Building 7 ???

12-07-2011 12:35PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

eehhhh.......the molten steel that was found underneath the rubble.

And how do you know this exactly?

jackiebaron wrote: »

You see, you can't have it both ways. When a "truther" points out that jetfuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, the "official" comeback will be "It wasn't melted it was only weakened, dammit!"
Yet pools of molten steel were found in the rubble of the WTC.

Well first off the reality is that the jet fuel only weakened the steel.
It's not the "offical" comeback, it's the truth.

The only people who think that anyone claims the steel melted is the CTer crowd so they can throw out that particular red herring.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I believe fires burned there for 6 weeks after.

Source?

And is this stuff about WTC7 specifically?

jackiebaron · 12-07-2011 12:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

I am discussing the Twin Towers because their collapse is the cause of the fires in WTC7 therefore are inescapably relevant. The "magic passport" is not.

Oh I can, I'm just not going to deal with it here on this WTC7 thread.
We've a whole 9/11 section now to fill up. I'll address the point in a new thread.

Well that's kind of a strawman to put it like that.
But as we've seen from the rake of pictures I've put up, there's no question that the debris could make it as far as the south face of WTC7.
Unless you've a really good explanation for these:
http://www.debunking911.com/Bankers.jpg
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7_Smoke.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/FEMA_-_4224_-_Photograph_by_Bri_Rodriguez_taken_on_09-27-2001_in_New_York.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IGZLkbR7jWs/RhArIs4wgLI/AAAAAAAAAE8/SSjMO5HyHG8/s1600-h/swcornerdamage.jpg

Especially the first one as it's got a chunk of the towers actually dangling out of it's hole.

What's the requisite temperatures for steel to fail?
How are you defining "fail"?

Because in reality, since the fire wasn't the only factor, it didn't have to melt through steel girders, it only had to weaken them to a point where the already damaged structure (and thanks to a design flaw) could no longer support the building.

Actually it did have a sprinkler system, unfortunately the system on several of the lower and critical floors was fed by the city's water supply.
The city's water supply to that area was shut down when the towers collapsed.

Now again, what's impossible about the collapse and where have the NIST manipulated anything about WTC7?

King Mob, what is your background in structural engineering and/or physics?
You claim to know exactly the cause of WTC7 collapsing yet 100's if not 1000's of highly qualified engineers have stated that what you're stating is impossible. You'll doubt the experts (who aren't paid off shills) yet you'll believe the know-nothings on TV.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

And there is absolutely NO account of WTC7 in the 9/11 report.

My simple question for you, KM, is this:

Why do you flatly refuse to believe that the official explanation of events might be false and why don't you even contemplate the posibility of an alternative? What are you afraid of?

12-07-2011 01:00PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

King Mob, what is your background in structural engineering and/or physics?

Physics undergrad actually.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You claim to know exactly the cause of WTC7 collapsing yet 100's if not 1000's of highly qualified engineers have stated that what you're stating is impossible. You'll doubt the experts (who aren't paid off shills) yet you'll believe the know-nothings on TV.

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

But there's thousands of other engineers that say the opposite, not just "people on TV".
It's almost as if relying on authority alone is a logical fallacy of some kind...

jackiebaron wrote: »

And there is absolutely NO account of WTC7 in the 9/11 report.

But there is an NIST report on it. I've been drawing from it extensively.

jackiebaron wrote: »

My simple question for you, KM, is this:

Why do you flatly refuse to believe that the official explanation of events might be false and why don't you even contemplate the posibility of an alternative? What are you afraid of?

I don't flatly refuse to believe anything. And I'm not afraid of anything. It's a bit silly and melodramatic to accuse me of it.
By actually reading your and other CTer's opinions on 9/11 I'm seeing what the questions are about the official story.
The difference is I'm critically examining stuff and finding that all the questions and claims about 9/11 come up flat, or are dishonest half truths or out and out lies.
Can you say that you are open to the possibility that the "official" story is true and that it wasn't an inside job?

There's a ton of points and questions in the post you quoted, would you care to address them, or would you prefer not to and stay safe in your worldview?

jackiebaron · 12-07-2011 01:36PM

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know this exactly?

Well first off the reality is that the jet fuel only weakened the steel.
It's not the "offical" comeback, it's the truth.

The only people who think that anyone claims the steel melted is the CTer crowd so they can throw out that particular red herring.

Source?

And is this stuff about WTC7 specifically?

Well either molten steel WAS there or it wasn't. According to the New York Fire Department, it was. According to you, it wasn't.

12-07-2011 01:41PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well either molten steel WAS there or it wasn't. According to the New York Fire Department, it was. According to you, it wasn't.

So who in the fire department said it? When? In what context?
Because I can't just take your word that they actually said this, you need to post the source.
If you can't, it's no different than me claiming that the FDNY said the exact opposite.

jackiebaron · 12-07-2011 02:24PM

King Mob wrote: »

Physics undergrad actually.

