Interesting article on WTC collapse.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

http://www.fireengineering.com/display_article/143734/25/none/none/Depar/WTC:-LIGHTWEIGHT-STEEL-AND-HIGH-RISE-BUILDINGS

Very interesting pictures of what happens to steel in structure fires.

[jakeXT]

1. Interesting article about the investigation

Comprehensive disaster investigations mean increased safety. They mean positive change. NASA knows it. The NTSB knows it. Does FEMA know it?

No. Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members-described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=133237

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. Sounds good to me. I'm not opposed in any way to comprehensive investigation.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Time to update your argument

http://www.911myths.com/html/fire_engineering.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/jones_quotes_manning_.html

Manning has written on the subject since January 2002.

And in that very article, Manning calls the WTC collapses "the largest fire-induced collapse in world history."

Manning hasn't ever thought a controlled demolition was being covered up at Ground Zero. Even Steven Jones has abandoned any pretense that Manning was suspicious of a cover-up of demolition.

[jakeXT]

4. So did they preseve the crime scene? You could preserve every column and maybe understand

how it collapsed and not only pretend to know how it was initiated.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Manning endorsed the measures that were put into place after his column.

It's all right there at the 911myths link. Sourced and everything.

Since you're using him as an authority, you do accept his word that everything looked better?

And that this was just a fire-induced collapse, right?

[jakeXT]

6. I can't find anything by him on the results by the NIST investigation

Is he saying something about it

Why was steel evidence being broken down and sold for scrap before it could be analyzed?


...


First, the investigation into the collapse of the towers was significantly expanded, with the National Institute of Standards and Technology acting as the lead agency. Had this not occurred, the painfully superficial World Trade Center Building Performance Study recently published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency likely would have been the only document from the federal government to analyze the worst building collapse in American history.

..

http://www.911myths.com/html/bill_manning_june_2002.html

[Bolo Boffin]

8. "the worst building collapse in American history."

Not demolition. Collapse.

Do you accept his statement on this?

[jakeXT]

11. sure it collapsed

Main Entry: 1col·lapse
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlaps\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): col·lapsed; col·laps·ing
Etymology: Latin collapsus, past participle of collabi, from com- + labi to fall, slide — more at sleep
Date: 1732

intransitive verb
1 : to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely : fall into a jumbled or flattened mass through the force of external pressure <a blood vessel that collapsed>
2 : to break down completely : disintegrate <his case had collapsed in a mass of legal wreckage — Erle Stanley Gardner>
3 : to cave or fall in or give way <the bridge collapsed>
4 : to suddenly lose force, significance, effectiveness, or worth <fears that the currency may collapse>
5 : to break down in vital energy, stamina, or self-control through exhaustion or disease; especially : to fall helpless or unconscious
6 : to fold down into a more compact shape <a chair that collapses>

[Subdivisions]

7. That site you love to cite is disinformation and, as such, not credible. n/t.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Please produce your best evidence that the site is disinformation.

Your simple assertion isn't good enough.

[Subdivisions]

10. Please present your best evidence that it is the defacto source of

factual and conclusive information on the events of 9/11.

Besides your assertion that it is, that is.

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Your claim is that it is disinformation. Demonstrate your claim.

Or fuck off.

[Subdivisions]

17. Prove it is a reputable and believable site. Until you do, it's a bunch of bullshit. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Your post #7 is the claim we are discussing. That is yours.

What silly games you play, Subdivisions.

[Subdivisions]

21. It's your reference. You show me why I should believe anything I read there... n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Subdivisions]

24. No. It's your reference. You show me why I should believe anything

I read there. Otherwise, stop citing it.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Subdivisions]

28. It's your reference. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

29. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Subdivisions]

32. You can't give us a single reason to trust anything that site says. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[greyl]

13. You can't substantiate that, thus you lose more credibility. nt

[wildbilln864]

14. and being credible to you and othe OGCTers...

is oh so important. To you at least I guess.

[greyl]

15. Subdivisions is the one that (hilariously) brought up credibility.

Why you'd want to introduce a discussion about hypocrisy is a mystery.

[Subdivisions]

16. 911myths.com is a psy-op. You can't believe anything you read there. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

18. And again, will you produce the slightest shred of evidence of that assertion? n/t

[Subdivisions]

20. It's YOUR reference. Prove it's the be-all of conclusive answers to 9/11. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

23. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Subdivisions]

26. Stop citing a dis-info operation.

Or show us why we should believe anything posted there.

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Subdivisions]

30. Show us why we should believe anything you reference there. You can't. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

31. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Subdivisions]

34. Prove me wrong. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Your post #7, your claim, your burden of proof. n/t

[Make7]

37. You are wrong. ( n/t )

[Subdivisions]

44. Really? How so? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

46. Make7 has produced just as much evidence as you have. n/t

[Realityhack]

36. Sorry but that is not how reasoning works.

He need not prove it is the 'be-all' of 9-11 answers.

The site clearly sites it's sources. If you can find an error, or omission you can show that it is wrong on that point.
It is literally impossible to prove the opposite that no error or omission exists.

Now, do you have even ONE clear documented error to share with us? It shouldn't be hard to find one if it is all disinformation.

Come on... just ONE...

Something tells me you don't have one.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to expect Subdivisions to know anything...

about reasoning?

[Realityhack]

39. True enough.

Though the error should be pointed out IMO.

I liken some of the 'discussions' here to a Neo-Nazi talking to people in Harvard Square. I feel somewhat obligated to stop and point out the errors and stupidity despite no expectation at all that the other party will ever acknowledge them as they are clearly incapable of normal reasoning.

[Subdivisions]

40. You believe the OCT and you call me

'incapable of normal reasoning'.

Go figure.

[Realityhack]

41. You have yet to show any sign of understanding...

basic logic and reasoning in this thread.

[SDuderstadt]

42. How's that "declaration" coming along...

Subdivisions? Weren't you also working on some little report or something? Are you almost done? What are you waiting for?

And, for the record, I agree with RH that your reasoning skillls are close to zero.

[Subdivisions]

43. I've already answered that, twice.

My "declaration" was actually a suggestion. My suggestion was that those of us seeking the truth about 9/11 should find other messengers besides the ones that always turn up. Unfortunately, my entire post about it was deleted because I used the term "OCT-o-Bots". Oh well. So sorry you missed it.

My "report", as I have stated before, is ONLY for those seeking 9/11 truth. And that isn't you. It is still in the works. When I find the time to continue researching it and putting digital ink to it, I will make it available selectively on DU by PM request only. Suffice it to say that my research has taken a new direction and I am moving away from the physical arguments of 9/11, like building collapses. Nowhere did I say that the "report" I'm producing would be published on DU. It will not be.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Dude, if your report is only for "those seeking the truth"...

are you excluding us skeptics? Really? We're not seeking the truth? Upon what grounds do you conclude such a thing? Do you really believe our rejection of your goofy claims based upon the lack of evidence for them means we're not seeking the truth? I'm pretty sure that your "report" will not be "published on DU" because if it's like the rest of your typical nonsense, you're afraid that it'll be met with hoots of derision. And you'd be right.

By the way, did you ever get around to proving your claim that 911myths is dis-information and a "psy-op"? Just wondering.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Subdivisions is not going to sully his or her beautiful mind with facts and logical arguments. n/t

[Subdivisions]

49. Why do you say "or her"? Is my profile private? Nice personal attack, btw. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

54. I don't know that I've ever clicked on your profile. Why should I want to know more info about you?

Maybe I have. Can't remember, and I don't know that it's worth the bother to find out any more information about you. Your behavior and your weak arguments here don't inspire me to know you further.

ETA: In fact, the less I know about you personally, the more likely that I simply respond to your arguments (or lack thereof) and your presented evidence (or lack thereof). Less chances of me getting personal, the less personal information I know about you.

However, you appear to have confirmed that you are a male, so I'll say "he" or "him" talking about you now.

[Subdivisions]

59. And no matter what you think about me, I know I can count on you

to respond to my every whim. Which is quite fun, actually. Wasting your life is fun for me.

You haven't even begun to have to counter the BS I'm ready to lay down. But, you will nonetheless. I'm just some dude on the inner tubes, mate. I have no reputation to defend nor do I care what anyone thinks about me on the Internet.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Don't flatter yourself. n/t

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

63. I suggest less attention to me.

People will say that your focus on me is extreme. It's definitely unwanted.

[Subdivisions]

66. Well, is your attention on me any more justifiable or wanted?

No.

You get what you give. If you can't stand the heat...well...you know.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. My attention to you is focused on your arguments or lack thereof.

My interaction with you is limited to here.

You are the one that has sought out a physical meeting with me, requested it repeatedly.
You are the one openly admitting to not caring about your arguments here, only to "wasting my time" and "laughing about it."

The only heat I give you is your arguments. What you give back is something else.

I suggest less attention to me and more to arguments you care about.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Well, it's obvious, given your goofy claims...

that you don't care what anyone thinks of you, dude. For the record. your attempt to portray your constantly getting your ass kicked on the facts as you being some sort of "puppetmaster" is nothing short of, shall we say, inventive, to say the least. Pathetic, but inventive, nonetheless.

[Subdivisions]

67. Oh, yeah. I'm pathetic. Which makes your validation of me even more pathetic.

After all, look at all of your life I have wasted just today. Oh, and, little secret...I love watching you respond to my goofy and silly claims. You fall for it every time.

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

72. And you get your ass kicked on the facts everytime...

dude.

BTW, do you have some sort of problem with reading comprehension and subject/verb agreement? Can you show me where I said YOU were pathetic, dude? Hint: I said your attempt at something was pathetic.

[Subdivisions]

73. Yes, I have a reading comprehension problem. n/t

[lovepg]

79. It is fun isn't it? nt

[Subdivisions]

48. Yes, I am excluding you specifically, and a couple others. As for my claim

that 911myths is disinfo, and since if I don't address it now you'll badger me with it evertime you see me just like you have this "declaration" and "report", no I have no intention of giving it any more consideration or discussion. It's YOUR reference. Therefore, you must hold it in high regard. However, you FAIL to show why anyone should believe it. You consider it your defacto conclusive source as the official end-all of 9/11 information and research, I say it's BS designed to provide convenient explanations that obscure the truth. Cite it all you want.

And, before you have your chance at a childish neener, neener: HEY LOOK EVERYONE! SUBDIVISIONS CAN'T BACK UP HIS BULLSHIT!

[SDuderstadt]

50. So, dude...

you mean to tell us you cannot provide a single instance of specific disinfo from 911myths? Do you even understand the definition of disinformation? Are you claiming Mike Williams doesn't properly source 911myths? Or, is this just more of your bullshit, dude?

[Subdivisions]

52. It some more of my bullshit, dude. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

56. Well, then...

thanks for admitting it's bullshit and confirming what many of us have maintained all along...dude.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. I linked to 911myths to address a specific topic.

911myths had assembled several links to the writings of Bill Manning, showing him to be less a friend to silly 9/11 conspiracy theories than 9/11 Truth advocates like to pretend.

Therefore a proper dismissal of my argument would be showing Bill Manning did not write the things that 911myths claimed him to write (thus, also supporting your assertion that 911myths is a disinfo site) or showing that Manning has since changed his opinion (showing that at the very least, 911myths needs to update its information). You didn't do that. You made a simple blanket dismissal and refused to back it up.

There is no reason to take you seriously at all in this circumstance.

[SDuderstadt]

53. There is actually no reason to take him seriously in...

ANY circumstance. It's actually somewhat sad.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Subdivisions]

55. 'There is no reason to take you seriously at all in this circumstance.'

Yet, here you are. You continue to address me and my bullshit anyway, using up moments, nay, hours and hours of your life. And, you always will. The stupid, it burns!

But, I'm honored that I am allowed to keep you busy and waste the waning moments of your life with my bullshit. It's actually quite entertaining and me and my compadres have lots of laughs at your expense behind the scenes.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Well, then...

laugh away, dude. It'll distract you from your inability to provide proof for your goofy claims.

BTW, according to your profile, you have 11366 posts since 4/10/06 while I, on the other hand, have 8536 since 2002. Since you're probably no better at math than you are any other discipline, you might want to ask one of your little friends with a calculator precisely who is "wasting the waning moments" of their life, dude.

BTW, me and my "compradres" have lots of laughs at your expense right here in the open,dude.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Dude...

You can't even keep your posts straight. Bolo was the one who expressed no interest in your profile. I readily admit I looked at your profile. I wanted to find out, in the words of Barney Frank, "upon what planet do you spend most of your time?".

[Subdivisions]

70. OH MY GOD!

I'm such a fraud because I mistakenly thought I was talking to boffin. I deserve to die!

[SDuderstadt]

74. I'd say more of a drama queen than a fraud...

dude.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

81. You're going to need a much bigger piece of cheese...

for your obvious baiting to work, dude.

[Make7]

76. Really? How so? n/t

[Make7]

77. kick ( n/t )

[Make7]

78. Shorter Subdivisions: "I'd like to have an argument, please."

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y