
understand?
the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > > >
> > > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the
buildings
> > should
> > > > have
> > > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
> > fuel."
> > >
> > > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > > supports.
> >
> > Everyone seems to forget the buildings designers had Boeing 707's in
mind
> > when drawing
> > the structure up. They also now are forgetting that the temperatures are
now
> > known not
> > to have reached anywhere near its thermal stress point.
>
> Hot enough to effect the strength of the steel.
Idiot. How many times will you ignore NIST tests? Keep repeating your lie.
mental Health Laboratories
> > > > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
> > >
> > > These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
> >
> > Strawman> >
>
> You think? What is a "site manager"? Do you have any idea what this
> guy does, and his knowledge on the subject in the letter? Please,
> tell me Kevin Rayan`s qualifications, other than he works for
> Underwriters (as do numerous janitors).
Strawman continues...
go to this
> > > > > site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what
happened,
> > > > > many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are
evil
> > > > > engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
> > > > >
> > > > > http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
> > > >
> > > > Your lame article is nothing more than hearsay and even discredits
the
> > NIST
> > > > report. This must be the reason for your ad-hominem's.
> > > >
> > > My "lame article" is a site offering referals to numerous sites
> > > which address different aspects of the crackpot conspiracy claims.
> >
> > I must point out again that this link above, "ourworld" (whose world)
>
> The real world, a place you should try visiting.
> > data on the findings of what you quoted, Mr. Clifton's theory. It simply
> > quotes him itself.
>
> And then I quoted that. Problem?
Quotes from a unsubstantiated and purely speculative theory that was quoted
by someone else.
Oh yes I remember your claims that he wasn't on a fact finding mission and
had an agenda from his statement: "There is no question that the events of
9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror." I ask again,
is this a fact? Wanting to keep facts straight was the reason he wrote the
letter.
"However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings,
as
it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building'
s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states
that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most
perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften
steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be
above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower
temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of
minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse."
Just the facts, Bud.
ration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment
> > depends on several factors, including the amount and configuration of
> > available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the
> > compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances,
the
> > maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely
exceed
> > 1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not
likely
> > to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to
> > post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F.
>
> At what temperature does heat begin to effect the strength of
> steel?
What is the hypothetical steel's rating? You see this is a very important,
BUD.
Tell the good readers.
esigned to stop bullets, yet people have
> died from bullets passing through them. This building was designed
> taking into account many things, wind, fire, maximum square footage of
> floor space, ect. A bomb shelter is designed for mainly one thing,
> surviving a bomb blast. A high rise is *not* built to survive plane
> crashes, although some design features may be incorporated which help
> it resist such forces.
Sorry, BUD. The WTC was designed to survive a plane crash.
A skyscraper built with the sole purpose of
> withstanding a plane crash would look a lot different then the Twin
> Towers did. It would be built with angles to deflect the force of a
> place impact, like tank are built to deflect shells. This is just
> another example of a little information, not fully understood, is used
> by the conspiracy crowd to start imaging alternatives to what is
> obvious. Planes hit the Towers, and the resulting damage caused them
> to fall.
Sorry, BUD. The WTC was designed to survive a plane crash
Sorry, BUD. This statement was not an information request.
se
> it betrays Kevin Ryan`s agenda for asking Gayle those questions. It
> was billed as one professional asking another for data, but that line
> showed it for what it was, an opinion piece made for distribution.
So you are gonna tell all the good readers that there is in fact a question
on whether or not the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind
the War on Terror?
Yes or no?
> > "There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
> > force
> > behind the War on Terror" (was "not" factual and that it is simply
"agenda
> > driven")?
>
> Thats fine, for a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Dubious to
> inject into a data request between professonals looking into a matter
> of physics.
This must be your op-ed.
How's about providing it, BUD.
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
First_Blood
Still waiting, Bud.
> > >
> > > Well, this engineer offers a reasonable explaination for the
> > > collapse of those towers. That the planes that everyone saw strike the
> > > buildings caused sufficient damage to the towers to lead to thier
> > > collapse. Since no other reasonable explaination exists to explain
> > > thier collapse, we are left with hypothesis such as this as the only
> > > explaination there could be.
> >
> > First off, there are no reasonable explanations surrounding the 9/11
attack.
> > Secondly Clifton's theory (which appears nowhere)
>
> Well, for appearing nowhere, it only took me a few seconds to find
> it numerous places. Heres one of them...
>
> http//www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
> Since I`m so bad at providing URLs, I`ll give the site that gives
> an introduction about Clifton, and leads to the one above, in case I
> fucked up the one above...
Umm, yes you do suck. Another nonexistent link. PROVIDE IT.
Bud
Thought I might fuck it up. It should work now...
Marcello Penso
First...@exposed.net says...
>
>
> The only thing inaccurate here is your assertion that that is what was
> stated. It was not
>
> "Actually the top would only have had to tip 50 feet before its center of
> gravity cleared the building's core -- the gravity load bearing component.
> The top of the South Tower had already tipped that much and, given the law
> of preservation of angular momentum, would have continued to tip more had it
> not disintegrated in mid-air."
And this is utterly inaccurate. The exterior tube structure also bore
gravity load; 50 feet over a 40,000 sf floor area is NOT ENOUGH to shift
center of gravity by any stretch; and the building did not 'explode'
(author's words).
>
> The whole building did disintigrate and your word parse is suspect.
Disintegrate is entirely different from exploding, and the buildings
COLLAPSED.
>
> It then mentions WTC-7 and inaccurately states that 'it sustained no
> impacts with aircraft or large debris. It just had a few small fires
> that were barely visible.' The building suffered enough damage on the
> south face that fires were visible on the 5th to 7th floors, right where
> the transfer trusses and key two structural columns were that supported
> the upper floors of the building. The FEMA report on the building's
> collapse, and the NIST follow up, are not only entirely plausible, but
> highly likely, and generally accepted by most design building
> professionals.
>
> FEMA's BPAT, the only official organization that reported on Building 7's
> collapse, was completely indecisive. Their report stated
>
> The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to
> collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the
> premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a
> low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses
> are needed to resolve this issue.
The report did not JUST state that. It gave plausible scenarios for how
the collapse could have occurred, and those scenarios are entirely
reasonable, given the unique structural design of that particular
building.
> It then goes on to mention a 'dense grid of long vertical columns in the
> WTC's core'. This is inaccurate. In fact the cores' structural grid (for
> both WTC 1 and 2) were fairly sparse, considering how high rises are
> normally built today. There were approximately 50 inner columns, for AN
> ACRE of floor space (200 x 200 feet) That is a sparse structural grid by
> any standard, considering the towers were 110 stories tall.
>
> This description of the core is meant to mislead the reader by directing
> attention away from the cores main purpose, which was to support most, if
> not all, of the gravity load (weight) of the building and to reduce it to a
> poorly designed structure. The core provided the strength needed to support
> the weight of the structure, while the outer wall provided the necessary
> rigidity to resist lateral loading due to the wind.
While the core was exclusively designed for gravity loads, it did NOT
support 'most, if not all, of the gravity load', as you incorrectly
state. 50 columns was not enough to support all the dead weight of the
building. The central core supported the central area of the building,
the outer tubes supported the outer area and weight of the building, and
therefore supported MORE of the building's gravity load. The exterior
tubes and spandrels ALSO resisted wind loads, but that was only part of
their structural design.
<snip rest of your disingenuous 'rebuttal'>
Bud
Does this mean you were unimpressed? It seems unlikely that you
will be impressed with anything that doesn`t coincide with your
suspicious crackpot imaginings.
>
> >
> > > that was referenced has
> > > no validity since one cannot see how he arrives at his conclusions. He
> makes
> > > statements like 4 - 6 floors were taken out. Everyone seems to forget
> the
> > > buildings
> > > designers had Boeing 707's in mind when drawing it up.
> >
> > Then that design was obviosly flawed, wouldn`t you say?
>
> Prove it, moron.
Are the Towers still standing, genius? I saw planes hit them,
damaging them, and causing massive fires. I`m sure these things are
unrelated to thier collapse, though. After all, Kevin Ryan, previously
of Underwrites Laboratories has said so.
>
>
> >The towers
> > stood many years without falling. The first time they were struck by
> > planes, they fell.
>
> They collapsed. They became dust. The 1993 bombing didn't affect the
> buildings structural integrity
> yet the scenario that they were specificaly designed around failed.
Stop saying that, it makes you look stupid. They were specifically
designed as office space. They were not designed as plane-proof
shelter. A tower this tall cannot be designed with the mass necessary
to fend off the kinetic energy of a multi-ton object hurtling through
it. The Pentagon fared much better, being low to the ground, with
enough mass to absorb some of the impact. Anyway, perhaps you can
relate what innovative design prevented damage to the structural
members. Did they jump out of the way of the inbound plane? Made of
rubber, so they bounced back in place? What is this, a cartoon, where
the tower can`t fall unless it notices it`s supporting members are
taken out? Anti-gravity devices on each floor? C`mon, Blood, thats
hear your comic book answer to how a plane hurtling through a building
doesn`t do damage to it`s structural integrity.
> OK,
> you've convinced me, BUD.
Doubtful. You would rather ignore what you saw happen, in favor of
what you imagine happened.
>
>
>
> >I know you are avoiding the obvious, in order to
> > imagine alternatives, but thats really not necessary. Building contain
> > structural members. A multi-ton object hurtling through them will
> > damage, severe, and destroy them, regardless of design. You don`t need
> > to be an engineer to know that. The hign heat from the burning fuel
> > and other combustibles is another factor. The explosives you imagine
> > were not.
>
> THE FIRES CAUSED BY THE ATTACK WERE NO WHERE NEAR STRESS LEVELS.
> This has been confirmed by two seperate tests now. Do you understand?
The heat from the fires was sufficient to weaken the strength of
the steel. But the heat was only one factor. Damage from the impact of
the plane was another. If some structural members are compromised,
that puts more of a load on the remaining ones, no? Sag, leverage,
expansion from the high heat, gravity, all start to play a greater
role in the stress. You and Kevin Ryan (a chemist, not an engineer,
BTW) seem to think that knowing the melting point of steel trumps all
the other considerations..
>
> THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A BOEING 707.
Then relate the design features that made the towers plane-proof.
Did the architects who designed the building claim it to be impervious
to plane damage?
> Do you understand? Your own idiot heros say this to be true. Do you
> understand?
>
Oh, I understand. You`ve latched on to a factoid you don`t really
understand, because you think it gives you the green light to begin
imagining crackpot alternatives to what happened.
>
>
> the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > > > >
> > > > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the
> buildings
> should
> > > > > have
> > > > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
> fuel."
> > > >
> > > > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > > > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > > > supports.
> > >
> > > Everyone seems to forget the buildings designers had Boeing 707's in
> mind
> > > when drawing
> > > the structure up. They also now are forgetting that the temperatures are
> now
> > > known not
> > > to have reached anywhere near its thermal stress point.
> >
> > Hot enough to effect the strength of the steel.
>
> Idiot. How many times will you ignore NIST tests? Keep repeating your lie.
OK. The heat generated by the fires in the Towers was sufficient to
have a negative effect on the strength of the steel. In conjunction
with other factors, this led to the collapse of those structures.
>
>
>
> mental Health Laboratories
> > > > > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
> > > >
> > > > These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
> > >
> > > Strawman> >
> >
> > You think? What is a "site manager"? Do you have any idea what this
> > guy does, and his knowledge on the subject in the letter? Please,
> > tell me Kevin Ryan`s qualifications, other than he works for
> > Underwriters (as do numerous janitors).
>
> Strawman continues...
Interesting. You tout this guy as an expert of some sort, but its
strawman to inquire what his qualifications are? I looked it up, he`s
a chemist, an unemployed one, apparently.
>
>
> go to this
> > > > > > site, you can find referals to numerous articles about what
> happened,
> > > > > > many containing information from engineers. Of course, they are
> evil
> > > > > > engineers, in on the conspiracy, right kookybirds?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Your lame article is nothing more than hearsay and even discredits
> the
> NIST
> > > > > report. This must be the reason for your ad-hominem's.
> > > > >
> > > > My "lame article" is a site offering referals to numerous sites
> > > > which address different aspects of the crackpot conspiracy claims.
> > >
> > > I must point out again that this link above, "ourworld" (whose world)
> >
> > The real world, a place you should try visiting.
>
> > > data on the findings of what you quoted, Mr. Clifton's theory. It simply
> > > quotes him itself.
> >
> > And then I quoted that. Problem?
>
> Quotes from a unsubstantiated and purely speculative theory that was quoted
> by someone else.
But still quotes.
You do know the difference between a communicating a request for
further data, and political rhetoric, don`t you? This letter, however
you want to characterize it, was a strange mix of both. In a
scientific inquiry about why the Towers fell, injecting comments about
the effect of the Towers fall on the NYC Mayoral race, even if it had
a profound effect, are misplaced. Its interesting and telling that you
can`t see the inappropriateness of these comments.
>
>
> "However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings,
> as
> it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building'
> s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states
> that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most
> perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften
> steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be
> above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower
> temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of
> minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse."
>
> Just the facts, Bud.
Just an opinion. From a chemist. Not a structural engineer. Is this
the findings from Underwriters Labs? Produce thier report, not some
maverick crackpot with an agenda.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ration and the maximum temperature of a fire in a building compartment
> > > depends on several factors, including the amount and configuration of
> > > available combustibles, ventilation conditions, properties of the
> > > compartment enclosure, weather conditions, etc. In common circumstances,
> the
> > > maximum temperature of a fully developed building fire will rarely
> exceed
> > > 1800°F. The average gas temperature in a fully developed fire is not
> likely
> > > to reach 1500°F. Temperatures of fires that have not developed to
> > > post-flashover stage will not exceed 1000°F.
> >
> > At what temperature does heat begin to effect the strength of
> > steel?
>
> What is the hypothetical steel's rating? You see this is a very important,
> BUD.
> Tell the good readers.
Like Kevin Ryan, I am not an engineer. I may see if I can find that
information for the good readers, though.
>
>
>
>
> esigned to stop bullets, yet people have
> > died from bullets passing through them. This building was designed
> > taking into account many things, wind, fire, maximum square footage of
> > floor space, ect. A bomb shelter is designed for mainly one thing,
> > surviving a bomb blast. A high rise is *not* built to survive plane
> > crashes, although some design features may be incorporated which help
> > it resist such forces.
>
> Sorry, BUD. The WTC was designed to survive a plane crash.
Then provide commentary from the designers where they stated,
before 9-11, that those Towers could withstand the crash of a plane
into them.
>
>
> A skyscraper built with the sole purpose of
> > withstanding a plane crash would look a lot different then the Twin
> > Towers did. It would be built with angles to deflect the force of a
> > place impact, like tank are built to deflect shells. This is just
> > another example of a little information, not fully understood, is used
> > by the conspiracy crowd to start imaging alternatives to what is
> > obvious. Planes hit the Towers, and the resulting damage caused them
> > to fall.
>
> Sorry, BUD. The WTC was designed to survive a plane crash
Evel Kineveal`s rocket plane was designed to fly across the Grand
Canyon. It must have made it, because it was designed to do so.
How would you characterize it? Ryan requests information from
Gayle, but gives opinions before giving Gayle a chance to respond.
>
> se
> > it betrays Kevin Ryan`s agenda for asking Gayle those questions. It
> > was billed as one professional asking another for data, but that line
> > showed it for what it was, an opinion piece made for distribution.
>
> So you are gonna tell all the good readers that there is in fact a question
> on whether or not the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind
> the War on Terror?
> Yes or no?
It had an effect of covering a good portion of the city in dust. It
had lots of effects. What are they doing in a scientific inquiry to
determine the cause of the Towers fall?
>
>
> > > "There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving
> > > force
> > > behind the War on Terror" (was "not" factual and that it is simply
> "agenda
> > > driven")?
> >
> > Thats fine, for a letter to the editor of a newspaper. Dubious to
> > inject into a data request between professonals looking into a matter
> > of physics.
>
> This must be your op-ed.
That must be your side-step.
http://caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
>
>
> http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
Bud
Try holding your breath, that helps.
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Well, this engineer offers a reasonable explaination for the
> > > > collapse of those towers. That the planes that everyone saw strike the
> > > > buildings caused sufficient damage to the towers to lead to thier
> > > > collapse. Since no other reasonable explaination exists to explain
> > > > thier collapse, we are left with hypothesis such as this as the only
> > > > explaination there could be.
> > >
> > > First off, there are no reasonable explanations surrounding the 9/11
> attack.
> > > Secondly Clifton's theory (which appears nowhere)
> >
> > Well, for appearing nowhere, it only took me a few seconds to find
> > it numerous places. Heres one of them...
> >
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> >
> > Since I`m so bad at providing URLs, I`ll give the site that gives
> > an introduction about Clifton, and leads to the one above, in case I
> > fucked up the one above...
>
> Umm, yes you do suck. Another nonexistent link. PROVIDE IT.
I provided two links. I notice you snipped out the one that did
work. Thats good, its always helpful to know the honesty of the person
you`re dealing with. I fixed the one above, it should work now. If you
have any trouble with the big words found there, I`m here for ya.
Bud
Is he needed for this? We saw planes strike the buildings. We saw
them collapse. I`m thinking Holmes would see a connection you are
missing.
>
> Something that agrees with the laws of physics is very likely the real
> cause
> of the collapse.
Undoubtedly.
>
> I'll bet that you couldn't take down a single reinforcement collumn with
> a 747.
Then the planes rendered them invisible, the planes made gaping
holes.
>
> Jet fuel is merely 110 octane gasoline.
>
> You are talking about melting steel walls into puddles, not weakening
> them.
You don`t understand what I am saying. Neither of us understand
what you are saying.
>
> Weakened steel doesn't melt.
>
> It requires that it be melted.
No, superheated steel is weaker even before it reaches it`s melting
point.
>
> In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
But using unprofessional techniques.
>
> They failed.