Congratulations. I'm an engineer myself. Though not a civil one though I did study civil for 2 years before branching into electronics.

But there's thousands of other engineers that say the opposite, not just "people on TV".
It's almost as if relying on authority alone is a logical fallacy of some kind...

Are these engineers reliable? Are they bought and paid for like the handful of bribed or blackmailed "scientists" who deny climate change? Can you get us the credentials of a couple of them?

But there is an NIST report on it. I've been drawing from it extensively.

KM, the NIST report is shambolic. It was politically controlled thereby limiting its scope. That's the easiest way to castrate an investigation.

In its official report the 9/11 Commission never once mentions the molten pools–––despite the testimony of the New York City commissioner.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.
After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:

“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

Now you previously stated that no steel melted and then asked who witnessed molten steel.

Well how about a plethora of contractors and first responders.
How about Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue:

www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”

So there are multiple eye-witness accounts of molten steel. They are documented in papers, statements, diaries, interviews, speeches, etc.

The NIST report glibly touches on it but can't explain it...in fact doesn't even try. The "possible" explanation given by the NIST is that under "certain circumstances" it is "conceivable" that some steel might have melted. It doesn't even bother to touch on what these certain "circumstances" might be. That miserably blow-off is an affront to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

So MC you can pull sh!t out of the NIST report if you want but you might as well be reading the Beano.

I don't flatly refuse to believe anything. And I'm not afraid of anything. It's a bit silly and melodramatic to accuse me of it.
By actually reading your and other CTer's opinions on 9/11 I'm seeing what the questions are about the official story.
The difference is I'm critically examining stuff and finding that all the questions and claims about 9/11 come up flat, or are dishonest half truths or out and out lies.
Can you say that you are open to the possibility that the "official" story is true and that it wasn't an inside job?

I am definitely open to the possibility that it happened according to the "official" report. Just as I am open to the possibility that a death may have happened according to the police and coroner's report. But once I hear of evidence destroyed or tampered with, witnesses threatened, and investigations stymied then I lose all faith in that explanation and nothing can convince me otherwise. Once I hear that the victim "fell on a knife 6 times" then I immediately have to dismiss the official report as codswallop.

There's a ton of points and questions in the post you quoted, would you care to address them, or would you prefer not to and stay safe in your worldview?

Well I'll try to find holes in your argument. I have no faith in the NIST report that you are religiously quoting from and neither do thousands of other engineers and scientists. It is a shoddy exercise masquarading as science and reminds me of the weak Intelligent Design crap masquerading as Creationism attempting to refute Evolution.

guitarzero · 12-07-2011 03:40PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

12-07-2011 03:48PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Are these engineers reliable? Are they bought and paid for like the handful of bribed or blackmailed "scientists" who deny climate change? Can you get us the credentials of a couple of them?

Well I'm not particularly bothered to do this, as I'm not the one relying on an argument from authority.
Just because someone is an engineer doesn't make them immune to shoody logic, lies and propaganda, as I'm sure you'd agree at least in regards to the scientists who disagree with you.

jackiebaron wrote: »

KM, the NIST report is shambolic. It was politically controlled thereby limiting its scope. That's the easiest way to castrate an investigation.

Yea, you claimed this before and I asked you to point out some the exact parts that were manipulated. You failed to do so for some reason.

jackiebaron wrote: »

In its official report the 9/11 Commission never once mentions the molten pools–––despite the testimony of the New York City commissioner.

In its 43-volume report about the WTC collapse released in September 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) does indeed mention the molten pools, but only in passing, to dismiss them. The NIST report not only fails to identify the energy source that melted steel beams and piers under the WTC, it states categorically that NIST inspectors found no evidence of any molten steel at ground zero–––a dismissal that is directly contradicted by the eyewitness accounts of the emergency responders, engineers, officials, and health experts already cited, not to mention the lead contractors who accomplished the cleanup.
After brushing aside the issue as irrelevant to the WTC collapse, the NIST report then suggests that:

“Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.”

Now before I actually address this I need to understand how this fits into your narrative.
Why first of all would there be molten steel in a controlled demolition?
Explosive demolition uses the shock of the explosion to break supports, heat plays no part.

And why exactly didn't they have a pre -scripted explanation for the molten steel?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Now you previously stated that no steel melted and then asked who witnessed molten steel.

Well how about a plethora of contractors and first responders.
How about Sarah Atlas, a member of New Jersey Task Force One Search and Rescue:

www.sas.upenn.edu/sasalum/newsltr/summer2002/k911.html

Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers, later wrote in The Structural Engineer about what he had seen, namely: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,” as well as “four-inch thick steel plates sheered and bent in the disaster.”

