| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
 |
|
| chek wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: |
How do the Cardington tests correspond to analysis of the WTC collapse initiation? Should we assume from your point here that no 'warping' should exceed 9cms in the WTC? That would be an incredibly simplistic comparison to make, particularly as the subscale and fireproofed UL tests that you seem to accept as realistic already exceeded a 9cm deflection in most cases.
| Quote: | | I think in addition you'll find the 42 inch figure comes from the estimated amount of deflection as the outer columns bowed as the cut core dragged the outer shell down. |
But it is estimated by the computer models that NIST used. What evidence do you have that these models were flawed, or that NIST 'inserted' the 42 inch figure fraudulently?
My 'gut feeling' is this. 9cm or 3 inches sounds like a small amount, so the truth movement is happy to go with that, based on nothing in particular, as the truth movement have done no tests of their own. 42 inches 'sounds' like a lot, so that must be made up by NIST. As to any evidence to prove that, the truth movement has none.
Mention the Cardington experiments all you like, pick out bits of NIST you do like as true, and other bits as false. It requires the same expertise as a roulette player betting on red.
If the truth movement's points were in any way valid on this subject, they would be able to be played out in the scientific community and cause a genuine scandal. They are crackpottery, that cannot exist outside unaccountable website missives. |
Alex, you're not thinking clearly.
If we accept (as I do) that the Cardington tests are untainted by a desired outcome, then how can the far lower temperatures recorded at the WTC cause more sagging than those recorded in the Cardington tests?
Look at the figures again.
Your faith in some absent outcry by academics, scientists and engineers, who all directly rely on State licensing and directly or indirectly State funding is naive, and in any case is not as universal as the impression you try to give. |
Ah the great unspoken conspiracy theory, that conventional science is essentially a fraud. As you rightly point out, it would HAVE TO BE for the truther allegations to hold any water. Rather than truthers being wrong, the entire rest of the world is. How can I argue against such a grand theory - proof is irrelevant in the face of such sweeping judgements.
The fireproofing in the Cardington tests was totally different. The structures were different, not trusses. The fuel used was different. The steel beams were different. No meaningful comparison can be made with the twin towers.
The basic premise of your argument is utterly flawed - you have taken a large number from one part of NIST's report and compared it with smaller numbers from different tests and used that to make a grand assumption that NIST invented the 42" figure. The claim may convince you and others in the truth movement, but in the real world it is utter nonsense, with not a shred of evidence to support it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Ah the great unspoken conspiracy theory, that conventional science is essentially a fraud. As you rightly point out, it would HAVE TO BE for the truther allegations to hold any water. Rather than truthers being wrong, the entire rest of the world is. How can I argue against such a grand theory - proof is irrelevant in the face of such sweeping judgements.
The fireproofing in the Cardington tests was totally different. The structures were different, not trusses. The fuel used was different. The steel beams were different. No meaningful comparison can be made with the twin towers.
The basic premise of your argument is utterly flawed - you have taken a large number from one part of NIST's report and compared it with smaller numbers from different tests and used that to make a grand assumption that NIST invented the 42" figure. The claim may convince you and others in the truth movement, but in the real world it is utter nonsense, with not a shred of evidence to support it. |
The twenty one tests, conducted over two years were designed to study the behaviour of steel framed buildings and included beams, columns, fixing attachments and floor decking (with realistic loadings) for erstwhile British Steel to promote the greater use of steel construction.
They also incuded steel attached to concrete, from which the heat wouldn't be wicked away by the structure, as would have happened in the case of the Towers. They may not have been exact reproductions of the WTC, but with enough samples to provide data to design engineers relevant to all steel building structures.
All you've done Alex is come back with a bunch of unsupported assertions.
Different fuel?
Give me a break!
The Cardington temperatures were both higher and longer lasting.
Once you realise what NIST were up to, the reasons for their avoidance of evidence post initiation of collapse becomes clear.
All that steel blasted apart and flying outwards, smoking during its fall to the ground captured on video and hundreds of photos. And all done by gravity!
Heavens!
How on earth could that be convincingly explained?
Easy. You don't bother.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| chek wrote: | The twenty one tests, conducted over two years were designed to study the behaviour of steel framed buildings and included beams, columns, fixing attachments and floor decking (with realistic loadings) for erstwhile British Steel to promote the greater use of steel construction.