How much force did that explosion generate? More than 150 tons of
mass hurtling at 400 MPH?
>
> And gasoline worked?
A combination of factors led to the collapse.
>
> Afraid not.
>
> >
> > > > As the fire
> > > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > >
> > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
> > > have
> > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
> >
> > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > supports.
>
>
> Aluminum doesn't displace steel at any speed.
Then where did the outer columns go? What caused them to leave at
the point of impact? Thermite charges at that very spot, Sherlock?
>
> You must be a booger engineer, because you don't know shit.
Never claimed to be an engineer.
>
> > > Kevin Ryan
> > >
> > > Site Manager
> > > Environmental Health Laboratories
> > > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
> >
> > These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
>
> Credentials don't negate physics.
>
> Just to Bush and his supporters.
>
> Kinda like invading Iraq after no Iraqi killed any Americans.
>
> It isn't supported by physics.
>
> Retalliation without a cause is against the laws of physics.
Which ones, Newton?
<snicker> Nosepickers assert what physicists and engineers seem
unare of. They latch on to the most simplistic factoids, in order to
entertain thier fantasies. Real physicists and engineers have
concluded that those planes could and did cause those Towers to fall.
But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ of
Bush.
>
> Go outside and make an aluminum foil airplane and take down a stop sign.
Have a friend throw a BB at you. Then, have him shoot a shootgun
shell full of BBs at you. See if you can tell the difference.
>
> Then come back and explain "force equals mass times accelleration" to us
> all.
The equations for the force generated by those planes can be found
included in this examination by an engineer...
http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
> The airliners contained insuffient mass or acceleration to weaken the
> steel
> by force.
What does acceleration have to do with it? Its kinetic energy,
imparted on what is struck.
>
> Even explosives would have a hard time.
>
> Thermite is the most likely cause of the collapse.
Is that what you imagine?
>
> It burns through steel easily.
>
> The explosives used in 1993 were inneffective too.
>
> It's very hard to explode through a steel support collumn.
>
> The force required would be astronomical.
Then where did they go?
To a crackpot, everything is.
First_Blood
> Mongo The Magnificent <Nocl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
>
> But using unprofessional techniques.
And you're now suggesting that Aircraft into buildings is a professional
technique in demolition.
Idiot loser.
> >
> > They failed.
>
> How much force did that explosion generate? More than 150 tons of
> mass hurtling at 400 MPH?
Were is the data that shows the design was flawed?
> >
> > And gasoline worked?
>
> A combination of factors led to the collapse.
Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not hot enough to
affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them to be well
below the stress levels of the rated steel.
> >
> > Afraid not.
> >
> > >
> > > > > As the fire
> > > > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more
exaggerated
> > > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > > >
> > > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the
buildings should
> > > > have
> > > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
fuel."
> > >
> > > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > > supports.
> >
> >
> > Aluminum doesn't displace steel at any speed.
>
> Then where did the outer columns go? What caused them to leave at
> the point of impact? Thermite charges at that very spot, Sherlock?
> >
> > You must be a booger engineer, because you don't know shit.
>
> Never claimed to be an engineer.
You spout off like you know more than the referenced. I seriously doubt you
are. Prove me incorrect.
With no compelling data. This data actually contradicts their findings and
the ever changing summaries.
The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they not?
> But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ of
> Bush.
Your partisan reply is a strawman.
> >
> > Go outside and make an aluminum foil airplane and take down a stop sign.
>
> Have a friend throw a BB at you. Then, have him shoot a shootgun
> shell full of BBs at you. See if you can tell the difference.
> >
> > Then come back and explain "force equals mass times accelleration" to us
> > all.
>
> The equations for the force generated by those planes can be found
> included in this examination by an engineer...
>
> http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
Your invalid links are as useless as your replies.
> >
> > The airliners contained insuffient mass or acceleration to weaken the
> > steel
> > by force.
>
> What does acceleration have to do with it? Its kinetic energy,
> imparted on what is struck.
> >
> > Even explosives would have a hard time.
> >
> > Thermite is the most likely cause of the collapse.
>
> Is that what you imagine?
You and your contradictory misinformation spewing ilk are the only ones to
have theory's?
An erroneous statement if there ever was.
First_Blood
Until you and your ilk stop spewing misinformation about the findings you
will never be believed by me or other readers interested in the progress of
this show.
> >
> > >
> > > > that was referenced has
> > > > no validity since one cannot see how he arrives at his conclusions.
He
> > makes
> > > > statements like 4 - 6 floors were taken out. Everyone seems to
forget
> > the
> > > > buildings
> > > > designers had Boeing 707's in mind when drawing it up.
> > >
> > > Then that design was obviosly flawed, wouldn`t you say?
> >
> > Prove it, moron.
>
> Are the Towers still standing, genius?
Does this factually prove that the design was flawed? I have seen no facts
of such summaries. I have however seen contradictions and misinformation in
and of the findings itself.
I saw planes hit them,
> damaging them, and causing massive fires.
That burned well below the stress levels of the rated steel of a building
built to withstand a very large aircraft not unlike the size and fuel
carrying capabilities of the attack craft.
I`m sure these things are
> unrelated to thier collapse, though. After all, Kevin Ryan, previously
> of Underwrites Laboratories has said so.
Whistleblowers suffer many things in their lives including loss of
employment and ad-hominems.
> >
> >
> > >The towers
> > > stood many years without falling. The first time they were struck by
> > > planes, they fell.
> >
> > They collapsed. They became dust. The 1993 bombing didn't affect the
> > buildings structural integrity
> > yet the scenario that they were specificaly designed around failed.
>
> Stop saying that, it makes you look stupid.
Your opinion means nothing, non-existent link provider. The facts are the
facts. They were designed around the possibility of a huge aircraft crashing
into them. A very large AC at that.
They were specifically
> designed as office space. They were not designed as plane-proof
> shelter.
Your argument is more compelling with every post.
A tower this tall cannot be designed with the mass necessary
> to fend off the kinetic energy of a multi-ton object hurtling through
> it.
Your opinion nothing more. Another unsubstantiated claim by the way.
The Pentagon fared much better, being low to the ground, with
> enough mass to absorb some of the impact. Anyway, perhaps you can
> relate what innovative design prevented damage to the structural
> members. Did they jump out of the way of the inbound plane? Made of
> rubber, so they bounced back in place? What is this, a cartoon, where
> the tower can`t fall unless it notices it`s supporting members are
> taken out? Anti-gravity devices on each floor? C`mon, Blood, thats
> hear your comic book answer to how a plane hurtling through a building
> doesn`t do damage to it`s structural integrity.
Stawman: No one that I referenced, ones with some credentials has ever
claimed or
suggested that this doesn't or wouldn't damage its structural integrity.
They have all claimed
that the buildings were designed to "withstand" this type of incident.
>
> > OK,
> > you've convinced me, BUD.
>
> Doubtful. You would rather ignore what you saw happen, in favor of
> what you imagine happened.
What I saw is meaningless. The reasons being cited is what I'm not ignoring.
You remember?
The reasons (summaries) that contradict the test's that are spewed in the
press that contain more lunacy than you've tried to suggest of others.
>
> >
> >
> > >I know you are avoiding the obvious, in order to
> > > imagine alternatives, but thats really not necessary. Building contain
> > > structural members. A multi-ton object hurtling through them will
> > > damage, severe, and destroy them, regardless of design. You don`t need
> > > to be an engineer to know that. The hign heat from the burning fuel
> > > and other combustibles is another factor. The explosives you imagine
> > > were not.
> >
> > THE FIRES CAUSED BY THE ATTACK WERE NO WHERE NEAR STRESS LEVELS.
> > This has been confirmed by two seperate tests now. Do you understand?
>
> The heat from the fires was sufficient to weaken the strength of
> the steel.
Not according to the tests, moron. Do you understand?
But the heat was only one factor.
But, but but... Strawman.
Damage from the impact of
> the plane was another. If some structural members are compromised,
> that puts more of a load on the remaining ones, no? Sag, leverage,
> expansion from the high heat, gravity, all start to play a greater
> role in the stress. You and Kevin Ryan (a chemist, not an engineer,
> BTW) seem to think that knowing the melting point of steel trumps all
> the other considerations..
> >
> > THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A BOEING 707.
>
> Then relate the design features that made the towers plane-proof.
> Did the architects who designed the building claim it to be impervious
> to plane damage?
Stawman that has already been addressed above
>
> > Do you understand? Your own idiot heros say this to be true. Do you
> > understand?
> >
> Oh, I understand. You`ve latched on to a factoid you don`t really
> understand, because you think it gives you the green light to begin
> imagining crackpot alternatives to what happened.
The only cracpot lunacy here is by yourself and the people misrepresenting
the facts that are part of the tests. Do you understand that the tests show
the burning fires never reached temperatures that were anywhere near a
thermal stress situation? Yes or no.
Well then, I am glad you have shown yourself to have "the agenda" like the
morons blabbering bunk in the press with the same inanities. It should be
clear to the readers that this discussion is over. Your proven wrong by the
test findings.
Snip the remaining kook inanities of sirs...@fast.net more aptly
sirqu...@slow.com
You have just marched off the cliff, Bud.
First_Blood
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> > Umm, yes you do suck. Another nonexistent link. PROVIDE IT.
>
> I provided two links. I notice you snipped out the one that did
> work. Thats good, its always helpful to know the honesty of the person
> you`re dealing with. I fixed the one above, it should work now. If you
> have any trouble with the big words found there, I`m here for ya.
You never provided a link for Cliftons data, bud. You're a kook anyway. You
just admitted that the fires were hot enough to cause thermal stress even
though the NIST tests say they were nowhere near the levels of the WTC
steel. Oh, well. Bye, bye...
First_Blood
news:<fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > "First_Blood" <First...@exposed.net> wrote in message
news:<whLmd.9971
> http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
> Thought I might fuck it up. It should work now...
>
> >
> > Since I`m so bad at providing URLs, I`ll give the site that gives
> > an introduction about Clifton, and leads to the one above, in case I
> > fucked up the one above...
> >
> > http://www.tenlinks.com/ABOUT/people?AUTHORS/clifton.htm
Nice! He summed it all up 7 days after it collapsed. Oops he revised it
until Dec. of the same year. Wasn't the clean up still going on and the
evidence still being carted away and <cough> still being sorted out at this
time? He sure is amazing this Clifton. Are you part of his cult?
Ted Gittinger
"beber" <be...@gbta.net> wrote in message
news:rescp0hu3ruqbtrne...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:13:08 GMT, "Ted Gittinger"
> <tgitting...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > "beber" <be...@gbta.net> wrote in message
> >news:ue9cp0pagfq2cg48a...@4ax.com...
> > > On 12 Nov 2004 08:52:09 -0800, tim.h...@nc.uas.lul.se (Tim
Howells)
> > > wrote:
> > > I am no conspiracy nut, but I have long wondered about the
> > > temperatures claimed on 9-11. Melting steel in burning diesel fuel
> > > (which is what jet aircraft fuel is) is not possible unless somehow
> > > huge amounts of oxygen are imported into the flame, and it occurs
> > > within some sort of confinement. (That's what a jet engine does)
> > > That's just common sense. If you want to find out for yourself,
place
> > > some steel in a trash can along with a lot of paper and a couple of
> > > gallons of diesel fuel and light the fire. See what happens.
> > >
> > > Nothing.
> > >
> > > It won't even melt copper. Probably not even beer cans.
> >
gives a
> >much, much hotter fire than burning diesel fuel in a garbage can. An
> >exaggerated version of that effect is the old-fashioned blow torch,
which
> >uses gasoline and air. I use a version of that tool every day, and it
gives
> >a flame hot enough to bring steel to the failure point, i.e., past
cherry
> >red. I can melt fine silver with it. Jewelers and plumbers know about
this
> >quite well.
> >
> > ted
> >
> >
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> >----
> >
> >
> That's interesting; what served as a chiminey; the elevator shafts?
Works for me. I am no architect, but the last I heard, hot air rises and
cooler air comes up behind it. That is what a chimney does.
When I was a kid I learned to use a simple blowpipe to make a jet from a
small, ordinary flame hotter than hell, hot enough to melt silver solder, or
even glass No mystery at all; in fact ancient peoples figured this out
independently of one another in the Old and New Worlds. The Incas knew how
to do lost wax casting in gold, which requires one hell of a hot fire, far
hotter than anything an ordinary charcoal blaze will give. All you need is
a good, solid draft of air. A chimney does that.
Why do we insist on making mysteries where none exist? The Egyptians were
quite capable of building pyramids independently of extraterrestrial
assistance. And that has been demonstrated.
You want a hot fire? Build a chimney
The barbecuers of South Texas are laughing at the modernists who do not
understand how fire works. God, this can be funny. And most revealing.
ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Ted Gittinger
>
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:fc87368f.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > Mongo The Magnificent <Nocl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional
explosives.
> >
> > But using unprofessional techniques.
>
> And you're now suggesting that Aircraft into buildings is a professional
> technique in demolition.
> Idiot loser.
Uh oh. A loser.
Try tinker toys.
ted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
First_Blood
You should have just ignored it altogether if you want to obfuscate.
Bud
These people need to pretend that all theories are equal. You see,
unless you can "capital p" prove how every bolt snapped and truss
failed, then you are only offering a theory. Therefore, your theory is
equal to thier theory of Bush sending nijas with thermite charges. Its
the end result of people raised on comic books and television. The
line between "The Matrix" and reality is getting blurrier for some
people. It makes thier reality more interesting to believe these
things go on. And I suspect every generation will get progresssively
worse. Which is fine with me, it gives me more numbnuts to ridicule.
Bud
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:fc87368f.0411...@posting.google.com...
> > Mongo The Magnificent <Nocl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >
> > > In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
> >
> > But using unprofessional techniques.
>
> And you're now suggesting that Aircraft into buildings is a professional
> technique in demolition.
No, what I was suggesting is that when the professionals who
demolish building for a living explode building, they do not do so by
driving a truck full of explosives into the bottom of it, and set it
off. That is the unprofessional method the terrorists used.
> Idiot loser.
>
>
> > >
> > > They failed.
> >
> > How much force did that explosion generate? More than 150 tons of
> > mass hurtling at 400 MPH?
>
> Were is the data that shows the design was flawed?
<snicker> Are the Towers still standing? I asked you what features
made the building resistant to plane damage. Have you seen the report
where it was calculated that they would withstand a plane crashing
into them? I tried to find it, all I could find was dozens of crackpot
sites repeating the same assertion, that the building was designed to
withstand being hit by a 707. I read this on one of them...
"In the early `70s, the World Trade Center`s chief structural
engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a
Boeing 707 with the WTC Towers. His results were reported in the New
York Times, where it was claimed that Robertson`s study proved the
Towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles
an hour."
Well, a few things about this. A Boeing 767, which hit both Towers,
is considerably bigger than a 707. But, it seems that the Towers did
not read this article, and did not know they were not supposed to fall
from a plane striking them. And it is unclear who made the assertion
that the planes could withstand a collision from a 707. Robertson, or
the NYT. Perhaps you can supply a quote from him claiming those
buildings could resist such an impact. Anyway, Robertson was in Japan
when this tragedy occured. When he arrived in NYC on Sept. 15th, this
is what he had to say about the attack on his buildings... "If they
would have fallen down immediately, the death toll would have been
unimaginable.". Notice, he expresses no doubt that his plane-proof
buildings have been taken down by planes. He accepts what is apparent,
something you kooks cannot. He also said in regards to the `93 attack
"I felt we had taken thier best shot". Again, this shows that he
accepts what obviously occurred. He is not saying "There is no way
those planes took down those buildings". He is the man who designed it
to supposedly withstand a plane impact, why are you crackpot
suspicious where he is not?
>
>
> > >
> > > And gasoline worked?
> >
> > A combination of factors led to the collapse.
>
> Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not hot enough to
> affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them to be well
> below the stress levels of the rated steel.
Not true. It said fires didn`t get hot enough most places, not all.
>
>
> > >
> > > Afraid not.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > As the fire
> > > > > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more
> exaggerated
> > > > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > > > >
> > > > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the
> buildings should
> > > > > have
> > > > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet
> fuel."
> > > >
> > > > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > > > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > > > supports.
> > >
> > >
> > > Aluminum doesn't displace steel at any speed.
> >
> > Then where did the outer columns go? What caused them to leave at
> > the point of impact? Thermite charges at that very spot, Sherlock?
> > >
> > > You must be a booger engineer, because you don't know shit.
> >
> > Never claimed to be an engineer.
>
> You spout off like you know more than the referenced. I seriously doubt you
> are. Prove me incorrect.
<snicker> You crackpots are funny. Always claiming stupid things,
and challenging people to prove you wrong.
Compelling to who, conpiracy kooks?
> This data actually contradicts their findings and
> the ever changing summaries.
> The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they not?
>
So unless they can pinpoint the exact cause, that allows you to
imagine any crackpot cause you wish? Perhaps it was aliens, these
reports didn`t specifically rule them out.
>
>
> > But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ of
> > Bush.
>
> Your partisan reply is a strawman.
>
>
> > >
> > > Go outside and make an aluminum foil airplane and take down a stop sign.
> >
> > Have a friend throw a BB at you. Then, have him shoot a shootgun
> > shell full of BBs at you. See if you can tell the difference.
> > >
> > > Then come back and explain "force equals mass times accelleration" to us
> > > all.
> >
> > The equations for the force generated by those planes can be found
> > included in this examination by an engineer...
> >
> > http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
> Your invalid links are as useless as your replies.
Now you just declare them "invalid". Why listen to experts, when
you can listen to the voices in your head?
>
>
> > >
> > > The airliners contained insuffient mass or acceleration to weaken the
> > > steel
> > > by force.
> >
> > What does acceleration have to do with it? Its kinetic energy,
> > imparted on what is struck.
> > >
> > > Even explosives would have a hard time.
> > >
> > > Thermite is the most likely cause of the collapse.
> >
> > Is that what you imagine?
>
> You and your contradictory misinformation spewing ilk are the only ones to
> have theory's?