A similar account came from Leslie E. Robertson, an engineer who helped design the WTC. He is currently a partner at Leslie E. Robertson Associates, a structural consulting firm that was under contract to the WTC at the time of the tragedy. In a keynote address Robertson reportedly told the Structural Engineers Association of Utah that: “...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”

So there are multiple eye-witness accounts of molten steel. They are documented in papers, statements, diaries, interviews, speeches, etc.

Again before I address these points you said:

Well either molten steel WAS there or it wasn't. According to the New York Fire Department, it was. According to you, it wasn't.

Can I take it that you can't actually find the FDNY actually saying what you think they said?

jackiebaron wrote: »

I am definitely open to the possibility that it happened according to the "official" report. Just as I am open to the possibility that a death may have happened according to the police and coroner's report. But once I hear of evidence destroyed or tampered with, witnesses threatened, and investigations stymied then I lose all faith in that explanation and nothing can convince me otherwise. Once I hear that the victim "fell on a knife 6 times" then I immediately have to dismiss the official report as codswallop.

So there's no reasoning or evidence I can possibly provide that could ever convince you that the official story is a valid explanation?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Well I'll try to find holes in your argument. I have no faith in the NIST report that you are religiously quoting from and neither do thousands of other engineers and scientists. It is a shoddy exercise masquarading as science and reminds me of the weak Intelligent Design crap masquerading as Creationism attempting to refute Evolution.

You do realise that it's the creationists that are the ones rejecting the real explanation using shoddy reasoning and science and positing a conspiracy of scientists to keep them down, right?
You guys aren't on the winning side of that analogy.

12-07-2011 03:50PM

guitarzero wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Why aren't they showing the east side of the penthouse collapsing before the rest of the building?
It's almost as if they're dishonestly presenting the video...

guitarzero · 12-07-2011 04:41PM

King Mob wrote: »

Why aren't they showing the east side of the penthouse collapsing before the rest of the building?
It's almost as if they're dishonestly presenting the video...

Fell like a controlled demolition. Cant spell it any other way. You cant spell orange any other way. You're just bullish so no one should make it there policy to argue with your cemented nut. You just drain and not inform.

12-07-2011 04:47PM

guitarzero wrote: »

Fell like a controlled demolition. Cant spell it any other way. You cant spell orange any other way. You're just bullish so no one should make it there policy to argue with your cemented nut. You just drain and not inform.

Ok, here's me informing you of something.
That video did not show the entirety of the collapse, they have deliberately removed some footage to manipulate the clip to fit their narrative.
Before:

After:

This is where the clips in your video start.

Why don't they show the penthouse collapsing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds

Had anyone in the government pulled something like this you guys would be all over it.

jackiebaron · 12-07-2011 05:13PM

King Mob wrote: »

Well I'm not particularly bothered to do this, as I'm not the one relying on an argument from authority.
Just because someone is an engineer doesn't make them immune to shoody logic, lies and propaganda, as I'm sure you'd agree at least in regards to the scientists who disagree with you.

Whoa, whoa, back the fcuk up there KM. You flatly refuse to provide the names/credentials of engineers or scientists who backup the official line yet you demand everyone else provide YOU with source information and eyewitness accounts. Now I can see the kind of person we're dealing with here. I provided you with a few sources of eyewitnesses to the molten steel issue. In a previous post you just told a bald-faced lie. You stated that there was no molten steel. You stated that there were no witnesses to pools of molten steel. Why did you tell this lie?
Is it that you WANT this argument to collapse because you are tired of where it's going or, worse, you fear that there may be some weight behind alternative explanations?[/QUOTE]

Yea, you claimed this before and I asked you to point out some the exact parts that were manipulated. You failed to do so for some reason.

The NIST from the outset just assumed that the planes brought down the buildings. They never even considered ALL possibilities. That right there is gross negligence. Not only that but the tests they conducted on the steel trusses showed that they passed the test...so this was ommitted. They conducted computer simulations but fed information into these simulations that would result in a desired outcome. They rejected outcomes and scenarios which were as reliable as the ones they accepted purely because those scenarios gave different outcomes to what they wanted (not EXPECTED.....WANTED). They admitted that they had NO access to conditions at the central core so were merely guessing. They did have access to audiotape of two firemen who made it to the central core on floor 78 but they chose to not even listen to it and this audiotape would have given them a lot more insight into conditions there than what they had. Their transgressions in compiling this farcical report are too numerous to list. Sufficeth to say that it is completed biased, hence NOT scientific and would be laughed out of any laboratory or forensic investigation.

Now before I actually address this I need to understand how this fits into your narrative.
Why first of all would there be molten steel in a controlled demolition?
Explosive demolition uses the shock of the explosion to break supports, heat plays no part.

I don't know. I never said anything about a controlled demolition. I just want to know where molten steel came from considering fire couldn't have produced it.

And why exactly didn't they have a pre -scripted explanation for the molten steel?

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking here

Can I take it that you can't actually find the FDNY actually saying what you think they said?

So there's no reasoning or evidence I can possibly provide that could ever convince you that the official story is a valid explanation?

So the sources I gave aren't good enough, i.e. engineers, first responders, etc. The New York City commissioner isn't enough?

What about Mark Loizeaux president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. who was tasked with the cleanup of Oklahoma after the bombing there? He was drafted in for the cleanup of WTC and witnessed pools of molten steel.

But if you really will only accept FDNY and nothing else then try this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3075760762325077704#

I think it's safe to say that there was molten steel pools in the rubble. Would you agree?

Penn · 12-07-2011 05:21PM

Can everyone please try and calm it down a notch. This forum could create some great discussions so long as everyone chills out a bit and doesn't take things too seriously or personally.

12-07-2011 06:20PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Whoa, whoa, back the fcuk up there KM. You flatly refuse to provide the names/credentials of engineers or scientists who backup the official line yet you demand everyone else provide YOU with source information and eyewitness accounts. Now I can see the kind of person we're dealing with here.

Now it's clear you've misunderstood my point entirely.
I was just pointing out the fact that there are engineers etc who do agree with the official story, meaning that we simply can't take either engineer's word for it on their authority alone.
Me actually going to find specific names etc would not add to this point and would be a waste of time.
You being able to point to engineers that agree with you lends no more support to your side than me doing the same because it's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I provided you with a few sources of eyewitnesses to the molten steel issue. In a previous post you just told a bald-faced lie. You stated that there was no molten steel.

Actually you have me here I was trying to refer to the steel that failed which lead to the collapse (this was weakened, not melted) however I was insufficiently clear about this.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You stated that there were no witnesses to pools of molten steel. Why did you tell this lie?

This however, I never said.

jackiebaron wrote: »

The NIST from the outset just assumed that the planes brought down the buildings. They never even considered ALL possibilities. That right there is gross negligence.

What other possibilities should they have considered?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Not only that but the tests they conducted on the steel trusses showed that they passed the test...so this was ommitted. They conducted computer simulations but fed information into these simulations that would result in a desired outcome. They rejected outcomes and scenarios which were as reliable as the ones they accepted purely because those scenarios gave different outcomes to what they wanted (not EXPECTED.....WANTED).

So what were the other outcomes?
What information did they feed into the simulation that was erroneous or false?

jackiebaron wrote: »

They admitted that they had NO access to conditions at the central core so were merely guessing. They did have access to audiotape of two firemen who made it to the central core on floor 78 but they chose to not even listen to it and this audiotape would have given them a lot more insight into conditions there than what they had. Their transgressions in compiling this farcical report are too numerous to list.

What insight would the audiotape have offered precisely?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Sufficeth to say that it is completed biased, hence NOT scientific and would be laughed out of any laboratory or forensic investigation.

Well, at least if you believe what you're told by conspiracy sites.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't know. I never said anything about a controlled demolition. I just want to know where molten steel came from considering fire couldn't have produced it.

So what is your explanation for the molten steel?
Or what is your explanation for why the towers fell if it wasn't a controlled demolition?

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking here

Well if 9/11 was preplanned with these reports ready to go, why in your narrative didn't they have an explanation for why there was the molten steel?

jackiebaron wrote: »

So the sources I gave aren't good enough, i.e. engineers, first responders, etc. The New York City commissioner isn't enough?

No, it's just that you claimed that FDNY made such claims yet didn't provide any quotes form them. Now you've posted one, which doesn't refer to there being "pools."

jackiebaron wrote: »

What about Mark Loizeaux president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. who was tasked with the cleanup of Oklahoma after the bombing there? He was drafted in for the cleanup of WTC and witnessed pools of molten steel.

Could you actually provide the precise quote, because none of them seem to be saying what you think they are.

jackiebaron wrote: »

But if you really will only accept FDNY and nothing else then try this:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3075760762325077704#

I think it's safe to say that there was molten steel pools in the rubble. Would you agree?

Well no, not really.
The first link with the story about the dog contains no quote from the person at the scene about there being molten steel.
it's only mentioned by the reporter writing the story, seemingly for effect and even then does not mention "pools"

The seconds says: “molten metal which was still red-hot weeks after the event,”
So not steel or pools.

The thrid is from a speech, not a eyewitness testimony, so
“...as of 21 days after the attack the fires were still burning and molten steel still running.”
Is probably more for effect than accuracy.
And again, no pools.

So why the difference between what you've said the witnesses report and what they've actually said.
A can't really address something you aren't supplying an accurate picture of what you at least think was happening.

Di0genes · 12-07-2011 06:37PM

jackiebaron wrote:

The NIST from the outset just assumed that the planes brought down the buildings. They never even considered ALL possibilities.

jackiebaron, your posts are riddled with factual inaccuracies to pick just one at random

2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what

caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

jackiebaron · 13-07-2011 02:05AM

Di0genes wrote: »

jackiebaron, your posts are riddled with factual inaccuracies to pick just one at random

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Di0,

Why are you even bringing up controlled demolition? Have I once mentioned it?

Let's move gently along to the factual inaccuracies that you mention. Please point out one (of the many).

jackiebaron · 13-07-2011 03:05AM

King Mob wrote: »

Now it's clear you've misunderstood my point entirely.
I was just pointing out the fact that there are engineers etc who do agree with the official story, meaning that we simply can't take either engineer's word for it on their authority alone.
Me actually going to find specific names etc would not add to this point and would be a waste of time.
You being able to point to engineers that agree with you lends no more support to your side than me doing the same because it's an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

Well I'll gladly take the name of one of the experts of whom you speak.

Actually you have me here I was trying to refer to the steel that failed which lead to the collapse (this was weakened, not melted) however I was insufficiently clear about this.

I'm sorry, but tests have shown (tests, ignored even by the NIST) that failure was NOT possible. NOT possible.

This however, I never said.

What other possibilities should they have considered?

Any and EVERY possibility from an earthquake to elves coming in the night....that's what an impartial investigation IS.

So what were the other outcomes?
What information did they feed into the simulation that was erroneous or false?

The other outcomes were that their simulations were utterly inconclusive. They (the NIST) discarded computer simulations that not only having being supplied with the parameters that would (vaguely) extrapolate towards their goals, they reverse engineered their figures. They conducted test whose result flew in the face of their "would-be" findings and they flagrantly ignored these findings. Now you claim to have an education in physics....which leads me to believe one of two things.....either you do.....or you don't. Either way, manipulation of scientific facts does NOT prove a point even if it proves an outcome. We've all bitched our findings in Chemistry class or moved a few dots on the graph to get out on time for lunchtime pints but that's college......not life-and-death investagative work.

What insight would the audiotape have offered precisely?

Seeing as the NIST admitted to having no knowledge whatsoever about conditions at the centre core of the WTC and so assumed that it was melting under tremendous heat close to 1000 degrees Centigrade, yet two humans were marching around that very same spot, then I would imagine that what these two firemen were saying to each other regarding saving lives and not actually melting like the mythical steel beams....well I would imagine that two humans describing their surroundings would be of quite significant value to a report about the conditions in the centre of the building.

Well, at least if you believe what you're told by conspiracy sites.

And still the dig.

So what is your explanation for the molten steel?
Or what is your explanation for why the towers fell if it wasn't a controlled demolition?

I don't HAVE an explanation for molten steel. Why do you keep asking me this? I have reason to believe that molten steel in large quantities was witnessed. You tell ME how it got there.

Well if 9/11 was preplanned with these reports ready to go, why in your narrative didn't they have an explanation for why there was the molten steel?

And why do you think I think it was "preplanned"
I just want to know where the molten steel came from when planes and jet fuel couldn't have caused it.

guitarzero · 13-07-2011 03:24AM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, here's me informing you of something.
That video did not show the entirety of the collapse, they have deliberately removed some footage to manipulate the clip to fit their narrative.
Before:

After:

This is where the clips in your video start.

Why don't they show the penthouse collapsing?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjrAJVp4ds

Had anyone in the government pulled something like this you guys would be all over it.

You still insist that fire and some rubble impact caused this building to collapse like this? Thats insane. Spare me the " You're not an engineer" nonsense. 1/3 on the left slightly pancakes downward and then the rest just collapses? It looks like a somewhat misfired demolition. I just cant believe you are still protesting.

13-07-2011 03:29AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

I'm sorry, but tests have shown (tests, ignored even by the NIST) that failure was NOT possible. NOT possible.

Ok, which tests, run by who and when and in what context?
What about the tests done by the NIST that did show failure was possible? Are these tests fabricated?

And if all the tests show it's impossible like you claim, why did the towers collapse?

jackiebaron wrote: »

Any and EVERY possibility from an earthquake to elves coming in the night....that's what an impartial investigation IS.

Are you being serious?
Cause if you are, I don't think you understand what impartial means.

What plausible, sane possibilities should have been tested.
Earthquakes are not plausible because no earthquake was detected and elves in the night is clearly insane.

I think they might have been biased to planes being the cause, because planes crashed into the buildings...

jackiebaron wrote: »

The other outcomes were that their simulations were utterly inconclusive. They (the NIST) discarded computer simulations that not only having being supplied with the parameters that would (vaguely) extrapolate towards their goals, they reverse engineered their figures. They conducted test whose result flew in the face of their "would-be" findings and they flagrantly ignored these findings. Now you claim to have an education in physics....which leads me to believe one of two things.....either you do.....or you don't. Either way, manipulation of scientific facts does NOT prove a point even if it proves an outcome. We've all bitched our findings in Chemistry class or moved a few dots on the graph to get out on time for lunchtime pints but that's college......not life-and-death investagative work.

You're being painfully vague here.
What were the specific outcomes they rejected and how do you know they were rejected.
I'm not just looking for a vague statement of the fact, I'm looking for the specific reference.

jackiebaron wrote: »

Seeing as the NIST admitted to having no knowledge whatsoever about conditions at the centre core of the WTC and so assumed that it was melting under tremendous heat close to 1000 degrees Centigrade, yet two humans were marching around that very same spot, then I would imagine that what these two firemen were saying to each other regarding saving lives and not actually melting like the mythical steel beams....well I would imagine that two humans describing their surroundings would be of quite significant value to a report about the conditions in the centre of the building.

Ok, First of all you're going to need to show the details of that recording so we can know it's actually what you claim it is, then back up your claim that the NIST didn't listen to it.
There's really no point in me trying to address a point that you (or others) could very well making it up or twisting the facts.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I don't HAVE an explanation for molten steel. Why do you keep asking me this? I have reason to believe that molten steel in large quantities was witnessed. You tell ME how it got there.

And why do you think I think it was "preplanned"

So you don't actually believe that the twin towers or WTC7 were brought down by a controlled demolition as part of an inside job?

jackiebaron wrote: »

I just want to know where the molten steel came from when planes and jet fuel couldn't have caused it.

Well again you've yet to detail what you think was actually seen, as none of the eyewitness reports seem to match up with your claim about pools of molten steel.

jackiebaron · 13-07-2011 03:33AM

OK folks, I'm off to bed now.....I would just like to know where the molten steel in the basement of the WTC came from. It's been witnessed by many and denied by King Mob (wondering if he was there).

Just need to know your theories regarding molten steel.

Sweet dreams all.

13-07-2011 03:35AM

guitarzero wrote: »

You still insist that fire and some rubble impact caused this building to collapse like this? Thats insane. Spare me the " You're not an engineer" nonsense. 1/3 on the left slightly pancakes downward and then the rest just collapses? It looks like a somewhat misfired demolition.

But that's not the point I was making. I was exceedingly clear so there is very little chance you missed it by accident.

The video you posted leaves this section of the collapse out.
Is this an honest thing to do? Why do you think they left this out?

And as for your strawman about "fire and some rubble impact", I've addressed this point several times in several ways earlier in the thread, if you'd like to read them

guitarzero wrote: »

I just cant believe you are still protesting.

So I should stop asking questions about the conspiracy and just accept what I'm told?

13-07-2011 03:41AM

jackiebaron wrote: »

OK folks, I'm off to bed now.....I would just like to know where the molten steel in the basement of the WTC came from. It's been witnessed by many and denied by King Mob (wondering if he was there).

Just need to know your theories regarding molten steel.

Sweet dreams all.

That's not what I've said.
Just been pointing out that the eyewitness testimony you've been providing doesn't match what you've been claiming.

guitarzero · 13-07-2011 03:57AM

Say what you have to say but it doesnt add up based on the vid evidence. It looks very much like a controlled demo. How an entire structure can come down from across the street due to extensive fire (somehow) and rubble doesnt add up. The math you are pushing doesnt make sense. It brings me back to that orange video. If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and swims like a duck then it has to be a duck. The speed and flow of the fall, bar the jerk on the left side, which eventually takes place on all sides is so smooth its as though it was a demo. It was a demolition.

jackiebaron · 13-07-2011 11:34AM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, which tests, run by who and when and in what context?
What about the tests done by the NIST that did show failure was possible? Are these tests fabricated?

And if all the tests show it's impossible like you claim, why did the towers collapse?

Are you being serious?
Cause if you are, I don't think you understand what impartial means.

What plausible, sane possibilities should have been tested.
Earthquakes are not plausible because no earthquake was detected and elves in the night is clearly insane.

I think they might have been biased to planes being the cause, because planes crashed into the buildings...

You're being painfully vague here.
What were the specific outcomes they rejected and how do you know they were rejected.
I'm not just looking for a vague statement of the fact, I'm looking for the specific reference.

Ok, First of all you're going to need to show the details of that recording so we can know it's actually what you claim it is, then back up your claim that the NIST didn't listen to it.
There's really no point in me trying to address a point that you (or others) could very well making it up or twisting the facts.

So you don't actually believe that the twin towers or WTC7 were brought down by a controlled demolition as part of an inside job?

Well again you've yet to detail what you think was actually seen, as none of the eyewitness reports seem to match up with your claim about pools of molten steel.

Look KM.....now you're just being painfully childish. Of course I wasn't being serious about elves in the night. Don't be an idiot. But this was a crime scene, no? That being the case, all testimony, all statements such as those who claimed to hear explosions in the basement, those who witnessed pools of molten steel in the rubble should ALL have been taken as HARD EVIDENCE.
You don't conduct an investigation into ANYTHING (such as you seem to think) by just picking one possible scenario and discarding all other possibilities willy-nilly. And you claim to have studied physics? I'd love to hear your theories on empirical experimentation.

