9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic - Reply to chek

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 2:20 pm Post subject: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

(continued from 9/11 Truth Controversies)

chek wrote:

Equally, given that the explosions may not have originated in the actual crash zone, and that survivors were seen to have withstood the impact fires on those floors, ......

We see nothing of the kind. We see survivors who appear in the impact hole of WTC1 after the fires have subsided in that area.

chek wrote:

"HNS
<read and understood - sam>
DADNPO
<read and understood - sam>

chek wrote:

Note that NIST's paint deformation tests found that to be about the highest temperature they found evidence for, and also that I'm not overjoyed researching "explosives" even on the internet in our current post-911 Orwell theme park of a world. So given that the brand above is a commercially available product, let's also take it as a given that there are high explosives available, heat resistant to three or even four hundred degrees C.

If you quote NIST's paint deformation tests in support of your explosives' ability to survive the fires, then you must also accept that those same tests deny the existence of :
1) the explosives themselves going off
2) the them?te charges you claim were used to pre-weaken the columns
You can't have it both ways.

In fact we both know perfectly well that those tests were extremely limited in terms of number and location of WTC steel members tested. It's rather shoddy and shallow of you to cherry-pick this particular interpretation of the tests.

chek wrote:

Now, understanding your scepticism, can you suggest some other mechanism that might explain for instance the line of bright flashes and light grey smoke that immediately precedes initiation of collapse?

There are innumerable videos available, but also a sequence of stills at Gordon Ross' site which illustrate the event.
http://gordonssite.com/index.html

All of which show white specks or puffs of smoke. What surprises you here? When a burning building collapses fire and smoke is forced out of available apertures.
And why so damn few of them if they're supposed to indicate evidence of synchronised high-explosive charges systematically ripping the core out of the Towers?

Let me now ask you - how does your high-explosive+therm?te theory sit with the fact that both buildings had noticeable (and measurable) inward-bowing of exterior columns prior to collapse? Prior to your so-called 'flashes'? Prior to your puffs of smoke?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

(continued from 9/11 Truth Controversies)

chek wrote:

Equally, given that the explosions may not have originated in the actual crash zone, and that survivors were seen to have withstood the impact fires on those floors, ......

We see nothing of the kind. We see survivors who appear in the impact hole of WTC1 after the fires have subsided in that area.

This suggests to me that even if fire temperatures were as high as claimed, residual and therefore conceivably transmitted heat were much lower.

[quote="sam"]

chek wrote:

"HNS
<read and understood - sam>
DADNPO
<read and understood - sam>

chek wrote:

sam wrote:

(If you quote NIST's paint deformation tests in support of your explosives' ability to survive the fires, then you must also accept that those same tests deny the existence of :
1) the explosives themselves going off
2) the them?te charges you claim were used to pre-weaken the columns
You can't have it both ways.

In fact we both know perfectly well that those tests were extremely limited in terms of number and location of WTC steel members tested. It's rather shoddy and shallow of you to cherry-pick this particular interpretation of the tests.

Nevertheless, like it or not, it is the available data.

sam wrote:

(

chek wrote:

All of which show white specks or puffs of smoke. What surprises you here? When a burning building collapses fire and smoke is forced out of available apertures.

You left out glinting sunlight. Or they might have been 'orbs'. Rolling Eyes

But actually, we do witness a massive great sheet of orange flame being expelled immediately collapse starts, but the bright point flashes beforehand are quite different in their nature.

sam wrote:

And why so damn few of them if they're supposed to indicate evidence of synchronised high-explosive charges systematically ripping the core out of the Towers?

Let me now ask you - how does your high-explosive+therm?te theory sit with the fact that both buildings had noticeable (and measurable) inward-bowing of exterior columns prior to collapse? Prior to your so-called 'flashes'? Prior to your puffs of smoke?

The only bowing I've looked at which doesn't look like heat distortion, is in WTC1 after the antenna starts to drop - indicating that it's a consequence of collapse, rather than its initiator.

I really can do no better than refer you back to Ross's site where he analyses the sectional nature of the collapses and the core destruction from an engineer's viewpoint.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

sam wrote:

Let me now ask you - how does your high-explosive+therm?te theory sit with the fact that both buildings had noticeable (and measurable) inward-bowing of exterior columns prior to collapse? Prior to your so-called 'flashes'? Prior to your puffs of smoke?

The only bowing I've looked at which doesn't look like heat distortion, is in WTC1 after the antenna starts to drop - indicating that it's a consequence of collapse, rather than its initiator.