Oh, no, you guys have theories, all right. Straight out of comic
books.
First_Blood
So you have no data to present on the "flawed design" theory other than
"are the buildings still standing". Academia is proud of you.
.
>
> "In the early `70s, the World Trade Center`s chief structural
> engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a
> Boeing 707 with the WTC Towers. His results were reported in the New
> York Times, where it was claimed that Robertson`s study proved the
> Towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles
> an hour."
>
> Well, a few things about this. A Boeing 767, which hit both Towers,
> is considerably bigger than a 707.
There is not a significant difference between these two aircraft.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
But, it seems that the Towers did
> not read this article, and did not know they were not supposed to fall
> from a plane striking them. And it is unclear who made the assertion
> that the planes could withstand a collision from a 707.
It maybe unclear to you, moron.
Robertson, or
> the NYT. Perhaps you can supply a quote from him claiming those
> buildings could resist such an impact. Anyway, Robertson was in Japan
> when this tragedy occured. When he arrived in NYC on Sept. 15th, this
> is what he had to say about the attack on his buildings... "If they
> would have fallen down immediately, the death toll would have been
> unimaginable.". Notice, he expresses no doubt that his plane-proof
> buildings have been taken down by planes. He accepts what is apparent,
> something you kooks cannot. He also said in regards to the `93 attack
> "I felt we had taken thier best shot". Again, this shows that he
> accepts what obviously occurred. He is not saying "There is no way
> those planes took down those buildings". He is the man who designed it
> to supposedly withstand a plane impact, why are you crackpot
> suspicious where he is not?
Perhaps he wishes to keep working, not be subject to ridicule by the
government officials studying the collapse who knowingly misinform the
public with erroneously statements.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > And gasoline worked?
> > >
> > > A combination of factors led to the collapse.
> >
> > Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not hot enough
to
> > affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them to be
well
> > below the stress levels of the rated steel.
>
> Not true. It said fires didn`t get hot enough most places, not all.
I'm sure you can cite this statement from the NIST Report.
Ad-hominems will not work for the reader. Are you more qualified and or
closer to the investigations than the referenced people or not?
> > > <snicker> Nosepickers assert what physicists and engineers seem
> > > unare of. They latch on to the most simplistic factoids, in order to
> > > entertain thier fantasies. Real physicists and engineers have
> > > concluded that those planes could and did cause those Towers to fall.
> >
> > With no compelling data.
>
> Compelling to who, conpiracy kooks?
Compelling to the profession, moronic shill.
>
> > This data actually contradicts their findings and
> > the ever changing summaries.
> > The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they
not?
> >
> So unless they can pinpoint the exact cause, that allows you to
> imagine any crackpot cause you wish? Perhaps it was aliens, these
> reports didn`t specifically rule them out.
You cannot answer a question, BUD. The BPAT admits they are unsure of why
the towers collapsed, did they not? Do you admit the (test) data actually
contradicts their findings and
the ever changing summaries?
> >
> > > But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ of
> > > Bush.
> >
> > Your partisan reply is a strawman.
> > > http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> >
> > Your invalid links are as useless as your replies.
>
> Now you just declare them "invalid". Why listen to experts, when
> you can listen to the voices in your head?
No, BUD. I claim they are invalid links becuase that is what they are. I
think any
reader following along may have clicked on it and came to the same
conclusion, for
good reason..
Bud
>
>
>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > that was referenced has
> > > > > no validity since one cannot see how he arrives at his conclusions.
> He
> makes
> > > > > statements like 4 - 6 floors were taken out. Everyone seems to
> forget
> the
> > > > > buildings
> > > > > designers had Boeing 707's in mind when drawing it up.
> > > >
> > > > Then that design was obviosly flawed, wouldn`t you say?
> > >
> > > Prove it, moron.
> >
> > Are the Towers still standing, genius?
>
> Does this factually prove that the design was flawed?
Not only by definition, but also by demonstration. You have a
factoid you don`t understand. Those Towers were not designed to to be
plane proof. They were designed to be office space. A building built
be be specifically plane proof would be a solid steel column of some
sort. Of course, such a structure wouldn`t accommodate people very
well. In any case, I have the Towers actually being struck by planes,
and collapsing. You think by not accepting a connection between those
things, you open the door to other possibilities. That door only leads
to a padded cell.
> I have seen no facts
> of such summaries. I have however seen contradictions and misinformation in
> and of the findings itself.
That frees you up to imagine crackpot shit, is that it?
>
>
> > I saw planes hit them,
> > damaging them, and causing massive fires.
>
> That burned well below the stress levels of the rated steel of a building
> built to withstand a very large aircraft not unlike the size and fuel
> carrying capabilities of the attack craft.
>
If that is the case (which I`m not sure it is, I`ve seen it
repeated on dozens of crackpot conspiracy sites, but I`ve yet to see
the primary source referenced), then the design was obviously flawed.
Something happened that the designers did not take into account. The
Titanic was designed to stay afloat. By your reasoning, she still must
be afloat, as she was designed to do.
>
>
>
> I`m sure these things are
> > unrelated to thier collapse, though. After all, Kevin Ryan, previously
> > of Underwrites Laboratories has said so.
>
> Whistleblowers suffer many things in their lives including loss of
> employment and ad-hominems.
Ah, Ryan is a "whistleblower" now, eh? So, who did he blow the
whistle on, his employer? Is Underwriters now part of the conspiracy?
Or NIST? Why would Underwriters fire him for being critical of NIST?
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >The towers
> > > > stood many years without falling. The first time they were struck by
> > > > planes, they fell.
> > >
> > > They collapsed. They became dust. The 1993 bombing didn't affect the
> > > buildings structural integrity
> > > yet the scenario that they were specificaly designed around failed.
> >
> > Stop saying that, it makes you look stupid.
>
> Your opinion means nothing, non-existent link provider.
I`m sure other people were able to use the links I provided to get
to that paper by Clifton on why the Towers fell. If you couldn`t, ask
them to release your straight jacket long enough for you to use your
mouse.
> The facts are the
> facts. They were designed around the possibility of a huge aircraft crashing
> into them. A very large AC at that.
>
Please reference the primary source to that. Thanks.
>
>
> >They were specifically
> > designed as office space. They were not designed as plane-proof
> > shelter.
>
> Your argument is more compelling with every post.
>
>
> >A tower this tall cannot be designed with the mass necessary
> > to fend off the kinetic energy of a multi-ton object hurtling through
> > it.
>
> Your opinion nothing more. Another unsubstantiated claim by the way.
Well, don`t take my word for it. Architects and engineering
associations all over have looked into this. Go read what they say as
probable causes. See if they mention explosives as a possibility. Of
course, they are all in on the conspiracy, right, numbnut?
>
>
>
> >The Pentagon fared much better, being low to the ground, with
> > enough mass to absorb some of the impact. Anyway, perhaps you can
> > relate what innovative design prevented damage to the structural
> > members. Did they jump out of the way of the inbound plane? Made of
> > rubber, so they bounced back in place? What is this, a cartoon, where
> > the tower can`t fall unless it notices it`s supporting members are
> > taken out? Anti-gravity devices on each floor? C`mon, Blood, thats
> > hear your comic book answer to how a plane hurtling through a building
> > doesn`t do damage to it`s structural integrity.
>
> Stawman: No one that I referenced, ones with some credentials has ever
> claimed or
> suggested that this doesn't or wouldn't damage its structural integrity.
> They have all claimed
> that the buildings were designed to "withstand" this type of incident.
Need I remind you of the claims made about the Titanic? It is near
impossible to consider all the variables. How could you know where the
planes would hit, how many support members would be affected? I`m
gonna wait and see if you can supply a primary source for this claim.
>
> >
> > > OK,
> > > you've convinced me, BUD.
> >
> > Doubtful. You would rather ignore what you saw happen, in favor of
> > what you imagine happened.
>
> What I saw is meaningless. The reasons being cited is what I'm not ignoring.
> You remember?
> The reasons (summaries)
That crap presented by Kevin Ryan is not a summary of the
conclusions drawn by Underwriters Labratories. Which is likely why he
is out of a job.
> that contradict the test's that are spewed in the
> press that contain more lunacy than you've tried to suggest of others.
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >I know you are avoiding the obvious, in order to
> > > > imagine alternatives, but thats really not necessary. Building contain
> > > > structural members. A multi-ton object hurtling through them will
> > > > damage, severe, and destroy them, regardless of design. You don`t need
> > > > to be an engineer to know that. The hign heat from the burning fuel
> > > > and other combustibles is another factor. The explosives you imagine
> > > > were not.
> > >
> > > THE FIRES CAUSED BY THE ATTACK WERE NO WHERE NEAR STRESS LEVELS.
> > > This has been confirmed by two seperate tests now. Do you understand?
> >
> > The heat from the fires was sufficient to weaken the strength of
> > the steel.
>
> Not according to the tests, moron. Do you understand?
>
Steel loses a significant amount of it`s strength at 1,000 degrees.
Fires hotter than that burned inside the WTC. Do you understand that?
>
>
>
> But the heat was only one factor.
>
> But, but but... Strawman.
The planes hitting the building is now a strawman argument? Ok...
>
>
> >Damage from the impact of
> > the plane was another. If some structural members are compromised,
> > that puts more of a load on the remaining ones, no? Sag, leverage,
> > expansion from the high heat, gravity, all start to play a greater
> > role in the stress. You and Kevin Ryan (a chemist, not an engineer,
> > BTW) seem to think that knowing the melting point of steel trumps all
> > the other considerations..
> > >
> > > THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A BOEING 707.
> >
> > Then relate the design features that made the towers plane-proof.
> > Did the architects who designed the building claim it to be impervious
> > to plane damage?
>
> Stawman that has already been addressed above
>
Yah, I must have blinked, and missed it.
>
>
> >
> > > Do you understand? Your own idiot heros say this to be true. Do you
> > > understand?
> > >
> > Oh, I understand. You`ve latched on to a factoid you don`t really
> > understand, because you think it gives you the green light to begin
> > imagining crackpot alternatives to what happened.
>
> The only cracpot lunacy here is by yourself and the people misrepresenting
> the facts that are part of the tests. Do you understand that the tests show
> the burning fires never reached temperatures that were anywhere near a
> thermal stress situation? Yes or no.
Do you understand that what Kevin Ryan included in that letter are
not the official conclusions of the tests made by Underwriters
Laboratories? In fact, has it been shown that Kevin Ryan actually
worked on this project in any capacity? I will reread the NIST report
to see how hot they concluded the fires got.
Do you understand the test findings?
>
>
>
> Snip the remaining kook inanities of sirs...@fast.net more aptly
> sirqu...@slow.com
>
> You have just marched off the cliff, Bud.
It only appears that way to someone with his head up his own ass.
Bud
You are amazed a construction engineer understands construction?
What forces are at work, and what effect the evident missing support
members must have on those structures?
> Are you part of his cult?
Didn`t know the guy existed until about a week ago. He seems to
know a little more about construction than Kevin Ryan, though.
First_Blood
> > Until you and your ilk stop spewing misinformation about the findings
you
> > will never be believed by me or other readers interested in the progress
of
> > this show.
> >
> "this show"? Your television-warped mentality is showing.
That's all you have is ad-hominems.
> > >
> > > Are the Towers still standing, genius?
> >
> > Does this factually prove that the design was flawed?
>
> Not only by definition, but also by demonstration. You have a
> factoid you don`t understand. Those Towers were not designed to to be
> plane proof. They were designed to be office space. A building built
> be be specifically plane proof would be a solid steel column of some
> sort. Of course, such a structure wouldn`t accommodate people very
> well. In any case, I have the Towers actually being struck by planes,
> and collapsing. You think by not accepting a connection between those
> things, you open the door to other possibilities. That door only leads
> to a padded cell.
More ad-hominems noted by the reader. Everyone knows a plane hit the towers.
What you fail to grasp is the NIST Objectives, mainly "why and how the WTC
Towers collapsed following the initial impact of the aircraft" You show your
intellect by continuously shrieking "a jet hit the towers, the towers fell".
Maybe you should give S. Shyam Sunder a call, tell him to close the
investigation, stop misrepresenting the findings of the tests in the
summaries on your very compelling findings that the jet hit the towers which
weren't "plane proof".
>
> > I have seen no facts
> > of such summaries. I have however seen contradictions and misinformation
in
> > and of the findings itself.
>
> That frees you up to imagine crackpot shit, is that it?
Does it, sherlock?
> >
> >
> > > I saw planes hit them,
> > > damaging them, and causing massive fires.
> >
> > That burned well below the stress levels of the rated steel of a
building
> > built to withstand a very large aircraft not unlike the size and fuel
> > carrying capabilities of the attack craft.
> >
> If that is the case (which I`m not sure it is,
Which is simply why you will continue to embarrass yourself.
I`ve seen it
> repeated on dozens of crackpot conspiracy sites, but I`ve yet to see
> the primary source referenced), then the design was obviously flawed.
> Something happened that the designers did not take into account. The
> Titanic was designed to stay afloat. By your reasoning, she still must
> be afloat, as she was designed to do.
> >
> >
> >
> > I`m sure these things are
> > > unrelated to thier collapse, though. After all, Kevin Ryan, previously
> > > of Underwrites Laboratories has said so.
> >
> > Whistleblowers suffer many things in their lives including loss of
> > employment and ad-hominems.
>
> Ah, Ryan is a "whistleblower" now, eh? So, who did he blow the
> whistle on, his employer?
You should try reading his email, you'd need not ask a foolish question.
Is Underwriters now part of the conspiracy?
> Or NIST?
Only if you don't see misrepresnting test results in the summary and in the
press to the America people as a conspiracy. I guess a grassy-knoll needs to
be invloved for one.
**"Why would Underwriters fire him for being critical of NIST?"**
I thought it was clear: Whistleblowers suffer many things in their lives
including loss of
employment and ad-hominems.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >The towers
> > > > > stood many years without falling. The first time they were struck
by
> > > > > planes, they fell.
> > > >
> > > > They collapsed. They became dust. The 1993 bombing didn't affect the
> > > > buildings structural integrity
> > > > yet the scenario that they were specificaly designed around failed.
> > >
> > > Stop saying that, it makes you look stupid.
> >
> > Your opinion means nothing, non-existent link provider.
>
> I`m sure other people were able to use the links I provided to get
> to that paper by Clifton on why the Towers fell.
I'm sure I have shown those links to be worthless, except for the last one
that finally did direct the reader to Clifton's laughable analysis which he
presented 7 days after the collapse and revised through Dec 2001 before the
cleanup was completed and the evidence sorted out not mentioning that the
official fact finding investigation didn't start until Aug, 2002.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/12/09/wtc.investigation/
If you couldn`t, ask
> them to release your straight jacket long enough for you to use your
> mouse.
More ad hominems, very compelling.
>
> > The facts are the
> > facts. They were designed around the possibility of a huge aircraft
crashing
> > into them. A very large AC at that.
> >
> Please reference the primary source to that. Thanks.
> >
> >
> > >They were specifically
> > > designed as office space. They were not designed as plane-proof
> > > shelter.
> >
> > Your argument is more compelling with every post.
> >
> >
> > >A tower this tall cannot be designed with the mass necessary
> > > to fend off the kinetic energy of a multi-ton object hurtling through
> > > it.
> >
> > Your opinion nothing more. Another unsubstantiated claim by the way.
>
> Well, don`t take my word for it. Architects and engineering
> associations all over have looked into this. Go read what they say as
> probable causes. See if they mention explosives as a possibility. Of
> course, they are all in on the conspiracy, right, numbnut?
I think "you" need to read what they say about the collapses including
explosives.
There are no conspiracies. The bigger the lie the easier it is to deny.
There is no spoon, you are getting sleeeepy.
> >
> >
> >
> > >The Pentagon fared much better, being low to the ground, with
> > > enough mass to absorb some of the impact. Anyway, perhaps you can
> > > relate what innovative design prevented damage to the structural
> > > members. Did they jump out of the way of the inbound plane? Made of
> > > rubber, so they bounced back in place? What is this, a cartoon, where
> > > the tower can`t fall unless it notices it`s supporting members are
> > > taken out? Anti-gravity devices on each floor? C`mon, Blood, thats
> > > hear your comic book answer to how a plane hurtling through a building
> > > doesn`t do damage to it`s structural integrity.
> >
> > Stawman: No one that I referenced, ones with some credentials has ever
> > claimed or
> > suggested that this doesn't or wouldn't damage its structural integrity.
> > They have all claimed
> > that the buildings were designed to "withstand" this type of incident.
>
> Need I remind you of the claims made about the Titanic? It is near
> impossible to consider all the variables. How could you know where the
> planes would hit, how many support members would be affected? I`m
> gonna wait and see if you can supply a primary source for this claim.
I suggest you read up on the design, interviews with the designers for your
answers.
> >
> > >
> > > > OK,
> > > > you've convinced me, BUD.
> > >
> > > Doubtful. You would rather ignore what you saw happen, in favor of
> > > what you imagine happened.
> >
> > What I saw is meaningless. The reasons being cited is what I'm not
ignoring.
> > You remember?
> > The reasons (summaries)
>
> That crap presented by Kevin Ryan is not a summary of the
> conclusions drawn by Underwriters Labratories. Which is likely why he
> is out of a job.
>
> > that contradict the test's that are spewed in the
> > press that contain more lunacy than you've tried to suggest of others.
The summaries of the NIST findings which contradict their test findings. You
can't claim your so intelligent then act so fucking dumb.
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I know you are avoiding the obvious, in order to
> > > > > imagine alternatives, but thats really not necessary. Building
contain
> > > > > structural members. A multi-ton object hurtling through them will
> > > > > damage, severe, and destroy them, regardless of design. You don`t
need
> > > > > to be an engineer to know that. The hign heat from the burning
fuel
> > > > > and other combustibles is another factor. The explosives you
imagine
> > > > > were not.
> > > >
> > > > THE FIRES CAUSED BY THE ATTACK WERE NO WHERE NEAR STRESS LEVELS.