They also incuded steel attached to concrete, from which the heat wouldn't be wicked away by the structure, as would have happened in the case of the Towers. They may not have been exact reproductions of the WTC, but with enough samples to provide data to design engineers relevant to all steel building structures.
All you've done Alex is come back with a bunch of unsupported assertions.
Different fuel?
Give me a break!
The Cardington temperatures were both higher and longer lasting.
Once you realise what NIST were up to, the reasons for their avoidance of evidence post initiation of collapse becomes clear.
All that steel blasted apart and flying outwards, smoking during its fall to the ground captured on video and hundreds of photos. And all done by gravity!
Heavens!
How on earth could that be convincingly explained?
Easy. You don't bother. |
The credibility of the Cardington experiments is not in question here, but the question of how they relate to any examination of the twin towers is not answered by simply taking a number from there, and comparing it with a different number in the NIST report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| zennon wrote: | Here's the deal. I was a truther since around 2005 but gradually I feel all the points I raised have been debunked. Admittedly I never looked into it in detail; I relied on google videos and the odd Infowars article now and again; I called bs on most of the stuff I read and saw, they had very weak argument that don't hold up.
Take Alex Jones for example- I heard an interview he did quite recently where he claimed firemen were saying that WTC7 was going to be blown up. Jones claimed there was a countdown, but I saw the actual video Jones was referring to and this wasn't the case.
If indeed governments are still blowing up their own people for casus bellus then this obviously needs to be exposed. My fear is that the 9/11 truth movement could turn out to be a complete waste of time, when other things are ignored as George Monbiot pointed out. Darfur, global warming for example.
I don't see any evidence nowadays of any inconsistencies with the official story; they maybe out there but I haven't come across any.
But can someone give me the most concrete critiques of the official version, which may indicate US involvement (or any other 3rd party), either directly or indirectly?
I'm not going to be an * like others in this section of the forum and thrown insults at anyone, we're all adults here.
Thanks in advance! |
Zennon, I think maybe you are asking the wrong question here. What about asking the numerous critics here to explain the numerous strange events of 9/11 and see how they get on. Here's a list for them to start with.
1. The extraordinary high temperatures under all 3 towers after the collapses - why do gravity driven collapses produce underground fires.
2. The spectacular explosive effects in the north tower at or around the time of the impact. Ask them to use diagrams to show how the supposed airfuel fireball was able to cause such damage over such a wide area of the building all the way from the 22nd floor down to deep in the basement.
3. None of these explosive events were investigated by the agencies typically charged with investigating criminal acts? How did they know there were no bombs planted in the towers without doing an investigation?
4. Large, heavy pieces of steel urged large distances by a gravity driven collapse - how does that happen? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 03, 2008 11:58 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | chek wrote: | The twenty one tests, conducted over two years were designed to study the behaviour of steel framed buildings and included beams, columns, fixing attachments and floor decking (with realistic loadings) for erstwhile British Steel to promote the greater use of steel construction.
They also incuded steel attached to concrete, from which the heat wouldn't be wicked away by the structure, as would have happened in the case of the Towers. They may not have been exact reproductions of the WTC, but with enough samples to provide data to design engineers relevant to all steel building structures.
All you've done Alex is come back with a bunch of unsupported assertions.
Different fuel?
Give me a break!
The Cardington temperatures were both higher and longer lasting.
Once you realise what NIST were up to, the reasons for their avoidance of evidence post initiation of collapse becomes clear.
All that steel blasted apart and flying outwards, smoking during its fall to the ground captured on video and hundreds of photos. And all done by gravity!
Heavens!
How on earth could that be convincingly explained?
Easy. You don't bother. |
The credibility of the Cardington experiments is not in question here, but the question of how they relate to any examination of the twin towers is not answered by simply taking a number from there, and comparing it with a different number in the NIST report. |
The point is that NIST's conjecture to 'explain' the collapses isn't based on real world data.
It's not even close, regardless of the excuses you can think up.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fish5133
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 2568
Location: One breath from Glory
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
www.ae911truth.org Quite a few experts here.
www.pilotsfor911truth.org. Quite a few here
www.patriotsquestion911.com Quite a few here also
Stephen Jones has done some tests and reportedly found explosives residue.
(but of course skeptics will ignore that scientific evidence)
I think one of the strongest proofs is that God also tells us the official account is wrong. God set in place laws of physics (gravity, freefall speed). The official account to be true would need to overturn these laws but of course they cant.