I find this hard to believe. I thought you had researched this subject?

And watch it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

Read NIST for more. I'm surprised you haven't already.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:59 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

chek wrote:

sam wrote:

The only bowing I've looked at which doesn't look like heat distortion, is in WTC1 after the antenna starts to drop - indicating that it's a consequence of collapse, rather than its initiator.

I find this hard to believe. I thought you had researched this subject?

It's been a while since I studied the detail, and obviously my memory isn't infallible as that is patently WTC2 rotating over.

sam wrote:

And watch it here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5405555553528290546

Read NIST for more. I'm surprised you haven't already.

I have thanks, but again it's been a while.

But I stand by my point that the bowing is a consequence of collapse, not its initiator. The bowing mechanism theories (which weren't substantiated even slightly by the Cardington or NIST's own fire tests) is merely NIST's 'oh-look! mechanism' and their cut off point from further analysis "once collapse ensued".
Read here for a more precise analysis of that rotation of the upper portion of WTC2 and subsequent events.
http://gordonssite.com/id2.html
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

But I stand by my point that the bowing is a consequence of collapse, not its initiator.

The bowing shown precedes collapse. Watch the film it was taken from (link above) and you'll see that. Rotation obviously had to follow collapse initiation, not precede it.

Here's bowing in WTC1, again preceding collapse :

_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

chek wrote:

But I stand by my point that the bowing is a consequence of collapse, not its initiator.

I'm aware that the "bowing" precedes the visible collapse of the outer walls but it is a symptom (of core movement), not the cause.

I believe your supplied photo to be from the time period shown in this sequence. Note the interesting additional billowing smoke at 7 seconds which probably indicate the hat truss being dissociated.

http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/n_tower_1st24.mpg
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

I'm aware that the "bowing" precedes the visible collapse of the outer walls but it is a symptom (of core movement), not the cause.

The photo was taken at 10:23, 5 minutes before collapse.
You can't possibly believe the core was falling for 5 minutes before collapse, can you?
And, what's more, that the bowing just happened to occur in the area just above the plane impact zone and in the zone of the most intense fires?
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

The photo was taken at 10:23, 5 minutes before collapse.
You can't possibly believe the core was falling for 5 minutes before collapse, can you?

The attack on the core began with the slightly mis-timed explosions heard by William Rodriguez immediately prior to the aircraft impacts.

sam wrote:

And, what's more, that the bowing just happened to occur in the area just above the plane impact zone and in the zone of the most intense fires?

Firstly, you assume that the impacts and the demolition weren't synchronised to create exactly that impression.

Secondly, your use of 'intense' in regard to the fires still does not address the results of actual fire tests which do not support the various fluid conclusions the ASCE/FEMA BPAT/Silverstein Weidlinger/NIST reports allege with regard to 'floor sagging' leading to collapse.

This pivotal argument is the cover up, supported only by a highly manipulated, computer model. And the need for an 'explanation'.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Stefan
Banned
Banned

Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:04 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

1) Would a split second of explosive blast raise the steels temperature significantly? You seem to be guessing it would and then throwing it out there as fact.

2) NIST tested perimiter and core columns for temperature - I didn't read of them testing the corner sections at all - which is precisely where the thermate-like-substance was in Gordon Ross' theory.

So yes, we can have it both ways actaully...

Quote:

In fact we both know perfectly well that those tests were extremely limited in terms of number and location of WTC steel members tested. It's rather shoddy and shallow of you to cherry-pick this particular interpretation of the tests.

There you go again - accepting the "dog ate my homework" excuses littered throughout the official story.

Chum, NIST stated at the time they collected the steel for these tests that they were perfectly satisfied they had enough for their tests, and that they had specifically selected them with an emphasis on their proximity to the fires and damage.

They turn around months later and make a statement to the complete opposite - and the fanatical-loons who call themselves critics eat it up with a spoon. PLEASE never become a police man. If someone confessed to a murder, plonked the knife and the body on the front desk and then the next day said "actually I was in church feeding soup to disabled orphans" you'd let them go wouldn't you? You'd probably recommend they be given a medal for their charity...
_________________

Peace and Truth

Last edited by Stefan on Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total

sam
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

The photo was taken at 10:23, 5 minutes before collapse.
You can't possibly believe the core was falling for 5 minutes before collapse, can you?

chek wrote:

The attack on the core began with the slightly mis-timed explosions heard by William Rodriguez immediately prior to the aircraft impacts.