You're going round in circles about this whole thing. Molten steel was witnessed in the rubble. You denied this. I gave you the sources of witnesses. You are now trying to shift to something else, obfuscating, prevaricating and shifting the goalposts. I half expect you to come back and demand the phone number of any and every witness to the molten steel. Can you not just be a grown up and concede that molten steel was witnessed in the rubble?

Di0genes · 13-07-2011 12:34PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Look KM.....now you're just being painfully childish. Of course I wasn't being serious about elves in the night. Don't be an idiot. But this was a crime scene, no? That being the case, all testimony, all statements such as those who claimed to hear explosions in the basement,

Explosions are not proof of explosives.

those who witnessed pools of molten steel in the rubble should ALL have been taken as HARD EVIDENCE.

Witness testimony is not hard evidence.

You don't conduct an investigation into ANYTHING (such as you seem to think) by just picking one possible scenario and discarding all other possibilities willy-nilly.

It's been shown to you that the NIST did nothing of the sort.

You're going round in circles about this whole thing. Molten steel was witnessed in the rubble.

Molten Metal was witnessed in the rubble, and was found in the rubble. Some people said it was Molten Steel.

How did they know it was Molten Steel? Where they able to perform a detailed metallurgical analysis of the substance by eye?

How did they know it was Molten Steel

You denied this. I gave you the sources of witnesses. You are now trying to shift to something else, obfuscating, prevaricating and shifting the goalposts. I half expect you to come back and demand the phone number of any and every witness to the molten steel. Can you not just be a grown up and concede that molten steel was witnessed in the rubble?

No merely a firm understanding as to how they were correctly able to identify molten steel from molten aluminium (aluminium being highly present in the WTC complex, and having a much lower temperature threshold.

jackiebaron · 13-07-2011 12:38PM

King Mob wrote: »

Ok, which tests, run by who and when and in what context?
What about the tests done by the NIST that did show failure was possible? Are these tests fabricated?

And if all the tests show it's impossible like you claim, why did the towers collapse?

Are you being serious?
Cause if you are, I don't think you understand what impartial means.

What plausible, sane possibilities should have been tested.
Earthquakes are not plausible because no earthquake was detected and elves in the night is clearly insane.

I think they might have been biased to planes being the cause, because planes crashed into the buildings...

You're being painfully vague here.
What were the specific outcomes they rejected and how do you know they were rejected.
I'm not just looking for a vague statement of the fact, I'm looking for the specific reference.

Ok, First of all you're going to need to show the details of that recording so we can know it's actually what you claim it is, then back up your claim that the NIST didn't listen to it.
There's really no point in me trying to address a point that you (or others) could very well making it up or twisting the facts.

OK, at the sake of sounding exasperated beyond endurance with someone who's just plain stubborn and not in the slightest bit interested in facts, conjecture, reasonable doubt, etc., etc. I will try to deal with your points one by one. You bombard a volley of questions and demand sources as if everything I'm telling you I've just pulled out of a hat. When I provide you with sources you don't say "Thank you, I stand corrected." You don't even have the decency to contemplate the source or the evidence. You simply ignore it. Or shift off to something else and demand evidence or proof of another claim.

Well I'll go through all your demands one by one and I'd appreciate it if you would tell me that you are satisfied. This is a transcript of the conversation between the two firefighters who made it up to the area of impact:

Battalion Seven Chief: "Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-45 Code Ones.

Ladder 15: "Chief, what stair you in?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "South stairway Adam, South Tower."

Ladder 15: "Floor 78?"

Battalion Seven Chief: "Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here."

Battalion Seven Chief: "Tower one. Battalion Seven to Ladder 15."

Battalion Seven Chief: "I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam stairway to knock down two fires. We have a house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, okay."

Ladder 15: "Alright ten-four, we're coming up the stairs. We're on 77 now in the B stair, I'll be right to you."

Battalion Seven Operations Tower One: "Battalion Seven Operations Tower One to Battalion Nine, need you on floor above 79. We have access stairs going up to 79, kay."

Battalion Nine: "Alright, I'm on my way up, Orlo."

Here, Battalion Chief Orlo Palmer calls for hoses to be brought up to put out the fires. His expression “10-45 Code Ones” refers to dead bodies, of which, evidently, there were many. The tape shows that the firemen were not turned back by heat, smoke, or a wall of flames. They were able to function within the impact zone and were prepared to help the injured and combat the small fires they found. Palmer even mentions that the stairwell up to the next floor, i.e., 79, was passable. Minutes later the building came down on their heads.

There was no 2800 degree inferno (the heat needed to melt steel) nor was there even a 1000 degree inferno needed to WEAKEN steel. If there was, this conversation would never have taken place as the two men (and all those people around them, living and dead) would have been vapourised.
The NIST didn't even consider this recording in their report or the assumptions they made about conditions at the impact zone.

jackiebaron · 13-07-2011 12:49PM

Di0genes wrote: »

Explosions are not proof of explosives.

Witness testimony is not hard evidence.

It's been shown to you that the NIST did nothing of the sort.

Molten Metal was witnessed in the rubble, and was found in the rubble. Some people said it was Molten Steel.

How did they know it was Molten Steel? Where they able to perform a detailed metallurgical analysis of the substance by eye?

How did they know it was Molten Steel

No merely a firm understanding as to how they were correctly able to identify molten steel from molten aluminium (aluminium being highly present in the WTC complex, and having a much lower temperature threshold.

Maybe explosions aren't evidence of explosives as in the traditional sense of the word but they are evidence of "something" explosive. What could cause explosions?
Witness testimony should always be treated as hard evidence in an investigation. What makes you say that some testimony can be treated as gospel truth and other testimony can simply be ignored?

How did they know it was molten steel? I'm going to take the word of this guy:

Dr Keith Eaton, Chief Executive of the London-based Institution of Structural Engineers. I'm betting that a master engineer of this guy's calibre could identify practically every element in the periodic table that occurs naturally in nature along with the most common compounds.

Aluminium!!! Are you having a laugh? Maybe it was tinfoil from the sandwiches in the canteen.

13-07-2011 12:51PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Look KM.....now you're just being painfully childish. Of course I wasn't being serious about elves in the night. Don't be an idiot. But this was a crime scene, no?

So then what possibilities should they have investigated?

jackiebaron wrote: »

That being the case, all testimony, all statements such as those who claimed to hear explosions in the basement,

And what do these testimonies indicate?

jackiebaron wrote: »

those who witnessed pools of molten steel in the rubble should ALL have been taken as HARD EVIDENCE.

But you've yet to provide a single example of someone claim there were "pools" of molten metal.

jackiebaron wrote: »

You don't conduct an investigation into ANYTHING (such as you seem to think) by just picking one possible scenario and discarding all other possibilities willy-nilly. And you claim to have studied physics? I'd love to hear your theories on empirical experimentation.

Or you make models based on what you know, and make the best guesses possible for the variables you don't know.
Then you adjust the unknown variables until the simulation matches what was observed, (i.e. the timing and manner in which the towers fell). And if the variables are still in the possible parameters that could have existed at the scene, then the simulation an accurate representation of what happened.
This is what they did and it's a scientific approach.

Now again, please point to the tests you claimed showed the failures were impossible.
Which specific outcomes did the NIST reject?

jackiebaron wrote: »

You're going round in circles about this whole thing. Molten steel was witnessed in the rubble. You denied this.

No, some witnesses reported some molten metal not pools of molten steel as you have been claiming.
Not a single one of the witnesses you linked to said anything about pools.

jackiebaron wrote: »

I gave you the sources of witnesses. You are now trying to shift to something else, obfuscating, prevaricating and shifting the goalposts. I half expect you to come back and demand the phone number of any and every witness to the molten steel. Can you not just be a grown up and concede that molten steel was witnessed in the rubble?

Now who's shifting the goalposts.
First I've already explained that I never denied that there was reports of molten metal, saying otherwise is simply a lie.
Second you've claimed specifically that there were pools of molten steel, yet not a single one of the witnesses you provide, not one, mentions the word pools.
Why the difference?

And again, since you seem to have missed the question:
So you don't actually believe that the twin towers or WTC7 were brought down by a controlled demolition as part of an inside job?

13-07-2011 01:02PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

There was no 2800 degree inferno (the heat needed to melt steel) nor was there even a 1000 degree inferno needed to WEAKEN steel. If there was, this conversation would never have taken place as the two men (and all those people around them, living and dead) would have been vapourised.
The NIST didn't even consider this recording in their report or the assumptions they made about conditions at the impact zone.

So you do realise that you're leaving out specific details right?
Like the time this was, their exact location as well what the NIST report actually says the temperature was at that time and place.

You should know that the NIST clearly states that the temperatures only peaked to 1000 degrees and higher in certain places, not all over the area.
So you simply can't assume that they were saying that it was 1000 degrees where and when those firefighters where.

If asking for things like details and facts and figures is too much for you, maybe it's because your claims aren't actually supported by them?
And are you suggesting that I shouldn't be asking you for these references?

13-07-2011 01:07PM

jackiebaron wrote: »

Maybe explosions aren't evidence of explosives as in the traditional sense of the word but they are evidence of "something" explosive. What could cause explosions?

Fuel tanks, water tanks, cars, generators, transformers, battery banks, large fuse boxes, electrical equipement, falling elevators and debris, oxygen tanks fuel tanks hydrolic tanks and electrical components from the plane, small pockets of jet fuel, windows exploding under pressure, pipe bursting.....

jackiebaron wrote: »

Aluminium!!! Are you having a laugh? Maybe it was tinfoil from the sandwiches in the canteen.

Yea, for there to be aluminium to be found you'd need a massive source of it to suddenly appear in the building...

Building 7 ???

Comments