> > > > This has been confirmed by two seperate tests now. Do you
understand?
> > >
> > > The heat from the fires was sufficient to weaken the strength of
> > > the steel.
> >
> > Not according to the tests, moron. Do you understand?
> >
> Steel loses a significant amount of it`s strength at 1,000 degrees.
> Fires hotter than that burned inside the WTC. Do you understand that?
We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119.
We know the teams published August 2003 update detailed by the Associated
Press
was ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse".
We know that the team suggested that the steel (core/perimitor columns) was
probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C) from their tests
of samples available deemed "adequate for the investigation".
We know the NIST then went and suggested that their findings were all wrong
and in fact there was tempatures of 1000C (1830 something Fahrenheit).
We know you have also contradicted and misrepresented these above facts.
Need I say more?
> >
> >
> >
> > But the heat was only one factor.
> >
> > But, but but... Strawman.
>
> The planes hitting the building is now a strawman argument? Ok...
There is no spoon. The team was ready to "rule out weak steel as a
contributing factor in the collapse" in the published August 2003 update.
Need I say more?
> >
> >
> > >Damage from the impact of
> > > the plane was another. If some structural members are compromised,
> > > that puts more of a load on the remaining ones, no? Sag, leverage,
> > > expansion from the high heat, gravity, all start to play a greater
> > > role in the stress. You and Kevin Ryan (a chemist, not an engineer,
> > > BTW) seem to think that knowing the melting point of steel trumps all
> > > the other considerations..
> > > >
> > > > THE BUILDINGS WERE DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A BOEING 707.
> > >
> > > Then relate the design features that made the towers plane-proof.
> > > Did the architects who designed the building claim it to be impervious
> > > to plane damage?
> >
> > Stawman that has already been addressed above
> >
> Yah, I must have blinked, and missed it.
I ask the reader: need I say more?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > Do you understand? Your own idiot heros say this to be true. Do you
> > > > understand?
> > > >
> > > Oh, I understand. You`ve latched on to a factoid you don`t really
> > > understand, because you think it gives you the green light to begin
> > > imagining crackpot alternatives to what happened.
> >
> > The only cracpot lunacy here is by yourself and the people
misrepresenting
> > the facts that are part of the tests. Do you understand that the tests
show
> > the burning fires never reached temperatures that were anywhere near a
> > thermal stress situation? Yes or no.
Yes or NO?
A question to the reader: need I say more?
>
> Do you understand that what Kevin Ryan included in that letter are
> not the official conclusions of the tests made by Underwriters
> Laboratories?
I understand what Ryan summarized in that letter is the historical record of
the NIST test findings and their contradicting summary's of theses tests.
Need I say more?
In fact, has it been shown that Kevin Ryan actually
> worked on this project in any capacity? I will reread the NIST report
> to see how hot they concluded the fires got.
Why bother? They contradict the test findings. Why not start over again at
the tests results and compare to the report? Need I say more?
How many times will you ignore NIST tests? Keep repeating your
> > lie.
> > >
> > > OK. The heat generated by the fires in the Towers was sufficient to
> > > have a negative effect on the strength of the steel. In conjunction
> > > with other factors, this led to the collapse of those structures.
> >
> > Well then, I am glad you have shown yourself to have "the agenda" like
the
> > morons blabbering bunk in the press with the same inanities. It should
be
> > clear to the readers that this discussion is over. Your proven wrong by
the
> > test findings.
>
> Do you understand the test findings?
Need I say more?
Bud
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > > Umm, yes you do suck. Another nonexistent link. PROVIDE IT.
> >
> > I provided two links. I notice you snipped out the one that did
> > work. Thats good, its always helpful to know the honesty of the person
> > you`re dealing with. I fixed the one above, it should work now. If you
> > have any trouble with the big words found there, I`m here for ya.
>
> You never provided a link for Cliftons data, bud.
Yah, I did.
> You're a kook anyway. You
> just admitted that the fires were hot enough to cause thermal stress even
> though the NIST tests say they were nowhere near the levels of the WTC
> steel.
Theres your problem right there, you have a little information that
you don`t understand, yet you insist on leaping to conclusions from
it. I went to the NIST site, and looked into this. I found where you
and Kevin Ryan arrived at your misconceptions. You and he are looking
at the results of heat on the paint on two columns, 603 ( 92-93
floors) and 605 (98-99 floors). From testing the paint on these
columns, they concluded that the heat those columns were subjected to
was no greater than 250 Celsius. But, you ignore or are ignorant of
thier conclusions. That found that was consistant to those two columns
having thier fire-proof coating intact. That prevented these two
columns from heating up beyond that point. But, they couldn`t test the
other columns in this manner, because the fire proof coating on these
columns had been compromised from the plane impact, and the paint had
burned off these columns, making it impossible to analyse using this
method. Thier conclusion was "Exposure to fire does not necessarily
lead to high temperatures in insulated steel." You see, this isn`t
only to investigate this incident, but to gather information to use in
future structures. They found that fire-proof insulation coating does
in fact prevent the steel it covers from heating up. That does nothing
to establish the heat *outside* of that insulation.
Anyway, they had thier most recent findings (Oct 19th) posted on
thier site, you can find it here, hopefully...
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm
Pay special attention to the parts that mention that the heat from
the fires "softened and buckled the core columns" of both buildings.
>Oh, well. Bye, bye...
Back to the asylum, eh?
David Baxter
I have to be short because somebody is waiting for me, still needed to type
this, i am a expert in PULL_DOWN, and yes these towers where pulled down,
even it was said by the owner on TV, what else do you need, and the building
what did not get hit also got pulled down, why? maybe money, oil, don't know
that part, and don't want to know, its not mine thing.
Excuse me for this short in between break, have a nice day,
David Brown.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns95A0619A6...@130.133.1.4>...
>> Bud posted:
>>
>> >> it's as if there was a contract ready to go to haul away tons of
>> >> steel,
>> >> with no apparent plans for an "autopsy", so to speak.
>> >
>> > It`s as if you had no brain to call upon for reasoning purposes.
>> >
>>
>>
>> you think i'm missing something, hey?
>
> Yah, common sense. The streets around what used to be the WTC were
> choked with thousands of tons of debris following the collapse of
> those buildings. Now, what do you suppose *must* be the first step
> before any real rescue effort can be made? Clear the debris, no? So,
> they mobilized quickly to do that. The alternative you suggest has the
> workers in the employ of this contractor you imagine sitting around,
> waiting for this catastrophe. What does this guy you imagine tell his
> employees, go here, I have a feeling we will we are going to come into
> a lot of work? It`s stupidity, through and through. That you suggest
> this suggests you are stupid.
>
>>
>> whereas your reasoning says it's perfectly logical that an airplane
>> hitting
>> a wtc tower causes it to come straight down to the ground. not a mystery
>> at
>> all, right?
>
> As opposed to falling straight up? You have heard of gravity,
> right? The towers were not constructed using the standard girder
> method. They were constructed to maximize floor space by having no
> pillars or girders blocking sight lines on each floor. Normally, in a
> building the outer wall are just a facade, a covering with little or
> no structural value. With the Towers, the outer wall was the main load
> bearing walls, alomg with the inner walls surrounding the elevator
> shafts. A standard girder building wouldn`t have collapsed like these
> did, but the peculiar construction of these buildings led to what you
> saw happen.
>>
>> say - the pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the united
>> states. why not ONE photo of the jet coming in?
>
> So, you think the Pentagon had cameras facing every possible
> direction taking pictures every single second of every single day?
> This is typical conspiracy-think. Create a condition, even though you
> have no idea whether that condition should exist, and then become
> suspicious when that condition you imagine is not fulfilled. BTW, I
> have seem a picture of the plane heading into the Pentagon. It was on
> the crackpot montage that Ann Archy gave an URL to.
---
D.C.E: Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.798 / Virus Database: 542 - Release Date: 11/18/2004
First_Blood
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "First_Blood" <First...@exposed.net> wrote in message
news:<Cland.17049$hc5.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> > news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > > sirs...@fast.net (Bud) wrote in message
> > news:<fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "First_Blood" <First...@exposed.net> wrote in message
> > news:<whLmd.9971
> >
> >
> > > http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> > >
> > > Thought I might fuck it up. It should work now...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Since I`m so bad at providing URLs, I`ll give the site that gives
> > > > an introduction about Clifton, and leads to the one above, in case I
> > > > fucked up the one above...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.tenlinks.com/ABOUT/people?AUTHORS/clifton.htm
> >
> >
> > Nice! He summed it all up 7 days after it collapsed. Oops he revised it
> > until Dec. of the same year. Wasn't the clean up still going on and the
> > evidence still being carted away and <cough> still being sorted out at
this
> > time? He sure is amazing this Clifton.
>
> You are amazed a construction engineer understands construction?
No, I amazed becuase of the stated reasons.
> What forces are at work, and what effect the evident missing support
> members must have on those structures?
>
> > Are you part of his cult?
>
> Didn`t know the guy existed until about a week ago. He seems to
> know a little more about construction than Kevin Ryan, though.
I don't think you can make such a statement without knowing Clifton's
opinion of the NIST's tests results and initial findings and its
contradictory summary report.
Anthony Marsh
> "First_Blood" <First...@exposed.net> wrote in message news:<eA9nd.17018$hc5.8...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>
>>"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>news:fc87368f.0411...@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>Mongo The Magnificent <Nocl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>>>>In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
>>>
>>> But using unprofessional techniques.
>>
>>And you're now suggesting that Aircraft into buildings is a professional
>>technique in demolition.
>
>
> No, what I was suggesting is that when the professionals who
> demolish building for a living explode building, they do not do so by
> driving a truck full of explosives into the bottom of it, and set it
> off. That is the unprofessional method the terrorists used.
>
>
>>Idiot loser.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>They failed.
>>>
>>> How much force did that explosion generate? More than 150 tons of
>>>mass hurtling at 400 MPH?
>>
>>Were is the data that shows the design was flawed?
>
>
> <snicker> Are the Towers still standing? I asked you what features
> made the building resistant to plane damage. Have you seen the report
> where it was calculated that they would withstand a plane crashing
> into them? I tried to find it, all I could find was dozens of crackpot
> sites repeating the same assertion, that the building was designed to
> withstand being hit by a 707. I read this on one of them...
>
Nothing wrong with debunking, but you need to stick to the facts. In
case you are not aware of it, there have been several incidents where
planes crashed into buildings and the buildings did not come tumbling
down. For instance the Empire State Building at the end of WWII. I
believe that the designers of the World Trade Center took factors like
that into account and did not design the building so that it could fall
down if struck by a plane in a similar manner. However, the particulars
of this case were different enough that the planes did cause the
conditions which caused the structural failures. FYI, almost all of
Osama bin Laden's aides doubted that just the two planes could cause the
towers to collapse. But Osama, being an expert in construction, told
them that they would probably cause the towers to collapse.
David Baxter
Hello Bud,
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...
> "<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:<Xns95A0E4E21...@130.133.1.4>...
>> Don posted:
> In answer to your suspicions about how the buildings fell. You do
> realize that the manner these buildings were constructed might impact
> the way they fall, right?
No, its not the case, there is more to it, wind, impact of the airplane (if
it happend that way), if not you need timed explosive devices, lets say you
have 12, the sequence is extreme important, lets say you want that a
building has to fall (PULL DOWN), like the WTC did, then its important that
for example the sequence would be 12, 3, 8, 1, 11 etc ... just fictive, and
as i said before, there was one building, not hit by a airplane, still came
down the same way, how?
Another factor is that the owner told on TV, also that i said before, we had
no choice, we needed to blow them up, well not in these terms, but we had to
pull them down, that is the term for blow them up.
Don't yell at me ok, just tell you what i know, so please :)
Friendly Regards,
David Brown
Bud
Well, I could also note that the Titanic is still sunk, despite
being designed to stay afloat.
> Academia is proud of you.
>
> .
>
> >
> > "In the early `70s, the World Trade Center`s chief structural
> > engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a
> > Boeing 707 with the WTC Towers. His results were reported in the New
> > York Times, where it was claimed that Robertson`s study proved the
> > Towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles
> > an hour."
>
>
> >
> > Well, a few things about this. A Boeing 767, which hit both Towers,
> > is considerably bigger than a 707.
>
>
>
> There is not a significant difference between these two aircraft.
Have you seen the study saying the WTC could withstand a 707
impact? If not, how can you know a bigger plane wouldn`t have a
"significant difference" on those calculations?
> The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
> The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
>
> The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
> The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
>
> The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
> The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
>
>
>
>
> But, it seems that the Towers did
> > not read this article, and did not know they were not supposed to fall
> > from a plane striking them. And it is unclear who made the assertion
> > that the planes could withstand a collision from a 707.
>
> It maybe unclear to you, moron.
Then clarify it. Who said the WTC Towers wee designed to withstand
a collision with a 707? And if you could, show the calculations that
arrived at that conclusion.
>
>
> "Robertson, or
> > the NYT. Perhaps you can supply a quote from him claiming those
> > buildings could resist such an impact. Anyway, Robertson was in Japan
> > when this tragedy occured. When he arrived in NYC on Sept. 15th, this
> > is what he had to say about the attack on his buildings... "If they
> > would have fallen down immediately, the death toll would have been
> > unimaginable.". Notice, he expresses no doubt that his plane-proof
> > buildings have been taken down by planes. He accepts what is apparent,
> > something you kooks cannot. He also said in regards to the `93 attack
> > "I felt we had taken thier best shot". Again, this shows that he
> > accepts what obviously occurred. He is not saying "There is no way
> > those planes took down those buildings". He is the man who designed it
> > to supposedly withstand a plane impact, why are you crackpot
> > suspicious where he is not?
>
> Perhaps he wishes to keep working, not be subject to ridicule by the
> government officials studying the collapse who knowingly misinform the
> public with erroneously statements.
Ah, good paranoid conspiracy kook answer. *they* got to him, and
just two days after the attack. Everybody is in on it, all the
engineers are threatened to tow the line, but nosepickers such as
yourself are just too darn clever to be so easily fooled.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And gasoline worked?
> > > >
> > > > A combination of factors led to the collapse.
> > >
> > > Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not hot enough
> to
> > > affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them to be
> well
> > > below the stress levels of the rated steel.
> >
> > Not true. It said fires didn`t get hot enough most places, not all.
>
> I'm sure you can cite this statement from the NIST Report.
>
I`ve addressed the heat from the fire issue in a recent response.
More qualified than who, Kevin Ryan? I asked his qualifications,
and you claimed asking this was a strawman argument. I think I have
the same qualifications in structural engineering as he has, namely,
none.
>
>
>
> > > > <snicker> Nosepickers assert what physicists and engineers seem
> > > > unare of. They latch on to the most simplistic factoids, in order to
> > > > entertain thier fantasies. Real physicists and engineers have
> > > > concluded that those planes could and did cause those Towers to fall.
> > >
> > > With no compelling data.
> >
> > Compelling to who, conpiracy kooks?
>
> Compelling to the profession, moronic shill.
Actually, if you searched around, you would see that numerous
Architectural and Engineering associations have looked into this
matter. The University of Massachusetts has done a study on why
certain connections failed. It has quite the buzz in the related
fields. But, you will ingnore all thier conclusions if they don`t
include crackpot nonsense.
>
>
> >
> > > This data actually contradicts their findings and
> > > the ever changing summaries.
> > > The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they
> not?
> > >
> > So unless they can pinpoint the exact cause, that allows you to
> > imagine any crackpot cause you wish? Perhaps it was aliens, these
> > reports didn`t specifically rule them out.
>
> You cannot answer a question, BUD. The BPAT admits they are unsure of why
> the towers collapsed, did they not?
NIST has recentlly released thier latest findings on why the Towers
fell. Go to thier site if you are interested in reading the results of
the structural engineers looking into this matter. There may never be
a presisely provable theory, which doesn`t mean that every crackpot
can invent thier own, and have it be considered plausible.
> Do you admit the (test) data actually
> contradicts their findings and
> the ever changing summaries?
>
You and Kevin Ryan do not understand the test data. I addressed
this in another response elsewhere, also.
>
>
> > >
> > > > But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ of
> > > > Bush.
> > >
> > > Your partisan reply is a strawman.
>
> > > > http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> > >
> > > Your invalid links are as useless as your replies.
> >
> > Now you just declare them "invalid". Why listen to experts, when
> > you can listen to the voices in your head?
>
> No, BUD. I claim they are invalid links becuase that is what they are. I
> think any
> reader following along may have clicked on it and came to the same
> conclusion, for
> good reason..
Dunno what you are blathering about. You said the Clifton
information appeared "nowhere". I supplied an URL to it. You must have
went there, because you commented about what was there.
First_Blood
> "First_Blood" <First...@exposed.net> wrote in message
news:<ffand.17042$hc5.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > > Umm, yes you do suck. Another nonexistent link. PROVIDE IT.
> > >
> > > I provided two links. I notice you snipped out the one that did
> > > work. Thats good, its always helpful to know the honesty of the person
> > > you`re dealing with. I fixed the one above, it should work now. If you
> > > have any trouble with the big words found there, I`m here for ya.
> >
> > You never provided a link for Cliftons data, bud.
>
> Yah, I did.
There has never been any data provided that show how Clifton arrived at his
hasty and erroneous conclusions. Do I need to say more?
> > You're a kook anyway. You
> > just admitted that the fires were hot enough to cause thermal stress
even
> > though the NIST tests say they were nowhere near the levels of the WTC
> > steel.
>
> Theres your problem right there, you have a little information that
> you don`t understand, yet you insist on leaping to conclusions from
> it.
Speak for yourself for your analysis of this couldn't be more wrong.
I went to the NIST site, and looked into this. I found where you
> and Kevin Ryan arrived at your misconceptions. You and he are looking
> at the results of heat on the paint on two columns, 603 ( 92-93
> floors) and 605 (98-99 floors).
Columns, Bud? What type of columns?
From testing the paint on these
> columns, they concluded that the heat those columns were subjected to
> was no greater than 250 Celsius.
Brilliant. THOSE COLUMNS?
But, you ignore or are ignorant of
> thier conclusions. That found that was consistant to those two columns
> having thier fire-proof coating intact.
What found that was consistent..., BUD?
That prevented these two
> columns from heating up beyond that point. But, they couldn`t test the
> other columns in this manner, because the fire proof coating on these
> columns had been compromised from the plane impact, and the paint had
> burned off these columns, making it impossible to analyse using this
> method.
Are you quite sure?
Thier conclusion was "Exposure to fire does not necessarily
> lead to high temperatures in insulated steel."
Brilliant.
You see, this isn`t
> only to investigate this incident, but to gather information to use in
> future structures. They found that fire-proof insulation coating does
> in fact prevent the steel it covers from heating up.
Gee, they really made some progress with this finding, Bud.
That does nothing
> to establish the heat *outside* of that insulation.
The heat outside this insulation really doesn't matter, Bud. How the heat
affected the material is what matters.
> Anyway, they had thier most recent findings (Oct 19th) posted on
> thier site, you can find it here, hopefully...
>
>
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_latest_findings_1004.htm
>
> Pay special attention to the parts that mention that the heat from
> the fires "softened and buckled the core columns" of both buildings.
>
> >Oh, well. Bye, bye...
>
> Back to the asylum, eh?
Said the man going back to the drawing board?
Bud
But there is something wrong with the mindset of some of the people
who require debunking.
> but you need to stick to the facts.
C`mon, Tony, straighten me out.
> In
> case you are not aware of it, there have been several incidents where
> planes crashed into buildings and the buildings did not come tumbling
> down.
I was aware of it. There are things called variables. Conspiracy
kooks often use thier expectations of results as evidence to justify
thier suspicions. You can`t prove a football player can`t be injured
on a given play, by offering as evidence that he was hit similiarly
the previous play without injury as proof.
> For instance the Empire State Building at the end of WWII.
Yah, that may not be comparing an apple with an orange, but at
least two very different types of apples. There may be ways that that
plane (b-29?, B-17?) may have struck the Empire State Building, and
caused it to collapse. In any case, I believe the Empire State
Building has much more mass in the upper stories than the WTC had.
> I
> believe that the designers of the World Trade Center took factors like
> that into account and did not design the building so that it could fall
> down if struck by a plane in a similar manner.
I`m sure the designers looked at it. The structural engineers take a
lot of things into account. But quite obviously any design innovations
they implimented were insufficient to the task. If they calculated
that this structure could withstand a plane impact, then there must be
forces that they did not take into account in those calculations.
> However, the particulars
> of this case were different enough that the planes did cause the
> conditions which caused the structural failures.
Thats what I`ve been saying for a week. When are you going to get
to the part where I strayed from the facts?
>FYI, almost all of
> Osama bin Laden's aides doubted that just the two planes could cause the
> towers to collapse. But Osama, being an expert in construction, told
> them that they would probably cause the towers to collapse.
I do remember that tape. Of course, the crackpots believe that was
faked, and in reality (as if they`ve even been there) Bush was behind
the attacks. Be that as it may, I think you overstate OBL being an
"expert in construction".
Bud
> Hello Bud,
>
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...
> > "<SmirkS>" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:<Xns95A0E4E21...@130.133.1.4>...
> >> Don posted:
> > In answer to your suspicions about how the buildings fell. You do
> > realize that the manner these buildings were constructed might impact
> > the way they fall, right?
>
> No, its not the case, there is more to it, wind, impact of the airplane (if
> it happend that way), if not you need timed explosive devices, lets say you
> have 12, the sequence is extreme important, lets say you want that a
> building has to fall (PULL DOWN), like the WTC did, then its important that
> for example the sequence would be 12, 3, 8, 1, 11 etc ... just fictive, and
> as i said before, there was one building, not hit by a airplane, still came
> down the same way, how?
>
> Another factor is that the owner told on TV, also that i said before, we had
> no choice, we needed to blow them up, well not in these terms, but we had to
> pull them down, that is the term for blow them up.
>
> Don't yell at me ok, just tell you what i know,
Well, that didn`t take long, did it? I think you need some work on
those things you think you know, though.
Marcello Penso
First...@exposed.net says...
you can download the fire simulations (project 5) and in there you will
see temperatures from 200C to 1000C. And in project 6, which essentially
summarizes their findings, you will find the correlations of the effect
of the fire on the floro slabs and joists, as well as the remaining core
and perimeter columns. And in the first PDF:
Status of World Trade Center Investigation and Discussion
you'll find a summary that ties everything together.
As for Clifton's report, you can find the start of his analysis here:
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p4.htm
First_Blood
That is a no, I don't have any data to present on the "flawed desigh"
theory. Titanic= Oranges
WTC= Apples
>
> > Academia is proud of you.
> >
> > .
> >
> > >
> > > "In the early `70s, the World Trade Center`s chief structural
> > > engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a
> > > Boeing 707 with the WTC Towers. His results were reported in the New
> > > York Times, where it was claimed that Robertson`s study proved the
> > > Towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles
> > > an hour."
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Well, a few things about this. A Boeing 767, which hit both Towers,
> > > is considerably bigger than a 707.
> >
> >
> >
> > There is not a significant difference between these two aircraft.
>
> Have you seen the study saying the WTC could withstand a 707
> impact? If not, how can you know a bigger plane wouldn`t have a
> "significant difference" on those calculations?
Do read up on the designers and the design of the WTC for answers to your
questions.
>
> > The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
> > The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
> >
> > The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
> > The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
> >
> > The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
> > The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But, it seems that the Towers did
> > > not read this article, and did not know they were not supposed to fall
> > > from a plane striking them. And it is unclear who made the assertion
> > > that the planes could withstand a collision from a 707.
> >
> > It maybe unclear to you, moron.
>
> Then clarify it. Who said the WTC Towers wee designed to withstand
> a collision with a 707? And if you could, show the calculations that
> arrived at that conclusion.
Need I say more?
> >
> >
> > "Robertson, or
> > > the NYT. Perhaps you can supply a quote from him claiming those
> > > buildings could resist such an impact. Anyway, Robertson was in Japan
> > > when this tragedy occured. When he arrived in NYC on Sept. 15th, this
> > > is what he had to say about the attack on his buildings... "If they
> > > would have fallen down immediately, the death toll would have been
> > > unimaginable.". Notice, he expresses no doubt that his plane-proof
> > > buildings have been taken down by planes. He accepts what is apparent,
> > > something you kooks cannot. He also said in regards to the `93 attack
> > > "I felt we had taken thier best shot". Again, this shows that he
> > > accepts what obviously occurred. He is not saying "There is no way
> > > those planes took down those buildings". He is the man who designed it
> > > to supposedly withstand a plane impact, why are you crackpot
> > > suspicious where he is not?
> >
> > Perhaps he wishes to keep working, not be subject to ridicule by the
> > government officials studying the collapse who knowingly misinform the
> > public with erroneously statements.
>
> Ah, good paranoid conspiracy kook answer. *they* got to him, and
> just two days after the attack. Everybody is in on it, all the
> engineers are threatened to tow the line, but nosepickers such as
> yourself are just too darn clever to be so easily fooled.
Are you now denying the history of whistleblower consequences?
You have more reading to do, Bud.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And gasoline worked?
> > > > >
> > > > > A combination of factors led to the collapse.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not hot
enough
> > to
> > > > affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them to
be
> > well
> > > > below the stress levels of the rated steel.
> > >
> > > Not true. It said fires didn`t get hot enough most places, not all.
> >
> > I'm sure you can cite this statement from the NIST Report.
> >
> I`ve addressed the heat from the fire issue in a recent response.
You just can't provide the cite much like Clifton's link which was a real
knee slapper.
Incomplete and evasive answer, Bud. Read the question again.
Are you more qualified and or closer to the investigations than the
referenced people or not?
I already know the answer but please, for the record.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > <snicker> Nosepickers assert what physicists and engineers seem
> > > > > unare of. They latch on to the most simplistic factoids, in order
to
> > > > > entertain thier fantasies. Real physicists and engineers have
> > > > > concluded that those planes could and did cause those Towers to
fall.
> > > >
> > > > With no compelling data.
> > >
> > > Compelling to who, conpiracy kooks?
> >
> > Compelling to the profession, moronic shill.
>
> Actually, if you searched around, you would see that numerous
> Architectural and Engineering associations have looked into this
> matter. The University of Massachusetts has done a study on why
> certain connections failed. It has quite the buzz in the related
> fields. But, you will ingnore all thier conclusions if they don`t
> include crackpot nonsense.
I have knowledge of this study. By the way, do you agree with Eager?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > This data actually contradicts their findings and
> > > > the ever changing summaries.
> > > > The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did
they
> > not?
> > > >
> > > So unless they can pinpoint the exact cause, that allows you to
> > > imagine any crackpot cause you wish? Perhaps it was aliens, these
> > > reports didn`t specifically rule them out.
> >
> > You cannot answer a question, BUD. The BPAT admits they are unsure of
why
> > the towers collapsed, did they not?
>
> NIST has recentlly released thier latest findings on why the Towers
> fell. Go to thier site if you are interested in reading the results of
> the structural engineers looking into this matter. There may never be
> a presisely provable theory, which doesn`t mean that every crackpot
> can invent thier own, and have it be considered plausible.
Yes or no, Bud.
The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they not?
>
> > Do you admit the (test) data actually
> > contradicts their findings and
> > the ever changing summaries?
> >
> You and Kevin Ryan do not understand the test data. I addressed
> this in another response elsewhere, also.
You deny that the test findings and the summary contradict one another?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ
of
> > > > > Bush.
> > > >
> > > > Your partisan reply is a strawman.
> >
> > > > > http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> > > >
> > > > Your invalid links are as useless as your replies.
> > >
> > > Now you just declare them "invalid". Why listen to experts, when
> > > you can listen to the voices in your head?
> >
> > No, BUD. I claim they are invalid links becuase that is what they are. I
> > think any
> > reader following along may have clicked on it and came to the same
> > conclusion, for
> > good reason..
>
> Dunno what you are blathering about. You said the Clifton
> information appeared "nowhere". I supplied an URL to it. You must have
> went there, because you commented about what was there.
What happened and who said what is on google, Bud. It will a factual
historic perspective of what I said and when it was said "in context". How
many times did you post invalid links before posting a valid one which leads
to Cliftons Theory (not data he used to arrive at such, we are still waiting
for that, perhaps he used news clippings) which sewed it all up on the
seventh day after the collapse?
First_Blood
> In article <ffand.17042$hc5.9...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> First...@exposed.net says...
> >
> > "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
> >
> >
> > > > Umm, yes you do suck. Another nonexistent link. PROVIDE IT.
> > >
> > > I provided two links. I notice you snipped out the one that did
> > > work. Thats good, its always helpful to know the honesty of the person
> > > you`re dealing with. I fixed the one above, it should work now. If you
> > > have any trouble with the big words found there, I`m here for ya.
> >
> > You never provided a link for Cliftons data, bud. You're a kook anyway.
You
> > just admitted that the fires were hot enough to cause thermal stress
even
> > though the NIST tests say they were nowhere near the levels of the WTC
> > steel. Oh, well. Bye, bye...
> >
> >
> >
> You're obfuscating. The NIST report does not state that.
No, your obfuscating.
Bud
Who needs data when you had a demonstration? BTW, I`m still waiting
for you to supply the primary source for your claim that the WTC
Towers were designed to withstand a plane impact.
> Titanic= Oranges
> WTC= Apples
>
> >
> > > Academia is proud of you.
> > >
> > > .
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "In the early `70s, the World Trade Center`s chief structural
> > > > engineer, Leslie Robertson, calculated the effect of the impact of a
> > > > Boeing 707 with the WTC Towers. His results were reported in the New
> > > > York Times, where it was claimed that Robertson`s study proved the
> > > > Towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 moving at 600 miles
> > > > an hour."
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, a few things about this. A Boeing 767, which hit both Towers,
> > > > is considerably bigger than a 707.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > There is not a significant difference between these two aircraft.
> >
> > Have you seen the study saying the WTC could withstand a 707
> > impact? If not, how can you know a bigger plane wouldn`t have a
> > "significant difference" on those calculations?
>
> Do read up on the designers and the design of the WTC for answers to your
> questions.
You were making the claim, I thought you were privy to that
information. You have yet to supply the primary source of the claim
that the WTC Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact. Also, you
can explain what you base you claim of no "significant difference"
between the different planes when calculating thier effects on a Tower
impact.
>
> >
> > > The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
> > > The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
> > >
> > > The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
> > > The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
> > >
> > > The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
> > > The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > But, it seems that the Towers did
> > > > not read this article, and did not know they were not supposed to fall
> > > > from a plane striking them. And it is unclear who made the assertion
> > > > that the planes could withstand a collision from a 707.
> > >
> > > It maybe unclear to you, moron.
> >
> > Then clarify it. Who said the WTC Towers wee designed to withstand
> > a collision with a 707? And if you could, show the calculations that
> > arrived at that conclusion.
>
> Need I say more?
Yah, you could provide the requested information. Where did you get
the idea that the WTC were designed to withstand a collision with a
707? Please, direct me to the original document that contains that
information.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > "Robertson, or
> > > > the NYT. Perhaps you can supply a quote from him claiming those
> > > > buildings could resist such an impact. Anyway, Robertson was in Japan
> > > > when this tragedy occured. When he arrived in NYC on Sept. 15th, this
> > > > is what he had to say about the attack on his buildings... "If they
> > > > would have fallen down immediately, the death toll would have been
> > > > unimaginable.". Notice, he expresses no doubt that his plane-proof
> > > > buildings have been taken down by planes. He accepts what is apparent,
> > > > something you kooks cannot. He also said in regards to the `93 attack
> > > > "I felt we had taken thier best shot". Again, this shows that he
> > > > accepts what obviously occurred. He is not saying "There is no way
> > > > those planes took down those buildings". He is the man who designed it
> > > > to supposedly withstand a plane impact, why are you crackpot
> > > > suspicious where he is not?
> > >
> > > Perhaps he wishes to keep working, not be subject to ridicule by the
> > > government officials studying the collapse who knowingly misinform the
> > > public with erroneously statements.
> >
> > Ah, good paranoid conspiracy kook answer. *they* got to him, and
> > just two days after the attack. Everybody is in on it, all the
> > engineers are threatened to tow the line, but nosepickers such as
> > yourself are just too darn clever to be so easily fooled.
>
> Are you now denying the history of whistleblower consequences?
> You have more reading to do, Bud.
More typical conspiracy claptrap. Showing something has happened in
other situations dose not prove it happens in every case. The
existance of the Rodney King video does not prove police brutality in
every case where a black man claims the police brutalized him. You
can`t just use "it happens" as your sole source of evidence. In any
case, I was supplying quotes from the lead structural designer of the
WTC Towers. In those quotes, he does not express the silly idea you
have latched on to, that planes could not have taken down those
structures. What does the term "whistleblower" have to do with this?
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And gasoline worked?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A combination of factors led to the collapse.
> > > > >
> > > > > Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not hot
> enough
> to
> > > > > affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them to
> be
> well
> > > > > below the stress levels of the rated steel.
> > > >
> > > > Not true. It said fires didn`t get hot enough most places, not all.
> > >
> > > I'm sure you can cite this statement from the NIST Report.
> > >
> > I`ve addressed the heat from the fire issue in a recent response.
>
> You just can't provide the cite much like Clifton's link which was a real
> knee slapper.
Go to the NIST site. Read the NIST reports for yourself. Or latch
onto factiods you don`t understand, and make a fool out of yourself.
Up to you.
NIST is closest and most qualified to report on the investigation.
Read, or have someone read to you, thier findings.
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > <snicker> Nosepickers assert what physicists and engineers seem
> > > > > > unare of. They latch on to the most simplistic factoids, in order
> to
> > > > > > entertain thier fantasies. Real physicists and engineers have
> > > > > > concluded that those planes could and did cause those Towers to
> fall.
> > > > >
> > > > > With no compelling data.
> > > >
> > > > Compelling to who, conpiracy kooks?
> > >
> > > Compelling to the profession, moronic shill.
> >
> > Actually, if you searched around, you would see that numerous
> > Architectural and Engineering associations have looked into this
> > matter. The University of Massachusetts has done a study on why
> > certain connections failed. It has quite the buzz in the related
> > fields. But, you will ignore all thier conclusions if they don`t
> > include crackpot nonsense.
>
> I have knowledge of this study. By the way, do you agree with Eager?
Dunno. Does he think it impossible for planes to have knocked down
both WTC Towers? If so, I disagree with him.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > This data actually contradicts their findings and
> > > > > the ever changing summaries.
> > > > > The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did
> they
> not?
> > > > >
> > > > So unless they can pinpoint the exact cause, that allows you to
> > > > imagine any crackpot cause you wish? Perhaps it was aliens, these
> > > > reports didn`t specifically rule them out.
> > >
> > > You cannot answer a question, BUD. The BPAT admits they are unsure of
> why
> > > the towers collapsed, did they not?
> >
> > NIST has recentlly released thier latest findings on why the Towers
> > fell. Go to thier site if you are interested in reading the results of
> > the structural engineers looking into this matter. There may never be
> > a presisely provable theory, which doesn`t mean that every crackpot
> > can invent thier own, and have it be considered plausible.
>
> Yes or no, Bud.
I will answer in as many words, and in any manner, I see fit.
> The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they not?
Did you read what I wrote? Just because an investigation does not
declare they know the precise cause does not mean that illogical and
stupid theories are as valid as reasoned logical plausible theories.
Did you read NIST`s latest findings on the Tower`s collapse?
>
> >
> > > Do you admit the (test) data actually
> > > contradicts their findings and
> > > the ever changing summaries?
> > >
> > You and Kevin Ryan do not understand the test data. I addressed
> > this in another response elsewhere, also.
>
> You deny that the test findings and the summary contradict one another?
You misunderstand the test findings. The paint test tested paint
that was under the protective layers of fire insulating foam that
covers all the steel in the WTC. On the columns that had that
insulating covering knocked off, the paint was burned off, and could
not be tested by paint testing. All those testing findings show is
that when it isn`t knocked off, that insulating material does the job
it was intended for, keeping the steel protected from heat. The
columns that didn`t have thier fire-proof foam covering knocked off
never got heated beyond 250 degrees Celsius. That does not mean that
the fires weren`t hotter than that, in fact the metallurigical tests
on the steel show heat upwards of 675 degrees Celsius. All the
information is on the NIST site, go, read, learn.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > But, you know better than that, right? They are all in the employ
> of
> > > > > > Bush.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your partisan reply is a strawman.
>
> > > > > > http://www.caddydigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > Your invalid links are as useless as your replies.
> > > >
> > > > Now you just declare them "invalid". Why listen to experts, when
> > > > you can listen to the voices in your head?
> > >
> > > No, BUD. I claim they are invalid links becuase that is what they are. I
> > > think any
> > > reader following along may have clicked on it and came to the same
> > > conclusion, for
> > > good reason..
> >
> > Dunno what you are blathering about. You said the Clifton
> > information appeared "nowhere". I supplied an URL to it. You must have
> > went there, because you commented about what was there.
>
> What happened and who said what is on google, Bud. It will a factual
> historic perspective of what I said and when it was said "in context".
Yah, it sure is. Why, when I posted two links, one of which was
flawed and one of which worked, you ignored the one that worked? And
not ten hours later, when the one that didn`t work appeared on Google,
I fixed that one also. All that I needed to do was type in "G. Charles
Clifton" in a google search, and I had numerous hits. Yet, you claimed
it was nowhere. Without much effort, I`m sure you could have found it
yourself, as I did, but decided it was easier to whine about it.
> How
> many times did you post invalid links before posting a valid one which leads
> to Cliftons Theory (not data he used to arrive at such, we are still waiting
> for that, perhaps he used news clippings)
Still waiting for you to direct me to the primary document that
states the WTC Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact.
> which sewed it all up on the
> seventh day after the collapse?
And you are still clueless after years.
Anthony Marsh
http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/believed_tobe_safe.htm
"The towers were built to withstand the stresses of hurricane-force
winds and to survive the heat of ordinary fires. After the 1993 trade
center bombing, one of the engineers who worked on the towers'
structural design in the 1960's even claimed that each one had been
built to withstand the impact of a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing
707, then the heaviest aircraft flying."
Anthony Marsh
What do you mean? Are you arguing that someone MUST agree with whatever
you say simply because you say it? That's dogma. That's fascism. It is
not free thought. It is not scientific method.
>
>>but you need to stick to the facts.
>
>
> C`mon, Tony, straighten me out.
Look back through my old messages. That is what I do here all the time.
>
>
>>In
>>case you are not aware of it, there have been several incidents where
>>planes crashed into buildings and the buildings did not come tumbling
>>down.
>
>
> I was aware of it. There are things called variables. Conspiracy
> kooks often use thier expectations of results as evidence to justify
> thier suspicions. You can`t prove a football player can`t be injured
> on a given play, by offering as evidence that he was hit similiarly
> the previous play without injury as proof.
>
Sounds like a jab and not an argument.
>
>>For instance the Empire State Building at the end of WWII.
>
>
> Yah, that may not be comparing an apple with an orange, but at
> least two very different types of apples. There may be ways that that
> plane (b-29?, B-17?) may have struck the Empire State Building, and
> caused it to collapse. In any case, I believe the Empire State
> Building has much more mass in the upper stories than the WTC had.
Jeez, isn't that what I just got through saying? Different conditions
cause different results. You guessing may be very close to correct, but
it is still guessing. Why not actually research it for fun?
>
>
>>I
>>believe that the designers of the World Trade Center took factors like
>>that into account and did not design the building so that it could fall
>>down if struck by a plane in a similar manner.
>
>
> I`m sure the designers looked at it. The structural engineers take a
> lot of things into account. But quite obviously any design innovations
> they implimented were insufficient to the task. If they calculated
They designed for what they considered reasonable possibilities. They
could not design it to withstand a nuclear attack.
> that this structure could withstand a plane impact, then there must be
> forces that they did not take into account in those calculations.
>
And additionally changes and defects could arise which would compromise
their design.
>
>>However, the particulars
>>of this case were different enough that the planes did cause the
>>conditions which caused the structural failures.
>
>
> Thats what I`ve been saying for a week. When are you going to get
> to the part where I strayed from the facts?
>
>
>>FYI, almost all of
>>Osama bin Laden's aides doubted that just the two planes could cause the
>> towers to collapse. But Osama, being an expert in construction, told
>>them that they would probably cause the towers to collapse.
>
>
> I do remember that tape. Of course, the crackpots believe that was
> faked, and in reality (as if they`ve even been there) Bush was behind
> the attacks. Be that as it may, I think you overstate OBL being an
> "expert in construction".
That was his occupation. That was his training.
Tom Betz
news:10q03sp...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/believed_tobe_safe
> .htm
>
> "The towers were built to withstand the stresses of
> hurricane-force winds and to survive the heat of ordinary fires.
> After the 1993 trade center bombing, one of the engineers who
> worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960's even
> claimed that each one had been built to withstand the impact of
> a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, then the heaviest
> aircraft flying."
This is supported by Leslie Robertson, one of the designers of the towers.
From <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html>:
The designers of the Trade Center tried to anticipate every
possible disaster. The Towers were the first skyscrapers ever
explicitly built to survive the impact of a plane.
LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact
of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is,
to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a
lot of structure and still have it stand up.
Is there a more primary source than Mr. Robertson?
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
The more you know, the less likely you were to vote for Bush.
<http://shorterlink.com/?47TBP8>
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Marcello Penso
spamme...@pobox.com says...
> Quoth Anthony Marsh <ama...@quik.com> in
> news:10q03sp...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > http://www.punjabilok.com/america_under_attack/believed_tobe_safe
> > .htm
> >
> > "The towers were built to withstand the stresses of
> > hurricane-force winds and to survive the heat of ordinary fires.
> > After the 1993 trade center bombing, one of the engineers who
> > worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960's even
> > claimed that each one had been built to withstand the impact of
> > a fully loaded, fully fueled Boeing 707, then the heaviest
> > aircraft flying."
>
> This is supported by Leslie Robertson, one of the designers of the towers.
>
> From <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html>:
>
> The designers of the Trade Center tried to anticipate every
> possible disaster. The Towers were the first skyscrapers ever
> explicitly built to survive the impact of a plane.
>
> LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact
> of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is,
> to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a
> lot of structure and still have it stand up.
>
> Is there a more primary source than Mr. Robertson?
>
>
the exterior wall and the redundancy effects of the outerskin and inner
core columns. But, they did not consider (and could not have considered)
the impact of the fires caused by so much jet fuel. From the same
article:
NARRATOR: Leslie Robertson's radical design seemed to have worked, but
there was more devastating damage hidden inside. Although the aluminum
aircraft shattered on contact with the exterior wall, the speed and
force of the fragments and the intact steel engines severely damaged the
columns and stairwells in the core, and jet fuel began saturating the
building.
PAUL NEAL: Almost immediately after the impact, somewhat bizarrely, I
smelled an overwhelming stench of aviation fuel, Jet A1 gas, which I
recognized because I'm a private pilot and I'm used to airfield
environments. I recall smelling it and almost instantly dismissed it as
being illogical and didn't have any place in the World Trade Center.
NARRATOR: In an instant, the fuel ignited a massive fire that quickly
engulfed the damaged area, and this was something even Robertson had not
considered.
LESLIE ROBERTSON: With the 707, to the best of my knowledge, the fuel
load was not considered in the design. Indeed, I don't know how it could
have been considered.
CHARLES THORNTON: They didn't have the mathematical models in the
computers to model a fire as a result of the fuel in a 707. I was asked
in 1986 what would happen if a plane flew into the Trade Center. And I
said it would not knock the building down from the pure physics of the
mass hitting the building. But we...none of us really focused on that
kind of a fuel fire.
NARRATOR: Initial reports described the fire as "super hot" due to the
thousands of gallons of jet fuel carried by the plane. But the fire
experts on the study team found those reports to be wrong.
JONATHAN BARNETT: The role of the jet fuel...although it was hot, it
only lasted a short period of time. It's very similar to using lighter
fluid on a charcoal fire. It ignites the charcoal and then burns out.
Its main role was to ignite other combustibles and really start the
whole space burning at once.
NARRATOR: The fuel served to flash start the fire on several floors
instantaneously. And since sprinkler piping in the core was completely
destroyed, there was no water to slow down the blaze. Even worse, when
the core was struck, the building's three emergency exits were also
destroyed. So 950 people above the impact became trapped with no way out
of the growing inferno.
LESLIE ROBERTSON: The people above...obviously they were suffering
terribly, the people who elected to take their own destiny in their
hands by jumping...I mean, it must have been an incredibly awful place
above the impact."
The real problem which NOVA doesn't address either is that jet fuel,
while designed to burn quickly, does not separate from water like diesel
fuel.
http://dodgeram.org/tech/dsl/FAQ/diesel_fuel.htm
This means that for large fires, like in the WTC, water spraying systems
are ineffective. Foam works better.
http://64.233.167.104/search?
q=cache:9irErhSN4V8J:www.hess.com/downloads/documents/msds/JetA_0325
_clr.pdf+extinguishing+Jet+A1+fire&hl=en
"Major fires may require withdrawal, allowing the tank to burn. Large
storage tank fires typically require specially trained personnel and
equipment to extinguish the fire, often including the need for properly
applied fire fighting foam."
The problem is foam extinguishing systems are prohibitively expensive,
and rarely used in buildings. I remember a fire fighter at the Pentagon
making similar claims on the second or third day after 9/11, saying how
difficult it was to extinguish the fires there because the jet fuel had
been absorbed into the concrete/ stone, and that they needed to use
foam.
Bud
This is what I like about discussions with you, Tony. I state as
clear as I can what I mean. The statement you ask for clarification on
is clear. There is something wrong with a mindset that finds sinister
implications and governmental conspiracies behind every event. This
newgroup is loaded with examples of this. Kevin Ryan is fired, *they*
presuured Underwriters to fire him because he was asking questions.
Hell, asking people illegally parked on a lawn to move thier cars is
held up as an example of voter intimidation here. Shall I pretend this
is not stupid, crazy, paranoid thinking?
> Are you arguing that someone MUST agree with whatever
> you say simply because you say it?
No, Tony, if I wanted to say that it would look like this...
"Everyone should agree with what I say because I say it". Now that I
look at it, it`s not a bad idea, the world would be a better place if
this were implimented.
> That's dogma. That's fascism. It is
> not free thought.
The thought around here is way too free. Not every stupid thing
that pops into an idiot`s head should be treated with respect. "Reason
with reasonable people, ridicule ridiculous people", thats my motto.
> It is not scientific method.
Science is treated like a 5 dollar whore here.
>
> >
> >>but you need to stick to the facts.
> >
> >
> > C`mon, Tony, straighten me out.
>
> Look back through my old messages. That is what I do here all the time.
>
I am familiar with what you do here.
> >
> >
> >>In
> >>case you are not aware of it, there have been several incidents where
> >>planes crashed into buildings and the buildings did not come tumbling
> >>down.
> >
> >
> > I was aware of it. There are things called variables. Conspiracy
> > kooks often use thier expectations of results as evidence to justify
> > thier suspicions. You can`t prove a football player can`t be injured
> > on a given play, by offering as evidence that he was hit similiarly
> > the previous play without injury as proof.
> >
>
> Sounds like a jab and not an argument.
Isn`t all arguments and debates a battle? A jab, a poke, a feint,
all fair? But, there was a point beneath the jab, that you seem to
have missed. Often here, people`s expectations are offered as proof,
or at least evidence. People expectations that the Trade Towers should
not have been destroyed by those planes is offered as proof of
sinister activity. Another examle is when Ann Archy offered that time
a few years back when a guy died at the wheel of his plane, and was
intecepted by fighters as proof that this should have occurred on 9-11
with those highjacked planes also (that ignores that the plane with
the dead guy was intercepted by a plane that was already in the air on
a training mission, but that isn`t my point here). Just because
something occured in one case does not guarantee the same results in
all cases. If a ship sinks, and ten lifeboats launched, just because
you find one does not mean that all of them must now be found.
Likewise, the Rodney King video does not prove police bruality in all
cases a black suspect claims to have been assualted by police. It may
show it happens, but does not prove in occurs in all cases.
>
> >
> >>For instance the Empire State Building at the end of WWII.
> >
> >
> > Yah, that may not be comparing an apple with an orange, but at
> > least two very different types of apples. There may be ways that that
> > plane (b-29?, B-17?) may have struck the Empire State Building, and
> > caused it to collapse. In any case, I believe the Empire State
> > Building has much more mass in the upper stories than the WTC had.
>
> Jeez, isn't that what I just got through saying? Different conditions
> cause different results. You guessing may be very close to correct, but
> it is still guessing. Why not actually research it for fun?
Actually, I did look into this a bit. If you go to this link, and
read what this engineer has to say, you will see that he says that the
relatively lightweight stuctural members in the upper stories
contributed to the collapse.
http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
> >
> >
> >>I
> >>believe that the designers of the World Trade Center took factors like
> >>that into account and did not design the building so that it could fall
> >>down if struck by a plane in a similar manner.
> >
> >
> > I`m sure the designers looked at it. The structural engineers take a
> > lot of things into account. But quite obviously any design innovations
> > they implimented were insufficient to the task. If they calculated
>
> They designed for what they considered reasonable possibilities. They
> could not design it to withstand a nuclear attack.
They designed it to be office space.
>
> > that this structure could withstand a plane impact, then there must be
> > forces that they did not take into account in those calculations.
> >
>
> And additionally changes and defects could arise which would compromise
> their design.
Of course. NIST is being very careful in it`s investigation of this
event. Of course, nothing will satisfy the kooks with the conspiracy
mindset.
>
> >
> >>However, the particulars
> >>of this case were different enough that the planes did cause the
> >>conditions which caused the structural failures.
> >
> >
> > Thats what I`ve been saying for a week. When are you going to get
> > to the part where I strayed from the facts?
> >
> >
> >>FYI, almost all of
> >>Osama bin Laden's aides doubted that just the two planes could cause the
> >> towers to collapse. But Osama, being an expert in construction, told
> >>them that they would probably cause the towers to collapse.
> >
> >
> > I do remember that tape. Of course, the crackpots believe that was
> > faked, and in reality (as if they`ve even been there) Bush was behind
> > the attacks. Be that as it may, I think you overstate OBL being an
> > "expert in construction".
>
> That was his occupation. That was his training.
Yah, if I remember correctly, that is what he says on the tape,
that he had training in this field. But, you claimed he was "an expert
in construction". Are these two things the same?
Bud
No kidding, Tony, I can find that repeated on dozens of conspiracy
sites. What I would like to see is the primary source for this
assertion. Just because everyone repeats the same thing, doesn`t make
it so, they could all be working off the same erroneous source. The
offical document with the calculations would be nice. .John had an
excellent submittal outlining this very thing. He looked into the
assertion that Nixon thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK
assassination. Turned out all the sites posting this were all
repeating erroneous information contained in a BBC report, if I
remember correctly.
Tom Betz
news:fc87368f.04112...@posting.google.com:
> What I would like to see is the primary source for this
> assertion.
Is there a more primary source than Leslie Robertson, one of the
designers of the towers?
From <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html>:
The designers of the Trade Center tried to anticipate every
possible disaster. The Towers were the first skyscrapers ever
explicitly built to survive the impact of a plane.
LESLIE ROBERTSON: We had designed the project for the impact
of the largest airplane of its time, the Boeing 707, that is,
to take this jet airplane, run it into the building, destroy a
lot of structure and still have it stand up.
--
First_Blood
Here we go again with your brilliant theory "planes flew into building,
building not standing anymore".
BTW, I`m still waiting
> for you to supply the primary source for your claim that the WTC
> Towers were designed to withstand a plane impact.
Keep waiting. Hint:Are you calling the designers big fat liars?
To the reader: Need I say more?
Umm, no. The designers made the claim.
To the reader: Need I say more?
You have yet to supply the primary source of the claim
> that the WTC Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact.
You obviously can't read if you think this.
Also, you
> can explain what you base you claim of no "significant difference"
> between the different planes when calculating thier effects on a Tower
> impact.
Do I need to when the specifications of theses two aircraft are so readily
available with a very high percentage of theses specifics posted within your
little sheep argument?
To the reader: Need I say more?
> >
> > >
> > > > The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
> > > > The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
> > > >
> > > > The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
> > > > The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
> > > >
> > > > The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
> > > > The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
To the reader: Need I say more?
> > > > But, it seems that the Towers did
> > > > > not read this article, and did not know they were not supposed to
fall
> > > > > from a plane striking them. And it is unclear who made the
assertion
> > > > > that the planes could withstand a collision from a 707.
> > > >
> > > > It maybe unclear to you, moron.
> > >
> > > Then clarify it. Who said the WTC Towers wee designed to withstand
> > > a collision with a 707? And if you could, show the calculations that
> > > arrived at that conclusion.
> >
> > Need I say more?
>
> Yah, you could provide the requested information.
To the reader: Need I say more?
Where did you get
> the idea that the WTC were designed to withstand a collision with a
> 707? Please, direct me to the original document that contains that
> information.
To the reader: Need I say more?
To the reader: Need I say more?
The
> existance of the Rodney King video does not prove police brutality in
> every case where a black man claims the police brutalized him.
Police brutality?
You
> can`t just use "it happens" as your sole source of evidence.
You have more reading to do, Bud
To the reader: Need I say more?
In any
> case, I was supplying quotes from the lead structural designer of the
> WTC Towers.
Please forgive me, can you refresh my recollection on this? I seem to
remember you refrencing joe six pack (Clifton) structural enginneer.