You've switched subject neatly there. Earlier you were saying that the bowing was a symptom of collapse, not of an "attack on the core". I've pointed out that the bowing was happening at least 5 minutes before collapse.

sam wrote:

And, what's more, that the bowing just happened to occur in the area just above the plane impact zone and in the zone of the most intense fires?

chek wrote:

Firstly, you assume that the impacts and the demolition weren't synchronised to create exactly that impression.

Are you really suggesting that the planes homed-in on the area that was rigged for the initial phase of demolition? At that speed? And - especially - given the dramatic manoeuvering of UA175?
How could the planes be targetted so accurately?
How would the HE/therm?te/detonators survive?
This suggestion is palpably absurd.

chek wrote:

Secondly, your use of 'intense' in regard to the fires still does not address the results of actual fire tests which do not support the various fluid conclusions the ASCE/FEMA BPAT/Silverstein Weidlinger/NIST reports allege with regard to 'floor sagging' leading to collapse.

By "fire tests" I assume you're referring to the paint tests. You've seen the photo (above) of the bowing of WTC1 at 10:23. Are you really willing to claim - in public - that the temperatures in that area didn't exceed 300°C ? House and office fires routinely reach 900°C+.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

sam wrote:

You seem to be under the impression that the core was one homogenous unit which it isn't, and that there was only one single final catastrophic event which is unlikely. Here's a diagram of the column layout.

Sequential disabling of the columns was likely occurring from immediately prior to the aircraft impact until collapse ensued. You're imagining a contradiction that isn't there.

sam wrote:

And, what's more, that the bowing just happened to occur in the area just above the plane impact zone and in the zone of the most intense fires? Are you really suggesting that the planes homed-in on the area that was rigged for the initial phase of demolition? At that speed? And - especially - given the dramatic manoeuvering of UA175?

It's equally likely that the "dramatic manoeuvering " was in order to ensure the correct area was struck.

sam wrote:

How could the planes be targetted so accurately?

There are, as you know, several technologies available both onboard and with external aids, such as the navigation computer, or a radio beacon similar to ILS that could have been employed to achieve that aim - within acceptable limits to create the desired illusion.

sam wrote:

How would the HE/therm?te/detonators survive?
This suggestion is palpably absurd.

So you keep repeating, which indicates that you don't read or don't take in any previously supplied supporting links, but rather prefer to
stick with your own interpretation of what you think happened.

sam wrote:

By "fire tests" I assume you're referring to the paint tests.

By fire tests, I mean NIST's fire tests - which they don't over-publicise as they didn't provide the correct result to make the non-demolition theory fly (NISTNCSTAR 1-6 p5, para3).
There's also a commentary by Kevin Ryan on that here: http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/Article_1_Ryan5.pdf.

sam wrote:

You've seen the photo (above) of the bowing of WTC1 at 10:23. Are you really willing to claim - in public - that the temperatures in that area didn't exceed 300°C ? House and office fires routinely reach 900°C+.

I don't need to claim it - the witnesses who survived did that already.
"Stanley Praimnath was on the 81st floor of the south tower: The plane impacts. I try to get up and then I realize that I'm covered up to my shoulder in debris. And when I'm digging through under all this rubble, I can see the bottom wing starting to burn, and that wing is wedged 20 feet in my office doorway.

Donovan Cowan was in an open elevator at the 78th floor sky-lobby: We went into the elevator. As soon as I hit the button, that's when there was a big boom. We both got knocked down. I remember feeling this intense heat. The doors were still open. The heat lasted for maybe 15 to 20 seconds I guess. Then it stopped.

Ling Young was in her 78th floor office: Only in my area were people alive, and the people alive were from my office. I figured that out later because I sat around in there for 10 or 15 minutes. That's how I got so burned.

(MIT's Thomas) Eagar claims temperatures were hot enough to cause the trusses of the south tower to fail, but here we have eye-witnesses stating that temperatures were cool enough for them to walk away."
http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/not-so-hot.htm

I further don't need to claim it because the temperatures can't have been as ludicrously high as you claim, shown by the black smoke which also indicates a poorly ventilated fire rather than a raging inferno.

If the temperatures were as high as you're trying to claim, it would have looked like the photo below from the Cardington tests, with the floor glowing red hot.

"Photo: Region glowing red hot. From the large compartment test at Cardington, towards the end of the fire (fire load of 40 kg/m2, maximum average atmosphere temperature of about 675°C, with a maximum recorded temperature of 746°C, maximum steel temperature of 691°C (recorded at the centre of the compartment)).