_________________
JO911B.
"for we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places " Eph.6 v 12 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| chek wrote: | The point is that NIST's conjecture to 'explain' the collapses isn't based on real world data.
It's not even close, regardless of the excuses you can think up. |
The point is that you have no evidence on which to base that claim - certainly not in the example you used. Simply repeating the allegation again and again doesn't solve the basic problem that 'proof' is actually needed in these cases. If proof doesn't exist, then isn't the likelihood that your allegations are wholly false? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 6:45 am Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | chek wrote: | The point is that NIST's conjecture to 'explain' the collapses isn't based on real world data.
It's not even close, regardless of the excuses you can think up. |
The point is that you have no evidence on which to base that claim - certainly not in the example you used. Simply repeating the allegation again and again doesn't solve the basic problem that 'proof' is actually needed in these cases. If proof doesn't exist, then isn't the likelihood that your allegations are wholly false? |
Other than being the Word of The Government From On High, perhaps you'd care to specify exactly which 'proof' NIST provided that you find so conclusive.
Just to give me some idea of what 'proof' you would find so convincing...
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Alex_V wrote: | | chek wrote: | The point is that NIST's conjecture to 'explain' the collapses isn't based on real world data.
It's not even close, regardless of the excuses you can think up. |
The point is that you have no evidence on which to base that claim - certainly not in the example you used. Simply repeating the allegation again and again doesn't solve the basic problem that 'proof' is actually needed in these cases. If proof doesn't exist, then isn't the likelihood that your allegations are wholly false? |
Other than being the Word of The Government From On High, perhaps you'd care to specify exactly which 'proof' NIST provided that you find so conclusive.
Just to give me some idea of what 'proof' you would find so convincing... |
Well NIST are not infallible, I accept that. If they are wrong or corrupt then let's see it proven.
Let's be honest - NIST has been generally accepted to propose a convincing hypothesis for how the twin tower collapses occured. Outside of the truth movement there is little criticism. I have seen complaints that NIST may have not been critical enough of the original design of the twin towers, and that fire alone may have been sufficient to cause collapse. Of course that is not a criticism truthers would want to believe in.
NIST's report is a proof. If you cannot disprove their hypothesis, then it's likely that what they described is what happened. Isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alex,
Another logical pretzel there.
To say that outside the truth movement no one says the NIST report is wrong is circular - as to do so would qualify someone as a part of the truth movement.
It's like say "only conspiracy theorists think 9/11 was an inside job".
In reality the scientific and engineering community are silent... We have a very small handful of qualified experts in support of the official story - and a huge and ever growing amount against it. Critics like to read a lack of a statement as an endorsement and therefore claim a majority but that isn't so - most experts have never taken the time to research the report.
That would be like counting every citizen who didn't vote in the election as a vote for the incumbant - because if they had a problem with them they'd have voted against them right? Wrong.
NIST's job, by the way, was to explain how the towers collapsed - not just provide a hypothesis for a local collapse, but to explain that and then how that could lead to a complete collapse.
They failed, and their only excuse is that a) they unilaterally decided they didn't have to do that b) they claim it was "inevitable"...
Couldn't they have just written a one sentance report then, saying "Planes hit towers, towers set on fire, collapse initiated, buildings disintegrated - it was inevitable".
Would you have been satisfied with that?
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:57 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | Well NIST are not infallible, I accept that. If they are wrong or corrupt then let's see it proven.
Let's be honest - NIST has been generally accepted to propose a convincing hypothesis for how the twin tower collapses occured. Outside of the truth movement there is little criticism. I have seen complaints that NIST may have not been critical enough of the original design of the twin towers, and that fire alone may have been sufficient to cause collapse. Of course that is not a criticism truthers would want to believe in.
NIST's report is a proof. If you cannot disprove their hypothesis, then it's likely that what they described is what happened. Isn't it? |
During the past few years all sorts of disinfo has been floated around from employing a cheapo Japanese architect to shoddy construction to built-in explosives to jet fuel melting steel. All designed to reinforce the official story.
It really comes down to a personal choice: do you accept the flim-flam Official Explanations (of which there have been three - all with different conclusions designed to conform best to the purpose for which they were commissioned) with multiple gaping holes, and unexamined and unexplained phenomena, and get on with your life and leave it at that.
Or do you smell rotten fish in the convenient ommissions and decide that the investigations to date have been inadequate at best or misleading at worst?
Looking at the shape of things to come, based on what the 911 myth has been used to justify in seven short years, a growing number of people including 911 families don't accept the flim flam and want a transparent and exhaustive re-investigation by a credible, unhindered and preferably international body.
The decision as to which side of the fence you're on is down to the individual.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
A Sharp Major
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 237
Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zennon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Busker wrote: | Ok Zennon,
Can you explain to me what sort of damage would cause WTV7 to collapse in the way it did?
I think that would be a good starter for 10.
I'm not going to try and convince you to accept any point of view, but I think if you look at things and try to come up with rational explanations, then test those explanations against documented evidence (which is difficult because of the ease of which items can be altered in the digital domain and after such a long time) it would be the best way to proceed.
I find those that tell people what to think usually have an agenda. Those that say "How do you account for....." "What would need to be done to get the result of...." are more interested in the truth.
Oh, and no. I don't have any idea who is responsible for the events of the day so I can't present you with a bogeyman.
Let's evaluate and test the material out there.
Feel free to come back at me with similar questions. |
To be honest I don't really know enough bout structural engineering to give you an answer. What my understanding of the collapse is that a huge chunk of one of the twin towers hit the WTC7, caused widespread fires, which eventually lead to a collapse. Admittedly I've only used one source to confirm this:
| Quote: |
Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled and the building imploded(6). Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions(7). |
(George Monbiot http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/12/short-changed/) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zennon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| scubadiver wrote: | My 2pence/2cents
People are brought to court because the defendant pleads innocent. The CPS bring a case because, on the basis of probability, they feel the defendant can be convicted. If a judge demanded absolute proof short of the defendant pleading guilty, how many cases would come to court in the first place?
We could repeatedly ream of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the official story. Based on probability campaigners have just cause to say they feel what the US Government has said isn't true.
You also miss the point: we don't know the truth because, despite what the Commission report proclaimed, not all the answers have been provided. It is that simple. |
I'm not asking for answers, merely the strongest critiques of the official story put forward by 9/11 truthers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zennon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 161
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| Jonnolad wrote: | | zennon wrote: | I don't see any evidence nowadays of any inconsistencies with the official story; they maybe out there but I haven't come across any.
But can someone give me the most concrete critiques of the official version, which may indicate US involvement (or any other 3rd party), either directly or indirectly? |
I think I may be telling you something which you have actually now found out for yourself, but I'm afraid you will find absolutely zero evidence of any US involvement in 9/11, and there are definitely no concrete critiques of the official version. Ironically that's the sad truth of the truth movement.
The only critiques you will get are non-qualified people telling you that something looks like something (e.g. a demolition), or that something ambiguous said at the time means a certain thing.
You will see no scientific research, or documents, or confessions which backs up the theory of US involvement. In short absolutely no evidence.
Here's a couple of glaringly obvious questions that anyone approaching the truth movement should ask themselves:
1) Why haven't structural engineering experts in Cuba, Venezeula, Russia, Iran, Syria etc come out to say any of the buildings on 9/11 were demolished rather than collapsed? These countries hate the US and would love nothing more than exposing the US to be a corrupt government, yet why are they strangely silent. A controlled demolition is only obvious to non-qualified internet dwellers, but not to the qualified engineers across the world.
2) Why don't any respected journalists investigate a 9/11 conspiracy? These journalists literally risk their lives to bring us stories from places like Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan etc, stories which invariably discredit the US administration. Why don't these journalists take an easy assignment in the US to interview people over 9/11 - police, fire department, military? Maybe interviewing the same people who the truth movement have quoted, to see what they know (and see if their comments have been taken out of context or not). Perhaps a bit of background checking on police / fire department members who would have had to have been part of the conspiracy on the day - have they got mysteriously rich quick, have they had any major gain since 9/11 etc? If a conspiracy is shown to be true (and it seems fairly easy to be able to find out), it would literally be the biggest story in modern history; a scoop of monumental proportions. Then why aren't journalists, who are willing to risk their lives on seemingly inconsequential stories, investigating this behemoth?
To me, the truth movement just seems to be a bizarre collection of internet bods believing everything they hear from a proven set of liars who make a living peddling the same debunked nonsense ad nauseum. IMO the "truth movement" is probably the most disingenuous name it could have!
 |
Regarding your first point, other countries are speaking out simply because it would put their weaken their position to be able to use similar tactics. According to Alexander Litvinenko Russia had been using false flag terrorism to instigate violence with Chechnya. If I remember correctly, both Ahmedinijad and Chavez has insinuated 9/11 was a false flag attack. The former was in a letter sent to the Whitehouse a few years ago, and Chavez made his comment sometime in early 2007. Again if some government funded investigation of 9/11 were to take it place it would automatically be rubbished as propaganda in the West, and it would make them look like paranoid loons. I do partly agree with you here though. I'm all for people thinking for themselves, but if someone doesn't understand the material in the first instance they're bound to come to erroneous conclusions.
On your second point, I really don't know why respected mainstream journalists aren't investigating it. Polls show an overwhelming section of society disbelief the official story in some form, so it's puzzling why more journalists haven't taken this on board. There's obvious a demand for it.
Though is the issue of being branded a "conspiracy theorist". Nowadays it's a derogatory label most characterised by illogicality. In some respects is career suicide to allow oneself to take on that label unless you started off as a "conspiracy theorist". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| zennon wrote: | To be honest I don't really know enough bout structural engineering to give you an answer. What my understanding of the collapse is that a huge chunk of one of the twin towers hit the WTC7, caused widespread fires, which eventually lead to a collapse. Admittedly I've only used one source to confirm this:
| Quote: |
Burning debris falling from the twin towers ruptured the oil pipes feeding its emergency generators. The reduction in pressure triggered the automatic pumping system, which poured thousands of gallons of diesel onto the fire. The support trusses weakened and buckled and the building imploded(6). Popular Mechanics magazine polled 300 experts and came to the same conclusions(7). |
(George Monbiot http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/02/12/short-changed/) |
Sounds very plausible, doesn't it?
After all, 300 anonymous and uncommented experts can't be wrong.
Depending of course on what exactly they were asked, and what exactly they replied. However, we aren't told that.
We're just meant to be impressed by a very large number of 'experts' indeed.
But then that's what PopMech set out to do, be reassuring.
With next to no evidence, merely a theory that doesn't fit all the facts.
As the late Bill Hicks said, "go back to sleep, your government is in control".
FEMA (the first Federal investigators) stated they held just four WTC7 steel samples, and that they appeared to have suffered high temperature erosion and sulphidation and exhibited holes like a cheese, whereas NIST claim to now have no samples at all. High temperature erosion of construction grade steel cannot happen with the low temperatures from open jet fuel or diesel fires, even if they happen to be from large buildings in a famous city.
They also fail to discriminate that partial collapse would not have surprised anybody after the claimed damage. What is highly suspicious is the total collapse. Together with the symmetrical fall, which indicates very precise timing of the column failures. Not one critic has a good answer to those points, and neither will NIST's WTC7 report expected soon
Expect to see a lot more lizard-type theories this summer, so A#M and pepik and their ilk can blather and sneer about 911 loonies.
As usual.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Stefan wrote: | Alex,
Another logical pretzel there.
To say that outside the truth movement no one says the NIST report is wrong is circular - as to do so would qualify someone as a part of the truth movement.
It's like say "only conspiracy theorists think 9/11 was an inside job". |
Unfair. I don't think my factual statement requires any logical unwravelling at all. I am merely reminding the truth movement that there is a world outside their rather narrow focus. It is a fact - the NIST report has been generally accepted by the scientific community and the world at large, rightly or wrongly.
| Quote: | In reality the scientific and engineering community are silent... We have a very small handful of qualified experts in support of the official story - and a huge and ever growing amount against it. Critics like to read a lack of a statement as an endorsement and therefore claim a majority but that isn't so - most experts have never taken the time to research the report.
That would be like counting every citizen who didn't vote in the election as a vote for the incumbant - because if they had a problem with them they'd have voted against them right? Wrong. |
A better example would be attempting to deny the result of a football match unless every supporter in the ground confirmed the result in writing - 'they didn't confirm the result, therefore Man Utd didn't win!'. Let's deal with the reality here - there are thousands of structural engineers in the world for example, how many of them support a CD?
I'm not being particularly controversial here - I am amazed that truthers could possibly think the NIST report has not been generally accepted as valid.
| Quote: | NIST's job, by the way, was to explain how the towers collapsed - not just provide a hypothesis for a local collapse, but to explain that and then how that could lead to a complete collapse.
They failed, and their only excuse is that a) they unilaterally decided they didn't have to do that b) they claim it was "inevitable"...
Couldn't they have just written a one sentance report then, saying "Planes hit towers, towers set on fire, collapse initiated, buildings disintegrated - it was inevitable".
Would you have been satisfied with that? |
The usual smears. They have explained why they didn't and couldn't model the full collapse - that does not mean that they couldn't explain the collapse.
I understand that over 30 recommendations came out of the NIST report re improvements to safety and building design. How would a one sentence report have achieved that? Again you show your utter naivety of the reasons for the report being commissioned in the first place.
Their job was not to decide whether or not the building was a CD. Truthers are attacking a straw man here - NIST cannot be criticised for what it was never supposed to do in the first place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: Re: Convert me! |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | During the past few years all sorts of disinfo has been floated around from employing a cheapo Japanese architect to shoddy construction to built-in explosives to jet fuel melting steel. All designed to reinforce the official story. |
Opinion presented as fact. You are telling us what the motives were behind things, yet you are not in the position to offer any more than speculation to these motives.
| Quote: | It really comes down to a personal choice: do you accept the flim-flam Official Explanations (of which there have been three - all with different conclusions designed to conform best to the purpose for which they were commissioned) with multiple gaping holes, and unexamined and unexplained phenomena, and get on with your life and leave it at that.
Or do you smell rotten fish in the convenient ommissions and decide that the investigations to date have been inadequate at best or misleading at worst?
Looking at the shape of things to come, based on what the 911 myth has been used to justify in seven short years, a growing number of people including 911 families don't accept the flim flam and want a transparent and exhaustive re-investigation by a credible, unhindered and preferably international body.
The decision as to which side of the fence you're on is down to the individual. |
I am willing to accept what you say there - everyone is entitled to their opinion. In this thread I was addressing what I consider a factual inaccuracy in one of the allegations against NIST. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alex_V
Wrecker
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 515
Location: London, England
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | They also fail to discriminate that partial collapse would not have surprised anybody after the claimed damage. What is highly suspicious is the total collapse. Together with the symmetrical fall, which indicates very precise timing of the column failures. Not one critic has a good answer to those points, and neither will NIST's WTC7 report expected soon |
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Can you refer me to an article or resource that proves that a largely symmetrical fall suggests CD or is any way suspicious? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without wishing to derail the discussion so far, to answer the OP from my own perspective: if I were seeking to "convert" a 9/11 "skeptic" I would begin with Rumsfeld's own notes on that day.
On the afternoon of 9/11 he noted:
"Best info fast. Judge whether good enough to hit [Saddam Hussein] at the same time - not only [Bin Laden]... talk to [Paul Wolfowitz] for additional support [to make the] connection with Bin Laden."
To anyone who supports the official narrative of events I'd simply point out that the US Defence Secretary on the afternoon of 9/11 was, without a shred of evidence, seeking to invent a conspiracy theory connecting Saddam Hussein to the attacks.
Evidence that Bin Laden was involved Rumsfeld took as a given.
Evidence that Saddam was involved cannot have existed, because it still doesn't.
Remember: this was the day of the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbour and Rumsfeld was the man responsible for the defence of the entire of the United States. So what did he do?
He didn't stop for a second to ask who had actually perpetrated the attacks. Instead he immediately sought to frame someone unconnected with the day's terrible events and then, on that basis, proceeded to bring death and destruction to a sovereign nation.
Now, I don't propose to move from these facts to the suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job. But I would ask any skeptic or supporter of the official narrative: what kind of man do you think Rumsfeld actually is, given this is what we know for a fact he did at the time?
Last edited by jomper on Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:47 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ian neal
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 26 Jul 2005
Posts: 3140
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought NIST didn't model the collapse sequence or explain how the central columns collapsed or why the collapse was symetrical, which in itself is suspicious. I'm sure ARUP Fire were on record criticising this failure, but right now I can't find the link.
However I did find this
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2002/10/melted_steel_baffles_wtc7_investigat ors.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | To anyone who supports the official narrative of events I'd simply point out that the US Defence Secretary on the afternoon of 9/11 was, without a shred of evidence, seeking to invent a conspiracy theory connecting Saddam Hussein to the attacks. |
That's ridiculous - they planned 911, and then on the day of the attacks Rumsfeld though "hey, i just thought of something. Let's blame it on Iraq too". I can't imagine how that is supposed to make sense.
The fact that the US tried so hard and failed to tie 9/11 to Iraq is one of the biggest logical flaws in all the 9/11 theories.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | To anyone who supports the official narrative of events I'd simply point out that the US Defence Secretary on the afternoon of 9/11 was, without a shred of evidence, seeking to invent a conspiracy theory connecting Saddam Hussein to the attacks. |
That's ridiculous - they planned 911, and then on the day of the attacks Rumsfeld though "hey, i just thought of something. Let's blame it on Iraq too". I can't imagine how that is supposed to make sense. |
I didn't say it was evidence that "they" planned 911.
Apart from that, I entirely agree with you. It's ridiculous and doesn't make sense for a second.
And yet it was - based on Rumsfeld's notes from the day - what actually happened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ian neal wrote: | Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought NIST didn't model the collapse sequence or explain how the central columns collapsed or why the collapse was symetrical, which in itself is suspicious. I'm sure ARUP Fire were on record criticising this failure, but right now I can't find the link.
However I did find this
http://www.nce.co.uk/news/2002/10/melted_steel_baffles_wtc7_investigat ors.html |
Here's the text from the article for anyone who isn't registered.
"Melted steel baffles WTC7 investigators
Published: 01 October 2002 00:00 Author: Dave Parker
Last Updated: 01 January 2007 00:00
...
MYSTERIOUS 'MELTED' steel fragments recovered from the debris of the World Trade Center disaster are still baffling experts 12 months on, NCEI has learned.
Evidence of 'severe high temperature corrosion attack' on several beam sections from the WTC7 building was documented in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's initial report into the catastrophe.
Signs of a similar phenomenon were also apparent in a column fragment from one of the Twin Towers.
These samples were among more than 150 recovered from the four scrapyards processing WTC debris by volunteer engineers.
Preliminary metallurgical analysis indicated that temperatures in excess of 1,000C in conjunction with the presence of sulphur had caused surface melting and severe thinning of the steel section.
But no source for the sulphur could be identified - and there was no way of knowing whether the reaction with sulphur had actually begun long before 11 September.
Such a reaction might have reduced the steel's resistance to fire, FEMA suggested.
This could help to explain the catastrophic collapse of WTC7 which burned unchecked for seven hours, but fire experts are yet to be convinced.
'The most likely explanation is that the affected steel was literally part of a chemical stew that 'cooked' for weeks in the red hot debris pile at Ground Zero, ' said Corus fire engineer John Dowling.
'In full scale fire tests we've seen steel resist temperatures well above 1,000C without any signs of melting.
But this is a very rare event and more needs to be known.'
Research into the apparent melting - now dubbed 'extreme erosion' - will be carried out by the US National Institute of Standards & Technology as part of a two year, $15M investigation of the disaster.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Alex_V wrote: | | Quote: | | They also fail to discriminate that partial collapse would not have surprised anybody after the claimed damage. What is highly suspicious is the total collapse. Together with the symmetrical fall, which indicates very precise timing of the column failures. Not one critic has a good answer to those points, and neither will NIST's WTC7 report expected soon |
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Can you refer me to an article or resource that proves that a largely symmetrical fall suggests CD or is any way suspicious? |
I'm not sure what an article by two engineers involved in the initial FEMA/BPAT investigation/cover up is meant to show Alex. I find it quite odd that its basic conjecture hasn't changed in form at all since 2005, yet here we are 3 years later still awaiting the (supposedly) final report.
You're using that loaded term 'proof' or 'prove' again. I'd imagine that you're well aware that even the world's best brain surgeon or rocket scientist will invariably use the term '...in my view' when giving a professional opinion. Do their words immediately lose their authority?
Not at all.
You will find the among the comments on this Amazon review by the oft-claimed to be non-existent engineers instructive comments as to why such collapses are suspicious.
Not that there's anything you haven't heard before a thousand times.
"Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out:
"The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?"
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. "If" you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and "if" you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.
We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"
David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
http://www.amazon.com/tag/politics/forum?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1S3Q SZRUL93V8&cdThread=Tx3DSV3CBO7D1IW
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | | To anyone who supports the official narrative of events I'd simply point out that the US Defence Secretary on the afternoon of 9/11 was, without a shred of evidence, seeking to invent a conspiracy theory connecting Saddam Hussein to the attacks. |
That's ridiculous - they planned 911, and then on the day of the attacks Rumsfeld though "hey, i just thought of something. Let's blame it on Iraq too". I can't imagine how that is supposed to make sense.
The fact that the US tried so hard and failed to tie 9/11 to Iraq is one of the biggest logical flaws in all the 9/11 theories. |
Come now pepik - you're surely not so dim as to think that everybody here has forgotten such recent history already.
Of course the link was a fraud, but that wasn't clearly established until 2004 - a year after the invasion and occupation. After that, the "security situation", exacerbated by Ollie North Contra-style death squads, justified not leaving.
"The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
And that the Iraq war had been planned since the '90's is not news either:
"After leaving the administration, former Bush treasury secretary Paul O'Neill said that an attack on Iraq had been planned since the inauguration (January 2001), and that the first National Security Council meeting involved discussion of an invasion".
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/oneill.bush/
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Come now pepik - you're surely not so dim as to think that everybody here has forgotten such recent history already.
Of course the link was a fraud, but that wasn't clearly established until 2004 - a year after the invasion and occupation. After that, the "security situation", exacerbated by Ollie North Contra-style death squads, justified not leaving. |
The link was doubted from the very beginning. The failure to tie Iraq to 9/11 was absolute - the WMD case almost as bad.
What you are suggesting is that they went to such enormous lengths to create this giant, elaborate 911 conspiracy, but they forgot to implicate Iraq.
Even by truther theory standards, that is shockingly stupid.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | Quote: | Come now pepik - you're surely not so dim as to think that everybody here has forgotten such recent history already.
Of course the link was a fraud, but that wasn't clearly established until 2004 - a year after the invasion and occupation. After that, the "security situation", exacerbated by Ollie North Contra-style death squads, justified not leaving. |
The link was doubted from the very beginning. The failure to tie Iraq to 9/11 was absolute - the WMD case almost as bad.
What you are suggesting is that they went to such enormous lengths to create this giant, elaborate 911 conspiracy, but they forgot to implicate Iraq.
Even by truther theory standards, that is shockingly stupid. |
What in tarnation are you talking about pepik?
They didn't 'forget' anything - they lied and fabricated 'evidence' to implicate Iraq and the long planned invasion went ahead.
You'd have to be shockingly stupid not to see that, or to think that the methods and motives of global psychopaths are always what the real world would recognise as logical.
Also, you've revealed yourself once too often to be basically an unpleasant and abusive troll, so consider yourself on my ignore list.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jomper
Validated Poster
Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 99
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pepik wrote: | | The failure to tie Iraq to 9/11 was absolute - the WMD case almost as bad. |
Very true.
Both cases could almost be called "attempted deception" of the public on the part of the government, don't you agree? Conspiracy, even.
What do you think the consequences were of their false allegations? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What in tarnation are you talking about pepik?
They didn't 'forget' anything - they lied and fabricated 'evidence' to implicate Iraq and the long planned invasion went ahead. |
Were you institutionalised in the run up to the invasion? You seem to have no recollection of the actual history. The Bush administration couldn't link Iraq to the 911 attacks. They tried to link Iraq to Al Queda, but even that claim was extremely weak. And they knew it. So they alluded to it, they hinted and suggested it, but they couldn't say Iraq was involved in 911. The careful word games the Bush admin played on this subject are well documented. They were widely criticized in the media and there was a great deal of skepticism.
They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble at home, abroad, in the UN, everywhere if they had just framed Saddam for 911 with some real evidence - something which would have been as easy as pie since according to you they designed and carried out 911 themeselves for their own nefarious purposes.
Instead, your theory is that they generated plenty of evidence for strategically useless Afghanistan and then didn't bother for Iraq (or, as jomper claims, woke up that morning and tried to think of some way to blame their own orchestrated attack on Iraq, as if the thought had never occurred to them before).
And then years later as the war goes pear shaped they are forced to admit they were wrong all along. | Quote: | | You'd have to be shockingly stupid not to see that, or to think that the methods and motives of global psychopaths are always what the real world would recognise as logical. |
Right, the plotters deliberately came up with ridiculous, nonsensical plots just to make anyone who uncovered them look stupid. Yes, that's a great explanation. | Quote: | | Also, you've revealed yourself once too often to be basically an unpleasant and abusive troll, so consider yourself on my ignore list. |
Reality is on your ignore list. How can you possibly expect me to care?
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section.
Last edited by pepik on Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