In those quotes, he does not express the silly idea you
> have latched on to, that planes could not have taken down those
> structures.
I'd like to see these.
What does the term "whistleblower" have to do with this?
I know you are a confused and I don't wholly blame you with all this
confusing data and statements around that is contradictory. The BPAT admits
they are unsure of why the towers collapsed after all.
> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And gasoline worked?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A combination of factors led to the collapse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope. Buildings designed to handle aircraft impact. fires not
hot
> > enough
> > to
> > > > > > affect steel. In fact, the findins by the NIST have shoewn them
to
> > be
> > well
> > > > > > below the stress levels of the rated steel.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not true. It said fires didn`t get hot enough most places, not
all.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you can cite this statement from the NIST Report.
> > > >
> > > I`ve addressed the heat from the fire issue in a recent response.
> >
> > You just can't provide the cite much like Clifton's link which was a
real
> > knee slapper.
>
> Go to the NIST site. Read the NIST reports for yourself. Or latch
> onto factiods you don`t understand, and make a fool out of yourself.
> Up to you.
Are you suggesting that I haven't read the reports?
> > > More qualified than who, Kevin Ryan? I asked his qualifications,
> > > and you claimed asking this was a strawman argument. I think I have
> > > the same qualifications in structural engineering as he has, namely,
> > > none.
> >
> > Incomplete and evasive answer, Bud. Read the question again.
> > Are you more qualified and or closer to the investigations than the
> > referenced people or not?
> > I already know the answer but please, for the record.
Are you, Bud? For the record.
>
> NIST is closest and most qualified to report on the investigation.
> Read, or have someone read to you, thier findings.
> > > >
> > > > > > > <snicker> Nosepickers assert what physicists and engineers
seem
> > > > > > > unare of. They latch on to the most simplistic factoids, in
order
> > to
> > > > > > > entertain thier fantasies. Real physicists and engineers have
> > > > > > > concluded that those planes could and did cause those Towers
to
> > fall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With no compelling data.
> > > > >
> > > > > Compelling to who, conpiracy kooks?
> > > >
> > > > Compelling to the profession, moronic shill.
> > >
> > > Actually, if you searched around, you would see that numerous
> > > Architectural and Engineering associations have looked into this
> > > matter. The University of Massachusetts has done a study on why
> > > certain connections failed. It has quite the buzz in the related
> > > fields. But, you will ignore all thier conclusions if they don`t
> > > include crackpot nonsense.
> >
> > I have knowledge of this study. By the way, do you agree with Eager?
>
> Dunno. Does he think it impossible for planes to have knocked down
> both WTC Towers? If so, I disagree with him.
Eager-MIT, you don't know if you agree?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > This data actually contradicts their findings and
> > > > > > the ever changing summaries.
> > > > > > The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did
> > they
> > not?
> > > > > >
> > > > > So unless they can pinpoint the exact cause, that allows you to
> > > > > imagine any crackpot cause you wish? Perhaps it was aliens, these
> > > > > reports didn`t specifically rule them out.
> > > >
> > > > You cannot answer a question, BUD. The BPAT admits they are unsure
of
> > why
> > > > the towers collapsed, did they not?
> > >
> > > NIST has recentlly released thier latest findings on why the Towers
> > > fell. Go to thier site if you are interested in reading the results of
> > > the structural engineers looking into this matter. There may never be
> > > a presisely provable theory, which doesn`t mean that every crackpot
> > > can invent thier own, and have it be considered plausible.
> >
> > Yes or no, Bud.
>
> I will answer in as many words, and in any manner, I see fit.
Evasion noted, Bud.
>
> > The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the towers collapsed, did they
not?
>
> Did you read what I wrote?
Yes, I most certainly did, Bud. The BPAT admits they are unsure of why the
towers collapsed. Why is it then that they (and you) have gone to all this
trouble with the illusion that they do? Why is it that you attack the people
that show the contradictions and disinformation of the summary statements?
Just because an investigation does not
> declare they know the precise cause does not mean that illogical and
> stupid theories are as valid as reasoned logical plausible theories.
Illogical, stupid?
> Did you read NIST`s latest findings on the Tower`s collapse?
Yes, is there anything in particular you'd like to bring forth?
>
> >
> > >
> > > > Do you admit the (test) data actually
> > > > contradicts their findings and
> > > > the ever changing summaries?
> > > >
> > > You and Kevin Ryan do not understand the test data. I addressed
> > > this in another response elsewhere, also.
And I have replied to this statement elsewhere.
> >
> > You deny that the test findings and the summary contradict one another?
>
> You misunderstand the test findings.
Yes or no bud?
The paint test tested paint
> that was under the protective layers of fire insulating foam that
> covers all the steel in the WTC. On the columns that had that
> insulating covering knocked off, the paint was burned off, and could
> not be tested by paint testing. All those testing findings show is
> that when it isn`t knocked off, that insulating material does the job
> it was intended for, keeping the steel protected from heat. The
> columns that didn`t have thier fire-proof foam covering knocked off
> never got heated beyond 250 degrees Celsius. That does not mean that
> the fires weren`t hotter than that, in fact the metallurigical tests
> on the steel show heat upwards of 675 degrees Celsius. All the
> information is on the NIST site, go, read, learn.
No test done on (naked) rated steel to validate and complete the findings.
To the reader: need I say more?
Bud
Well, Tony, I took your advice and did some research. I tried to
find the original source for the claim that the WTC Towers were
designed to withstand the impact of a 707. I think I did find it, but
I`m not sure, I think it was contained in a New York Times article
after the `93 bombing attack of the Towers. I can`t tell for sure,
they want 3 bucks and a credit card number to view the article in
thier archives. Anyway, further searching led me to this BBS News
article from march 7th, 2002...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1858491.stm
this excerpt is from that article...
Leslie Robertson designed the structural elements of the WTC towers
to withstand the impact of the largest airliner then in service, the
Boeing 707. "With the 707 however, to the best of my knowledge, the
fuel load was not considered in the design." he told [BBC] Horizon.
You see the problem. Conspiracy crackpots keep repeating a factoid
they don`t understand, that the planes were designed to withstand such
an impact. Yet the designer admits important omissions in his
calculations. Not only that, but no one claimed that it was the
*impact* that collapsed those buildings, only that that was one of the
factors (along with high heat, ect). Legions of these kooks are
latching onto little snippets of information, and pasting them
together to justify thier crackpot theories. They have not the least
bit of knowledge in the fields of science in question, yet think they
can figure these things out with no common sense, no knowledge, and
faulty information. I`m thinking we should listen to the experts, and
not these nosepickers. And I`m thinking that the mindest that
entertains these crackpot theoeries should be called what it is, at
the least stupidity, and in it`s most severe manifestations, paranoid
insanity.
Anthony Marsh
You are confused. It was the TOWERS not the planes which were designed
to withstand such an impact. I don't think that Boeing ran that type of
test to see if its plane could withstand such an impact. We are
concerned with the buildings, not the planes.
> calculations. Not only that, but no one claimed that it was the
> *impact* that collapsed those buildings, only that that was one of the
> factors (along with high heat, ect). Legions of these kooks are
I don't know about the legions of kooks (and they certainly are legion),
but someone here was talking about ONLY the impact as one element and
that the designer had taken into account the IMPACT. You doubted that
and asked for a cite. Provided.
If you'll notice, I and several others have pointed out the other
factors which caused the towers to fall. It was not just the impact. The
designers could not plan for every element.
> latching onto little snippets of information, and pasting them
> together to justify thier crackpot theories. They have not the least
> bit of knowledge in the fields of science in question, yet think they
> can figure these things out with no common sense, no knowledge, and
> faulty information. I`m thinking we should listen to the experts, and
You should never listen to the experts. The experts always lie and
always cover up. The key as you point out is a well-rounded education
with some familiarity in the sciences. A little practical experience or
experimentation can also help. Not hard to bend steel if you heat it up.
> not these nosepickers. And I`m thinking that the mindest that
> entertains these crackpot theoeries should be called what it is, at
> the least stupidity, and in it`s most severe manifestations, paranoid
> insanity.
>
It's more than that. There is a parallel to the JFK assassination in
that some conspiracy minded people will latch onto any tragedy and try
to prove that their favorite enemy, be it the CIA or Israeli or the
Nazis, must have been behind it. Then they mold the facts to fit their
suspect.
Anthony Marsh
You should have seen that posted by now. If you missed it then there may
be something wrong with your newsserver.
> assertion. Just because everyone repeats the same thing, doesn`t make
> it so, they could all be working off the same erroneous source. The
No, not erroneous source. You can claim that the designer of the towers
was an idiot and didn't know what he was talking about. That's fine with
me. But that was not the point you made. You were suggesting that he
never even offered that opinion, that people were just making it up. If
you really believe someone made it up, why don't you call the guy
yourself and ask him if that's really what he said?
> offical document with the calculations would be nice. .John had an
I don't think that is online. All I have seen is his statement.
> excellent submittal outlining this very thing. He looked into the
> assertion that Nixon thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK
> assassination. Turned out all the sites posting this were all
> repeating erroneous information contained in a BBC report, if I
> remember correctly.
>
Not quite. The exact quote was in dispute and what it meant. But Nixon
himself did believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
It would be nice if we lived in a world where we never had to be
paranoid. But if you're not paranoid then you aren't paying attention.
Not everything can be a plot, but many things are. The government
prosecutes people for conspiracy every day.
>
>>Are you arguing that someone MUST agree with whatever
>>you say simply because you say it?
>
>
> No, Tony, if I wanted to say that it would look like this...
> "Everyone should agree with what I say because I say it". Now that I
> look at it, it`s not a bad idea, the world would be a better place if
> this were implimented.
>
Nah, you wouldn't make it THAT obvious. You'd try to say the same thing
disguising it with a rhetorical technique.
>
>>That's dogma. That's fascism. It is
>>not free thought.
>
>
> The thought around here is way too free. Not every stupid thing
> that pops into an idiot`s head should be treated with respect. "Reason
> with reasonable people, ridicule ridiculous people", thats my motto.
>
Nothing wrong with that. But you would probably be on the side of the
Church ridiculing Galileo's "ridiculous" idea that the Earth is round.
>
>>It is not scientific method.
>
>
> Science is treated like a 5 dollar whore here.
>
>>>>but you need to stick to the facts.
>>>
>>>
>>> C`mon, Tony, straighten me out.
>>
>>Look back through my old messages. That is what I do here all the time.
>>
>
> I am familiar with what you do here.
>
>>>
>>>>In
>>>>case you are not aware of it, there have been several incidents where
>>>>planes crashed into buildings and the buildings did not come tumbling
>>>>down.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was aware of it. There are things called variables. Conspiracy
>>>kooks often use thier expectations of results as evidence to justify
>>>thier suspicions. You can`t prove a football player can`t be injured
>>>on a given play, by offering as evidence that he was hit similiarly
>>>the previous play without injury as proof.
>>>
>>
>>Sounds like a jab and not an argument.
>
>
> Isn`t all arguments and debates a battle? A jab, a poke, a feint,
> all fair? But, there was a point beneath the jab, that you seem to
> have missed. Often here, people`s expectations are offered as proof,
> or at least evidence. People expectations that the Trade Towers should
> not have been destroyed by those planes is offered as proof of
> sinister activity. Another examle is when Ann Archy offered that time
The destruction of the towers was a sinister activity. Where have you
been? It was a plot. It was a conspiracy. Bin Laden was planning it for
over 7 years, slowly and carefully. Just as he is doing right now for
his final attack.
> a few years back when a guy died at the wheel of his plane, and was
> intecepted by fighters as proof that this should have occurred on 9-11
> with those highjacked planes also (that ignores that the plane with
> the dead guy was intercepted by a plane that was already in the air on
> a training mission, but that isn`t my point here). Just because
Intercepting the planes after they were hijacked is an entirely
different discussion and gets into matters of incompetence and reduced
security precautions. There was no standdown to allow the attacks to
succeed.
> something occured in one case does not guarantee the same results in
> all cases. If a ship sinks, and ten lifeboats launched, just because
> you find one does not mean that all of them must now be found.
> Likewise, the Rodney King video does not prove police bruality in all
> cases a black suspect claims to have been assualted by police. It may
> show it happens, but does not prove in occurs in all cases.
>
>>>>For instance the Empire State Building at the end of WWII.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yah, that may not be comparing an apple with an orange, but at
>>>least two very different types of apples. There may be ways that that
>>>plane (b-29?, B-17?) may have struck the Empire State Building, and
>>>caused it to collapse. In any case, I believe the Empire State
>>>Building has much more mass in the upper stories than the WTC had.
>>
>>Jeez, isn't that what I just got through saying? Different conditions
>>cause different results. You guessing may be very close to correct, but
>>it is still guessing. Why not actually research it for fun?
>
>
> Actually, I did look into this a bit. If you go to this link, and
> read what this engineer has to say, you will see that he says that the
> relatively lightweight stuctural members in the upper stories
> contributed to the collapse.
>
> http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
>
I can not prove this right now, but I believe that the plan was to hit
the towers at a specific level.
>
>>>
>>>>I
>>>>believe that the designers of the World Trade Center took factors like
>>>>that into account and did not design the building so that it could fall
>>>>down if struck by a plane in a similar manner.
>>>
>>>
>>> I`m sure the designers looked at it. The structural engineers take a
>>>lot of things into account. But quite obviously any design innovations
>>>they implimented were insufficient to the task. If they calculated
>>
>>They designed for what they considered reasonable possibilities. They
>>could not design it to withstand a nuclear attack.
>
>
> They designed it to be office space.
Office space can be designed to withstand a nuclear attack.
>
>>>that this structure could withstand a plane impact, then there must be
>>>forces that they did not take into account in those calculations.
>>>
>>
>>And additionally changes and defects could arise which would compromise
>>their design.
>
>
> Of course. NIST is being very careful in it`s investigation of this
> event. Of course, nothing will satisfy the kooks with the conspiracy
> mindset.
>
A very careful cover-up.
>>>>However, the particulars
>>>>of this case were different enough that the planes did cause the
>>>>conditions which caused the structural failures.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thats what I`ve been saying for a week. When are you going to get
>>>to the part where I strayed from the facts?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>FYI, almost all of
>>>>Osama bin Laden's aides doubted that just the two planes could cause the
>>>> towers to collapse. But Osama, being an expert in construction, told
>>>>them that they would probably cause the towers to collapse.
>>>
>>>
>>> I do remember that tape. Of course, the crackpots believe that was
>>>faked, and in reality (as if they`ve even been there) Bush was behind
>>>the attacks. Be that as it may, I think you overstate OBL being an
>>>"expert in construction".
>>
>>That was his occupation. That was his training.
>
>
> Yah, if I remember correctly, that is what he says on the tape,
> that he had training in this field. But, you claimed he was "an expert
> in construction". Are these two things the same?
I am not talking about what HE said. I am talking about what others who
knew him said and what the CIA profile says.
Have you seen the Frontline specials from a few years ago? You may be
able to find the transcripts online.
Ted Gittinger
> >
> >
> > The thought around here is way too free. Not every stupid thing
> > that pops into an idiot`s head should be treated with respect. "Reason
> > with reasonable people, ridicule ridiculous people", thats my motto.
> >
>
> Nothing wrong with that. But you would probably be on the side of the
> Church ridiculing Galileo's "ridiculous" idea that the Earth is round.
Oops. There is where you should have consulted the experts, March,
instead of your well-rounded education and some acquaintance with the
sciences. Remember?
The Church did not silence Galileo because he asserted that the earth was
round. Many people with "some acquaintance with the sciences" might believe
you when you claim that, unless they next consulted with the experts, who
could set them straight (despite the well-known propensity of experts to lie
and cover up, as you advised us).
Can you spell "heliocentric?"
ted
tutor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Marcello Penso
sirs...@fast.net says...
> Who needs data when you had a demonstration? BTW, I`m still waiting
> for you to supply the primary source for your claim that the WTC
> Towers were designed to withstand a plane impact.
At:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html
you can find a transcript where Leslie himself makes the claim that 707s
were considered for structural impact (but not for fire load)
> > > > There is not a significant difference between these two aircraft.
> > >
> > > Have you seen the study saying the WTC could withstand a 707
> > > impact? If not, how can you know a bigger plane wouldn`t have a
> > > "significant difference" on those calculations?
> >
> > Do read up on the designers and the design of the WTC for answers to your
> > questions.
>
> You were making the claim, I thought you were privy to that
> information. You have yet to supply the primary source of the claim
> that the WTC Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact. Also, you
> can explain what you base you claim of no "significant difference"
> between the different planes when calculating thier effects on a Tower
> impact.
>
First Blood is obfuscating again. The dimensions of the planes are
immaterial. The critical difference here is weight, which times the
acceleration would produce the shear forces active on impact. The 707,
on average, was a lighter plane than the 767, as can be seen here.
http://64.233.167.104/search?
q=cache:FYb2TpOVW_kJ:www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/faqs/lcg-
lcn.pdf+767+707+weight&hl=en
Splitting the difference between maximum ramp weight and operating empty
weights, 707s would have weighed 200,000 lbs, on average, or 100 tons.
This may have been the design criteria used by Leslie's team.
767-300 could have been 300,000 lbs (or the 150 tons deduced by
Clifton.) This is a 100,000 lb (50 ton) difference, which, when
multiplied by the speed of 500-600 mph, would have been an extremely
significant difference in terms of shear forces acting on the steel. 550
mph translates to 807 feet per second, so the difference would have been
80,700,000 million pounds per feet per second or 40,350 tons per feet
per sec, a very significant difference.
Siobhan Medeiros
> Bud wrote:
> >
> > "First_Blood" <First...@exposed.net> wrote in message news:<etcmd.6555$GV4.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...> > > news:fc87368f.04111...@posting.google.com...> news:<I9Yld.5805$GV4.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...> > > > > news:MPG.1c01dcc75...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> > > > > > In article <ue9cp0pagfq2cg48a...@4ax.com>,
> be...@gbta.net
> > > > > > says...
> > > > > > > On 12 Nov 2004 08:52:09 -0800, tim.h...@nc.uas.lul.se (Tim
> Howells)
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > I am no conspiracy nut, but I have long wondered about the
> > > > > > > temperatures claimed on 9-11. Melting steel in burning diesel fuel
> > > > > > > (which is what jet aircraft fuel is) is not possible unless somehow
> > > > > > > huge amounts of oxygen are imported into the flame, and it occurs
> > > > > > > within some sort of confinement. (That's what a jet engine does)
> > > > > > > That's just common sense. If you want to find out for yourself,
> place
> > > > > > > some steel in a trash can along with a lot of paper and a couple of
> > > > > > > gallons of diesel fuel and light the fire. See what happens.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It won't even melt copper. Probably not even beer cans.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > You don't need to make steel red hot (much less melt it) for it to
> > > > > > structurally fail, particularly under the conditions that were present
> > > > > > at the towers. Steel will generally start to lose it's structural
> > > > > > integrity at 500F to 750F, and it rapidly goes from there. In the case
> > > > > > of the WTCs, steel columns at the core and possibly the perimeter were
> > > > > > exposed to heat, would have started to lose their capacity to axially
> > > > > > resist the dead weight of the floors above. If one or two floors were
> > > > > > missing, the unbraced length of these 'longer' columns would have been
> > > > > > the critical factor. Since the towers only had a core of columns and
> the
> > > > > > outer skin of columns, with no intermediate vertical structural
> > > > > > redundancy, collapse was inevitable.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. Gayle,
> > > > >
> > > > > Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need
> to
> > > > > contact you directly.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel
> components
> > > > > used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information
> > > > > from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I
> learned
> > > > > that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except
> for
> > > > > one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They
> > > > > suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your
> > > > > team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's
> > > > > attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor
> > > > > assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the
> > > > > buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by
> pools of
> > > > > burning jet fuel.
> > > >
> > > > Charles Clifton of the New Zealand Heavy Engineering Research
> > > > Association has to say about why they fell... "The force exerted by
> > > > the impact of the planes took out the core supporting structures of at
> > > > least 3 floors, causing the floors above them to sag.
> > >
> > > To bad Mr Clifton provides nothing to back this claim up, nor you.
> >
> > Well, this engineer offers a reasonable explaination for the
> > collapse of those towers. That the planes that everyone saw strike the
> > buildings caused sufficient damage to the towers to lead to thier
> > collapse. Since no other reasonable explaination exists to explain
> > thier collapse, we are left with hypothesis such as this as the only
> > explaination there could be.
>
>
> Sherlock Holmes, you ain't.
>
> Something that agrees with the laws of physics is very likely the real
> cause
> of the collapse.
I have a B.Sc in Physics. Let me clue you in on a few things:
Anything will go through anything if you give it enough velocity.
Head down to the midwest and have them show you straws embedded into
trees by the force of a tornado.
>
> I'll bet that you couldn't take down a single reinforcement collumn with
> a 747.
2,977,789,639 joules = 1 ton of TNT
One 747 = 875,000 lbs, or 388000 kg.
Velocity = 400mph, or 180 m/s
Energy of impact = 1/2 mv^2 = 0.5 * (388000kg)*(180)^2
=6,285,000,000 Joules, or two tons of TNT.
Think that couldn't take out a column?
>
> Jet fuel is merely 110 octane gasoline.
Which, pound for pound, contains more energy that dynamite.
>
> You are talking about melting steel walls into puddles, not weakening
> them.
>
Nope, he's talking about weakening them. Weakened steel beams might
have a difficult time holding up 110 stories of skyscraper, don't you
think?
> Weakened steel doesn't melt.
>
> It requires that it be melted.
Doesn't have to melt to collapse, only sufficiently weakened.
>
> In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
>
> They failed.
With a fraction of the amount of energy contained in the 747 impact in
the wrong place.
>
> And gasoline worked?
>
> Afraid not.
>
> >
> > > > As the fire
> > > > weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
> > > > until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
> > >
> > > "But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
> > > have
> > > easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
> >
> > Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
> > fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
> > supports.
>
>
> Aluminum doesn't displace steel at any speed.
Anything will go through anything if you give it enough velocity.
Head down to the midwest and have them show you straws embedded into
trees by the force of a tornado.
Lead is far softer than steel, for example. Throw a .22 slug at a
steel stop sign, and it won't go through. Fire it out of a gun, and
you've got a nice hole.
>
> You must be a booger engineer, because you don't know shit.
On the contrary, I am a very good engineer. It's you that don't know
shit.
>
> > > Kevin Ryan
> > >
> > > Site Manager
> > > Environmental Health Laboratories
> > > A Division of Underwriters Laboratories
> >
> > These credentials do no establish Kevin Ryan to be an engineer.
>
> Credentials don't negate physics.
>
> Just to Bush and his supporters.
Bush and his supporters don't understand physics. Neither do you.
>
> Kinda like invading Iraq after no Iraqi killed any Americans.
>
> It isn't supported by physics.
It isn't supported by logic. There's a difference.
>
> Retalliation without a cause is against the laws of physics.
No, it's against the laws of morality and logic. Physics has squat to
do with it.
See above
>
> Go outside and make an aluminum foil airplane and take down a stop sign.
Throw that same plane at 400mph, and you just might. They make
arrowheads out of aluminum, you know. Stand in front of those and get
back to me.
>
> Then come back and explain "force equals mass times accelleration" to us
> all.
F=ma. So what?
>
> The airliners contained insuffient mass or acceleration to weaken the
> steel
> by force.
Two tons of TNT in insufficient? LOL.
>
> Even explosives would have a hard time.
>
> Thermite is the most likely cause of the collapse.
>
> It burns through steel easily.
>
> The explosives used in 1993 were inneffective too.
>
> It's very hard to explode through a steel support collumn.
I'm confused: are you arguing for or against yourself? First you say
a plane couldn't have done it, now you say explosvies couldn't. What
was it, beavers?
>
> The force required would be astronomical.
>
Learn some and you'll find out for sure.
Anthony Marsh
Doesn't have to be 110 stories. Depends on where it hits. Could be only
35-40 stories. Where the planes hit may have been a critical factor, as
we see a difference in when each tower fell.
>
>>Weakened steel doesn't melt.
>>
>>It requires that it be melted.
>
>
> Doesn't have to melt to collapse, only sufficiently weakened.
>
>
>>In 1993 they tried to blow up the supports with professional explosives.
>>
>>They failed.
>
>
>
> With a fraction of the amount of energy contained in the 747 impact in
> the wrong place.
>
>
>>And gasoline worked?
>>
>>Afraid not.
>>
>>
>>>>>As the fire
>>>>>weakened the supporting columns, this effect became more exaggerated
>>>>>until the floors collapsed on top of each other..."
>>>>
>>>>"But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should
>>>>have
>>>>easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel."
>>>
>>> Again, this is only looking at one aspect, the heat from the jet
>>>fuel, not the damage done by the planes taking out structural
>>>supports.
>>
>>
>>Aluminum doesn't displace steel at any speed.
>
>
> Anything will go through anything if you give it enough velocity.
> Head down to the midwest and have them show you straws embedded into
> trees by the force of a tornado.
>
Even water will cut steel if it has enough velocity.
Bud
Yah, thats why I quoted comments from the designer of the TOWERS
about his computations on whether his TOWERS could withstand the
impact of planes. I`m talking about the TOWERS, but using words you
apparently don`t understand.
>
> > calculations. Not only that, but no one claimed that it was the
> > *impact* that collapsed those buildings, only that that was one of the
> > factors (along with high heat, ect). Legions of these kooks are
>
> I don't know about the legions of kooks (and they certainly are legion),
> but someone here was talking about ONLY the impact as one element and
> that the designer had taken into account the IMPACT. You doubted that
> and asked for a cite. Provided.
No, I asked for a primary source. I wanted to be able to see the
documentation that included the calculations about whether that plane
could withstand an impact with a passenger plane. It`s irrelevant to
me now, as I found that passage from the designer himself admitting
there may have been glaring omissions in his calculations, i.e., not
taking into account the fuel load.
> If you'll notice, I and several others have pointed out the other
> factors which caused the towers to fall. It was not just the impact. The
> designers could not plan for every element.
Wow, Tony, I`ve only been saying it was a combination of factors
for over a week. If you want to jump in the middle of a discussion,
familiarize yourself with the positions of the people you intend to
challenge.
>
> > latching onto little snippets of information, and pasting them
> > together to justify thier crackpot theories. They have not the least
> > bit of knowledge in the fields of science in question, yet think they
> > can figure these things out with no common sense, no knowledge, and
> > faulty information. I`m thinking we should listen to the experts, and
>
> You should never listen to the experts.
No, Tony, you should never listen to the experts. They can only
confuse you with reasoned analysis.
> The experts always lie and
> always cover up.
And you always say stupid things.
> The key as you point out is a well-rounded education
> with some familiarity in the sciences. A little practical experience or
> experimentation can also help. Not hard to bend steel if you heat it up.
>
> > not these nosepickers. And I`m thinking that the mindest that
> > entertains these crackpot theoeries should be called what it is, at
> > the least stupidity, and in it`s most severe manifestations, paranoid
> > insanity.
> >
>
> It's more than that. There is a parallel to the JFK assassination in
> that some conspiracy minded people will latch onto any tragedy and try
> to prove that their favorite enemy, be it the CIA or Israeli or the
> Nazis, must have been behind it. Then they mold the facts to fit their
> suspect.
It goes much deeper than that, and the similarities are striking. In
both cases, the kooks latch onto factoids to justify thier crackpot
fantasies.
Bud
I can do better than that, I can give a quote from him admitting
that he believes the calculations that led to that assertion were
flawed. "With the 707 [his caluculations of a 707 impact on the
Towers], the fuel load was not considered in the design [the design
features meant to help withstand such an impact]" he [Leslie
Robertson, the lead structural designer of the WTC Towers]told [BBC]
Horizon. The bracketed information I provided, so that you can
understand what you are reading, you seemed unsure in your previous
response.
> That's fine with
> me. But that was not the point you made. You were suggesting that he
> never even offered that opinion, that people were just making it up. If
> you really believe someone made it up, why don't you call the guy
> yourself and ask him if that's really what he said?
>
> > offical document with the calculations would be nice. .John had an
>
> I don't think that is online. All I have seen is his statement.
Yah, I saw that statement all over. I wanted to see the document
that had the computations and calculations. I never thought I would be
so lucky as to find a quote from him personally admitting that the
calculations that led to that assessment might be flawed.
>
> > excellent submittal outlining this very thing. He looked into the
> > assertion that Nixon thought there was a conspiracy in the JFK
> > assassination. Turned out all the sites posting this were all
> > repeating erroneous information contained in a BBC report, if I
> > remember correctly.
> >
>
> Not quite. The exact quote was in dispute and what it meant. But Nixon
> himself did believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy.
I may check that, and get back to you. Or not.
Bud
fuck it has to do with what I said, I don`t know, but thanks anyway.
>
> >
> >>Are you arguing that someone MUST agree with whatever
> >>you say simply because you say it?
> >
> >
> > No, Tony, if I wanted to say that it would look like this...
> > "Everyone should agree with what I say because I say it". Now that I
> > look at it, it`s not a bad idea, the world would be a better place if
> > this were implimented.
> >
>
> Nah, you wouldn't make it THAT obvious. You'd try to say the same thing
> disguising it with a rhetorical technique.
But I haven`t a chance of getting that past a clever person such as
yourself, eh? I wouldn`t try to hard trying to read into what I mean
from what I say. Just concentrate on reading what I say, and you won`t
have as much problem understanding what I mean.
>
> >
> >>That's dogma. That's fascism. It is
> >>not free thought.
> >
> >
> > The thought around here is way too free. Not every stupid thing
> > that pops into an idiot`s head should be treated with respect. "Reason
> > with reasonable people, ridicule ridiculous people", thats my motto.
> >
>
> Nothing wrong with that. But you would probably be on the side of the
> Church ridiculing Galileo's "ridiculous" idea that the Earth is round.
Galileo`s dispute with the Church was over whether the Sun, and not
the Earth, was at the center of our solar system, not whether the
earth was round. I corrected you before on this, but you may have been
too busy trying to determine what I mean from what I say.
>
> >
> >>It is not scientific method.
> >
> >
> > Science is treated like a 5 dollar whore here.
> >
> >>>>but you need to stick to the facts.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> C`mon, Tony, straighten me out.
> >>
> >>Look back through my old messages. That is what I do here all the time.
> >>
> >
> > I am familiar with what you do here.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>In
> >>>>case you are not aware of it, there have been several incidents where
> >>>>planes crashed into buildings and the buildings did not come tumbling
> >>>>down.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I was aware of it. There are things called variables. Conspiracy
> >>>kooks often use thier expectations of results as evidence to justify
> >>>thier suspicions. You can`t prove a football player can`t be injured
> >>>on a given play, by offering as evidence that he was hit similiarly
> >>>the previous play without injury as proof.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Sounds like a jab and not an argument.
> >
> >
> > Isn`t all arguments and debates a battle? A jab, a poke, a feint,
> > all fair? But, there was a point beneath the jab, that you seem to
> > have missed. Often here, people`s expectations are offered as proof,
> > or at least evidence. People expectations that the Trade Towers should
> > not have been destroyed by those planes is offered as proof of
> > sinister activity. Another example is when Ann Archy offered that time
>
> The destruction of the towers was a sinister activity.
"Peoples expectations that the Trade Towers should not have been
destroyed by those planes is offered of proof of sinister activity."
The expectation that planes alone could not destroy those buildings if
offered as proof by kooks that there must be other, sininster,
unexplained forces that did cause them to collapse.
> Where have you
> been? It was a plot. It was a conspiracy. Bin Laden was planning it for
> over 7 years, slowly and carefully. Just as he is doing right now for
> his final attack.
>
> > a few years back when a guy died at the wheel of his plane, and was
> > intecepted by fighters as proof that this should have occurred on 9-11
> > with those highjacked planes also (that ignores that the plane with
> > the dead guy was intercepted by a plane that was already in the air on
> > a training mission, but that isn`t my point here). Just because
>
> Intercepting the planes after they were hijacked is an entirely
> different discussion and gets into matters of incompetence and reduced
> security precautions. There was no standdown to allow the attacks to
> succeed.
Of course not.
>
>
> > something occured in one case does not guarantee the same results in
> > all cases. If a ship sinks, and ten lifeboats launched, just because
> > you find one does not mean that all of them must now be found.
> > Likewise, the Rodney King video does not prove police bruality in all
> > cases a black suspect claims to have been assualted by police. It may
> > show it happens, but does not prove in occurs in all cases.
> >
> >>>>For instance the Empire State Building at the end of WWII.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Yah, that may not be comparing an apple with an orange, but at
> >>>least two very different types of apples. There may be ways that that
> >>>plane (b-29?, B-17?) may have struck the Empire State Building, and
> >>>caused it to collapse. In any case, I believe the Empire State
> >>>Building has much more mass in the upper stories than the WTC had.
> >>
> >>Jeez, isn't that what I just got through saying? Different conditions
> >>cause different results. You guessing may be very close to correct, but
> >>it is still guessing. Why not actually research it for fun?
> >
> >
> > Actually, I did look into this a bit. If you go to this link, and
> > read what this engineer has to say, you will see that he says that the
> > relatively lightweight stuctural members in the upper stories
> > contributed to the collapse.
> >
> > http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/select/clifton/p1.htm
> >
>
> I can not prove this right now, but I believe that the plan was to hit
> the towers at a specific level.
OK, fine. My main battle is with the people who refuse to believe
that those planes (or forces unleashed by those planes) caused those
structures to collapse.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>>>I
> >>>>believe that the designers of the World Trade Center took factors like
> >>>>that into account and did not design the building so that it could fall
> >>>>down if struck by a plane in a similar manner.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I`m sure the designers looked at it. The structural engineers take a
> >>>lot of things into account. But quite obviously any design innovations
> >>>they implimented were insufficient to the task. If they calculated
> >>
> >>They designed for what they considered reasonable possibilities. They
> >>could not design it to withstand a nuclear attack.
> >
> >
> > They designed it to be office space.
>
> Office space can be designed to withstand a nuclear attack.
No doubt. But a building that was built with the primary function
of withstand a plane impact and resulting carnage would be constructed
differently than the WTC Towers were.
>
> >
> >>>that this structure could withstand a plane impact, then there must be
> >>>forces that they did not take into account in those calculations.
> >>>
> >>
> >>And additionally changes and defects could arise which would compromise
> >>their design.
> >
> >
> > Of course. NIST is being very careful in it`s investigation of this
> > event. Of course, nothing will satisfy the kooks with the conspiracy
> > mindset.
> >
>
> A very careful cover-up.
Glad to see you climbing on the kook bandwagon. How do they entice
these engineers to cover-up, and what do you think they are covering
up?
>
> >>>>However, the particulars
> >>>>of this case were different enough that the planes did cause the
> >>>>conditions which caused the structural failures.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Thats what I`ve been saying for a week. When are you going to get
> >>>to the part where I strayed from the facts?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>FYI, almost all of
> >>>>Osama bin Laden's aides doubted that just the two planes could cause the
> >>>> towers to collapse. But Osama, being an expert in construction, told
> >>>>them that they would probably cause the towers to collapse.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I do remember that tape. Of course, the crackpots believe that was
> >>>faked, and in reality (as if they`ve even been there) Bush was behind
> >>>the attacks. Be that as it may, I think you overstate OBL being an
> >>>"expert in construction".
> >>
> >>That was his occupation. That was his training.
> >
> >
> > Yah, if I remember correctly, that is what he says on the tape,
> > that he had training in this field. But, you claimed he was "an expert
> > in construction". Are these two things the same?
>
> I am not talking about what HE said. I am talking about what others who
> knew him said and what the CIA profile says.
> Have you seen the Frontline specials from a few years ago? You may be
> able to find the transcripts online.
I`m not seeing anything in that that confirms OBL was an expert on
construction.