(11) If the temperatures inside large regions of the towers were of the order of 700°C, then these regions would have been glowing red hot and there would have been visible signs of this from the outside. Even pictures taken from the air looking horizontally into the impact region show little sign of this."
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

The British Steel/Building Research Establishment tests at Cardington in 1996 showed not the slightest sign of the effect that was claimed to be the cause of collapses. And as mentioned before, neither did NIST's oven tests (NISTNCSTAR 1-6 p5, para3)

"The above photo was taken after the office demonstration test fire at Cardington. It demonstrates that the thermal expansion of the beams/trusses was accommodated by downward deflection, not by the forcing of the exterior walls away from the core (axial expansion) as claimed above. There was also no failure of the end connections. Even though the beams could only contribute as catenary tension members (the beams were reduced to 3 or 4% of their room temperature strength), the concrete floors supplied strength to the structural system by membrane action and no collapse occurred. The beams/trusses were not fire protected. http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch2.htm

The more you examine the official story, the more the lack of supporting evidence as opposed to myth becomes apparent.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

The NIST report, along with all of the visual evidence, confirms that the 78th floor was below the main area of the fires. Even on the 81st floor, NISTs simulations suggest that some areas were spared the worst heat of the fires.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

NIST's tests were of the steel with fireproofing, not without, and were intended to establish the fire rating of the floor assemblies as built. These tests were never intended to provide data for the computer simulations that tested the collapse scenarios. Neither could they - the sagging of the steel is simply not scalable. I don't know what you mean by saying they weren't over-publicised - they were included in the NIST report.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

Alex_V wrote:

NIST's tests were of the steel with fireproofing, not without, and were intended to establish the fire rating of the floor assemblies as built.

And? That it's inconsistent with NIST's other made up theory that all the fireproofing 'fell off'? In any case the Cardington tests were performed without fireproofing

Alex_V wrote:

These tests were never intended to provide data for the computer simulations that tested the collapse scenarios. Neither could they - the sagging of the steel is simply not scalable.

Excuse me? Please explain, as an entire modelling industry will no doubt be shocked to hear that news. It looks eminently full scale enough to me at Cardington to observe very representative local effects.

Alex_V wrote:

I don't know what you mean by saying they weren't over-publicised - they were included in the NIST report.

Well they weren't prominent enough for Sam to know of them...
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.

It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:43 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

Alex_V wrote:

NIST's tests were of the steel with fireproofing, not without, and were intended to establish the fire rating of the floor assemblies as built.

And? That it's inconsistent with NIST's other made up theory that all the fireproofing 'fell off'? In any case the Cardington tests were performed without fireproofing

The test is not designed to be consistent with other theories - that's not the purpose of the test. Neither, if that is what you are trying to suggest, were these particular tests supposed to measure the temperature of the fires.

Quote:

Alex_V wrote:

These tests were never intended to provide data for the computer simulations that tested the collapse scenarios. Neither could they - the sagging of the steel is simply not scalable.

Excuse me? Please explain, as an entire modelling industry will no doubt be shocked to hear that news. It looks eminently full scale at Cardington to me to observe the local effects.

Kevin Ryan tries to compare the sag in subscale tests with full or partial fireproofing, to a full-scale simulation without fireproofing, of a truss three times the size. And he also compares the measurement of a truss allowed to buckle with a test that was stopped before buckling occurs.

In simple terms he has compared the sag in one test to a computer model in totally different circumstances. He says the fact they don't match up is evidence of NIST fiddling the figures, but he is comparing figures that could never match up that measure totally different circumstances.

chek
Mega Poster

Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

Forgive me if I'm being thick here, but you appear to be arguing that NIST's tests weren't designed to provide - and indeed failed to provide - data on their much vaunted if far-fetched collapse mechanism; because they weren't meant to ??? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations. It's the only way. It's them or us.

Alex_V
Wrecker
Wrecker

Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England

Posted: Wed Apr 09, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: Re: Reply to chek - high explosives at WTC

chek wrote:

Forgive me if I'm being thick here, but you appear to be arguing that NIST's tests weren't designed to provide - and indeed failed to provide - data on their much vaunted if far-fetched collapse mechanism; because they weren't meant to ???

That's not quite what I'm saying - obviously they didn't serve no purpose. But they certainly weren't designed for the purpose that Kevin Ryan says they were. He simply draws some silly parallels between those tests and some other of NIST's computer models and says they don't match.

I appreciate your incredulity to this, but NIST is fairly clear in the report. If it helps, my 'layman's' take on these tests is that if the fire rating of the steel with standard fireproofing had been insufficient to prevent collapse anyway, then the implications for building codes in the future would have been huge.

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum