Great video on the collapse of the towers

[I_like_chicken]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&hl=en

It only deals with the collapse of the towers, and I think it does an excellent job of explaining some of the anomalies. It thoroughly convinced me that there were bombs, but judge for yourselves.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. This is a link to 9/11 Mysteries

Which has been linked to many times here.

[I_like_chicken]

2. Oopps, sorry

I did not know that. I just saw it today, and it just blew my mind. For me this video proves that there were bombs in the WTC, which can only mean Bush MIHOP. I just wanted to know what other people thought about this video, I guess I should have used the search function...

[Laurier]

3. Try this one instead, I_like_chicken

It's more accurate than the one you linked to, and even better, it shows you why.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

[rman]

4. "more accurate"? - surely you mean "promotes the Official Story"

On comparing a 767 with a 707:
This video does not contest that as 9/11 Mysteries points out, contrary to the official story, the weight of the two planes is very similar.
Rather is says the difference in size of the planes is "critical". But they are careful to phrase the things they say so that it's literally true, just misleading: they say the size of the planes is critical in distinguishing between the two planes. Of course it's true that when distinguishing between any types of planes, size is important - but the video does not say the difference in size is critical wrt the damage that the planes would do.

Yet in the video it is claimed that the fact that "9/11 mysteries" does not mention the difference in size, is somehow suspicious.
On the other hand it skips over the fact that the official story lies about the difference in weight between a 707 and 767.

Also the video claims that contrary what is said in 9/11 Mysteries the official story does not say the planes were fully loaded with fuel. Fact is that some versions of the official story do say the planes were fully loaded with fuel. Just look at what OCT-ers on this forum say.


Also pay close attention to the "eyewitness" at 6:15 into the video:

"...then i witnessed both towers collapse, one first one then the second - mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just to intense."

Sounds scripted?
Sounds like an expert who has done an analysis of the collapses even though it's supposedly just a guy in the street who saw the events just hours before the interview?


---

If you want to see another good documentary about 9/11 watch "9/11 Press for Truth".
Here's a clip from it:
Kissinger Vs. the 9/11 Families
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4

[William Seger]

5. Yes, it's far more accurate

9/11 Mysteries is bullshit. Anyone who thinks it's a "great video" really needs to watch Screw 9/11 Mysteries.

[rman]

6. Anything that doesn't fit the Official Story is bullshit according to OCT-ers

As is to be expected.
It's just another way for OCT-ers to say "i'm right, you're wrong".

[William Seger]

7. Watch the video

Bullshit is bullshit.

[rman]

8. I did

You already read my some of my opinion about it.

[William Seger]

12. 1) Your criticism missed the point being made, and

2) If that's all you found, it must be pretty accurate.

[petgoat]

10. I'm at 1:55 and already pissed off by both 9/11 Mysteries and Screw 9/11 Mysteries.

Mysteries pisses me off because "Brad" claims to be a conservative
Republican when he's not, and Screw pisses me off because of its
absolutely illegitimate appeal to authority in quoting Dr. Firmage
as a debunker of Dr. Jones's work.

Dr. Firmage's statement, if you would bother to read it, shows that
he never read the FEMA report, but only a summary, and it doesn't
even mention the NIST report! Its conclusion is incompetently
ambiguous: "Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing."

Who can disagree with that? This is an expert? Firmage is a clown,
and any presentation whether it's debunking911 or Screw that thinks
he's of any value is a piece of crap.

http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm

You're right. Bullshit is bullshit. Who's got time for this crap?

[petgoat]

11. At 1:56 I'm pissed off again at Screw.

They quote implosionworld: "The fact is, many steel structures have collapsed due to fire...."

Discussion in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x134721
reveals that these were all partial collapses, and there are not very many of them.

Then bolo is kind enough to quote this gem from the implosionworld report:

Either partial or total failure of the structural framing, members, and/or
connections was considered to have met the definition of "collapse."

What a crock! I'm beginning to suspect that Screw911Mysteries is a very clever
dis-disinfo campaign created by the makers of 9/11 Mysteries.

Also, Dr. Firmage, implosionworld, NIST, and FEMA are doing their best to expose
the crimes of the Bush regime by presenting obviously untenable defenses of the
official story.

[William Seger]

14. Huh? Why would you expect ALL buildings to react the SAME way?

[petgoat]

31. I don't, and I'm starting to suspect your mischaracterizations are deliberate. nt

[William Seger]

42. Well, just what is your argument?

Do you or do you not understand at least some of the factors that would make the difference between a partial and a total collapse? Do you or do you not understand that an extremely important factor in the WTC collapses is the total number of floors that fell as a single block?

[petgoat]

49. The issue is the dishonest statement in Screw 9/11 Mysteries.

"Many steel buildings have collapsed from fire."

This is not true. Implosionworld lists a few, and none are
total collapses.

[William Seger]

53. Baloney

Yes, I understand what you're trying to say, and the question is, is does that make sense; is that a valid criticism? And the answer is: NO! Because, nobody has ever claimed that the total collapse of the towers was caused by fire! Can fire initiate a collapse? Contrary to what 9/11 Mysteries tries to imply the answer is: YES! And we have the proof of that. What happened after that to cause the total collapse was not because of the fire, and again, that would depend on the specific conditions and the specific building details. Screw 9/11 Mysteries was trying to correct a deception by 9/11 Mysteries -- presented as a deep "mystery" where there is none! -- and you're trying to perpetuate it.

[petgoat]

54. The total collapse of three buildings due to fire is a mystery

because it had never happened before.

The quote from Screw implying that it had happened many
times before was extremely dishonest.

Screw Screw. It's a piece of doo doo by 0:1:56.

[William Seger]

113. And you'll NEVER solve the mystery

... looking at it through your navel.

[petgoat]

118. I'm not trying to solve the mystery. I'm trying to get a legitimate

scientific investigation.

[AZCat]

35. Again I find myself pointing out...

that the referenced report (NIST list of historical collapses) is not comprehensive, but it seems to be a difficult concept for some to grasp.

[William Seger]

13. "absolutely illegitimate appeal to authority"

That criticism is absolute bullshit. There's nothing "illegitimate" about citing an authority who is qualified to offer an authoritative opinion. It's also odd that you seem to think that, despite his own expertise, Firmage couldn't have a valid but independent opinion about Jones' hypothesis without reading the complete FEMA and NIST reports, while elsewhere, you accuse experts of blindedly going along with whatever those reports said.

[petgoat]

16. The authority never studied the issue, so his opinion cannot be authoritative

regardless of his credentials.

You seem to think Dr. Firmage might have formed an independent opinion,
though he nowhere claims to have done any independent work.

[William Seger]

17. You're projecting your own ignorance on Firmage

There wasn't any need to do a detailed analysis of the tower collapses to see the total lack of scientific rigor in Jones' paper, which is what Firmage actually addressed in that statement -- NOT the collapse of the towers.

[petgoat]

21. I'm comparing my limited knowledge to Dr. Firmage's ignorance.

He never read the FEMA report (I have). He apparently never heard of
the NIST report. That's ignorance. For you to invoke an engineer who
presents a conclusion as incompetently ambiguous as "very disturbing"
as an authority on interpretations of scientific rigor is laughable.

[William Seger]

27. Again, the conclusion at issue is about JONES' paper, not the NIST report

Just because you don't appreciate this "subtle" difference doesn't make your argument valid.

Here's what he said about the FEMA report: "I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft." Firmage is well qualified to make that judgement, considering that he also would probably have been qualified to participate in that study.

Here's what he said about Jones' paper: "I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable." Again, Firmage is well qualified to make that judgement, without any need whatsoever to see the details in the FEMA report.

You're blowing smoke.

[petgoat]

30. The issue is the authority of Dr. Firmage's conclusion that

Jones is mistaken, and you are mischaracterizing my argument.

If Dr. Firmage has never heard of the NIST report, and if he
has not bothered to read the FEMA report, he has not investigated
the issue.

He is thus in no position to make comments on the reliability of the
studies of someone who has investigated it. His WalMart confidence
in the SUMMARY of the $600,000 FEMA report would seem to be misplaced
when the findings of that report were revered by the $20,000,000
NIST report.

And your confidence in Dr. Firmage's qualifiation to comment is
misplaced when Dr. Firmage apparently never even heard of the NIST
study.

Thanks for thoroughly discrediting your own argument.

[Bolo Boffin]

34. Look, this is not semantics here.

You've completely misunderstood a) the way implosionworld was using the term "collapse," and b) where Firmage was directing his criticism.

a) When a definition of a word is set out in the opening paragraphs of a paper, then people who misunderstand by cherrypicking quotes (i.e., not reading the report in full) can't blame the report for their misunderstanding.

b) Firmage doesn't have to read the FEMA or NIST reports to recognize serious problems in Jones' analysis.

[AZCat]

37. I had a very good professor that frequently illustrated your point "b".

He would take an article that discussed some new invention or technique and without having to know all the details about the topic he could easily determine whether or not it was possible or economical, just by applying simple engineering analysis techniques.

[petgoat]

45. "Firmage doesn't have to read the FEMA or NIST reports "

He certainly does! His criticism rests on the assumption that the fires were
sufficient to weaken the steel. He uncritcally accept the assertions of the
summary without examining the basis for the assertions and the grounds for
skepticism.

Note he does not provide a single specific criticism of Dr. Jones's paper.
He only labels it "unreliable" and "disturbing."

I misunderstood nothing about the implosionworld quotes.

[William Seger]

50. Oh, I see

> His criticism rests on the assumption that the fires were sufficient to weaken the steel.

And as "everyone knows" that concept was invented by FEMA and NIST, sometime after 9/11, so Firmage couldn't possibly know it without reading the entirety of thier reports. :eyes:

[petgoat]

51. He could not know, without reading the reports, how reasonable

is the assumption that the fires were sufficient to weaken the steel.
He believes that assumption to be reasonable.

Reading the reports shows that assumption to be highly questionable,
and thus reasonable only to someone who illogically refuses to consider
alternative explanations for the destruction of the towers.

[William Seger]

55. And again, you're judging Firmage's remarks in the "light" of your own ignorance

> He could not know, without reading the reports, how reasonable is the assumption that the fires were sufficient to weaken the steel.

That is just absurd. Anyone actually familiar with steel construction would certainly know that fire can weaken columns to the point that they can't carry their load.

> Reading the reports shows that assumption to be highly questionable...

To whom, other than "truthers"? Apparently, is isn't "highly questionable" to the vast majority -- almost unanimous -- of experts.

> ... and thus reasonable only to someone who illogically refuses to consider alternative explanations for the destruction of the towers.

You have yet to explain what was "illogical" or unreasonable about Firmage's comments. And, you won't be able to, because they were perfectly logical and reasonable to anyone who actually knows something about the subject matter. You just want to keep repeating "he didn't read the report" over and over.

[petgoat]

57. You are framing the issue dishonestly or incompetently.

Nobody is disputing that fire can weaken columns. The issue, as I clearly stated,
is whether the fires in the towers were sufficient to weaken columns. There is
much reason to doubt this, and little reason to believe it beyond the fact that
the towers fell.

Your invocation of the near-unanimity of the experts is silly when those same
experts were as unanimous about the plausibility of the absurd FEMA theory
as they are about the NIST theory. Tin-foilers who challenged FEMA were
right, and the unanimous experts were wrong.

What was illogical about Dr. Firmage's comments, as I have stated many times,
is that he has not even studied the towers' destruction before pronouncing
Dr. Jones's hypothesis "unreliable," that he assumes without justification
that the fires were adequate to weaken steel, and that he states an
incompetently ambiguous conclusions: That Dr. Jones's work is "disturbing."

[William Seger]

77. No, YOU are

... and you're also overlooking an important fact: Firmage was right -- structural damage and fires caused the collapses, and Jones' paper is a load of hooey.

... and Screw 9/11 Mysteries was correct to point that out.

[petgoat]

104. You seem to be unable to distinguish between fact and opinion. nt

[William Seger]

114. Of course I can

... and in some cases (this being one of them), I'm also pretty good at distinguishing between an well-informed opinion and an ignorant one.

[Bolo Boffin]

60. NO, HE DOES NOT.

Jeez.

Firmage does NOT have to read the NIST report or the FEMA report to point out that Jones' analysis is crapola! Jones' analysis is crapola right there on the page!

[petgoat]

62. Firmage does have to study the question before concluding

that the fires were intense enough to bring the towers down.

Since his letter contains no more specific criticisms of
Jones's paper than your posts do, but simply incompetent
name-calling, I must suppose that his belief that Dr. Jones's
paper lacks reliability is his belief that the FEMA paper
is reliable.

Since he has not read the FEMA paper, this belief is not
justified. Furthermore, since the FEMA paper has been
shown both by tinfoil-hatters and NIST to be unreliable
itself, we may conclude that Dr. Firmage is himself
unreliable.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. You have fun whacking that straw man of yours.

I don't know what that straw man ever did to you, but it must have been heinous the way you keep whacking it.

[William Seger]

41. Well, if that's the issue

... then I most certainly didn't "thoroughly discredit" my own argument. My argument is that Firmage is a professor of structural engineering, so he would understand immediately the nature of the collapse without reading the details of the FEMA report, but the FEMA report isn't at all relevant to his knowledgeable judgement that Jones' paper is a pile of horseshit. Your only response seems to repeat over and over that Firmage didn't read the full report. Then you claim victory in the debate. Where have I seen this exact same "tactic" before? Oh yeah; every other debate I've ever had with you.

[petgoat]

46. "he would understand immediately the nature of the collapse"

He understood the nature of the collapse to be in accordance with the FEMA
report. Which, at the time, had been throroughly discredited by the NIST
report, but Dr. Firmage was too lazy and ignorant to know that.

the FEMA report isn't at all relevant to his knowledgeable judgement that
Jones' paper is a pile of horseshit.

It certainly is, because his endorsement of it shows his faulty understanding of the
destruction of the towers, and his failure to do any research before pronouncing judgement.
Dr. Firmage is the only so-called expert who has endorsed the FEMA report after the
release of the NIST.

One would think that Dr. Firmage's grasp of freshman physics would be sufficient to
allow him to comment on Dr. Jones's paper, which is a physics paper, not an engineering
paper. But the clear incompetence of his study and his letter raise grave doubts about
his qualification to do anything.

Seriously, I am starting to wonder if he is in fact a stealth supporter of Dr. Jones.

[LARED]

48. Dr. Jones's paper, which is a physics paper,

On what planet?

[LARED]

43. PG the reality of Jone's paper is that most

near anyone that can distinguish between a thought out argument, and a pile of horsepucky understands Jone's paper has serious problems to resolve before it has any credibility. The fact that a handful of people are suckered by it only points out the sad state of critical thinking ability, not to someones ability to smell out a steaming pile of manure.

[petgoat]

47. Dr. Jones's paper raises a number of questions about the

behavior of the building before, during, and after its destruction.

He proposes an hypothesis to explain some of the peculiar happenings,
and advocates further investigation.

How this represents a pile of horsepucky I can't fathom, and I have
no reason to believe you can either.

[William Seger]

56. And ...

> Dr. Jones's paper raises a number of questions about the behavior of the building before, during, and after its destruction.

... and clearly demonstrate that he is in no way qualified to talk about buildings. Proof: His "theory" that it should be easy to make the towers fall over like a tree, when it would have been somewhere between extremely difficult and impossible.

[petgoat]

58. Dr. Jones presented no such theory

He quoted Tom Harris's "howstuffworks" article about the difficulty of
causing a building to collapse into its footprint.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm

At worst Dr. Jones may be faulted for relying on Mr. Harris's scholarship
in the matter. It is not a material point.

Is it your position that buildings don't topple?

[AZCat]

61. Another example highlighting your failure...

to understand the topic. Don't you see the significant difference between the buildings in your photo and the world trade center towers?

[petgoat]

67. Of course I see the difference. You are just trying to play

"gotcha" with an immaterial matter.

[AZCat]

73. Immaterial?

If you see the difference (and understand why it is significant) then why did you post the picture as an example?

[petgoat]

109. I posted the pictures as an example of buildings that topple,

something William Seger seemed to think was impossible.

The question of whether they can topple or not is immaterial to the
issue that was under discussion in this sub-thread, which is the
credibility of Dr. Jones's paper. I posted the pictures to impugn
the credibility of Mr. Seger.

[AZCat]

111. Your post (and included image) is what I call...

an "ignoratio elenchi".

The difference (because you seem unable to determine it) between your photo and the incident under discussion (collapse of the buildings on 9/11/01) is that your example is a seismic example and therefore invalid for a discussion of collapses from other means (something that has been pointed out repeatedly by CTers). In case you didn't know, buildings respond quite differently to seismic activity than than forces applied otherwise - say, energy transferrence from falling floors.

[petgoat]

116. Tell me something I don't know. You want to argue about

an immaterial matter brought up by someone else. I posted the
photo only to make him look like an idiot.

[William Seger]

121. Well, better luck next time

The factors that would determine whether or not a building would fall over like a tree are neither a mystery nor a matter of subjective opinion. If you don't understand that, you would be well advised to leave the subject alone, or your attempts to make someone else look like an idiot could backfire.

[AZCat]

122. No, I want to point out your flawed argument.

I think I have done a sufficient job of that.

[petgoat]

123. I will note he has still not answered the question. Is it his position

that buildings never topple?

[William Seger]

127. It's the same position that I've had every other time that we've argued about the same point

Jones uses the "fact" that it's easy to make buildings fall over like a tree as one of the "suspicious" aspects about the collapses. I pointed that out as an example of Jones not knowing what he was talking about when you claimed that Jones "raises a number of questions about the behavior of the building before, during, and after its destruction." Then you said that wasn't Jones theory, he was just quoting an article, and:

> At worst Dr. Jones may be faulted for relying on Mr. Harris's scholarship in the matter. It is not a material point.

In fact, that isn't true. What Jones did was misinterpret the article and then work that misunderstanding into his list of "suspicious" behaviors, and a central one at that. Read carefully, what the article really says is that's the easiest type of demolition job to do because it's the least complicated, which makes sense. But that does not imply that you can easily make any given building topple like a tree, and Jones demonstrated that he was way out of his field by not knowing that.

I'm sure I've explained to you at least twice what conditions would be necessary for a building to topple over like a tree, and why those conditions were not present in the tower. I see that was time wasted.

[petgoat]

128. Jones uses the fact that it's difficult to make buildings land in

their footprint as the "suspicious aspect of the collapse.

The point about buildings toppling like trees is an aside in the text he
quotes about blasting, text by Tom Harris.

I'm sure I've explained to you at least twice what conditions would be
necessary for a building to topple over like a tree

Why do you have such an obsession with an immaterial issue? Dr. Jones
doesn't make an issue of it, so why do you?

[tenseconds]

82. re: Firmage

This Firmage guy sounds like a real duncedick. Where did he come from? He hasn't read NIST? What is he ...a fuckin' book burner?

[William Seger]

97. Firmage is a PhD Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering at BYU

And you are... ?

Oh, and by the way, Firmage was right, too.

[petgoat]

105. Firmage is a clown who concludes his so-called "refutation"

of Jones with his evaluation of Jones's work as "disturbing."

I'm starting to think he's a stealth supporter of Jones.

[William Seger]

112. It wasn't a "refutation"

Read it again; it was a letter to the editor, especially addressed to BYU students who were exposed to Jones, advising them to do some research before believing that clown.

I'm starting to think that you are a stealth supporter of the official story.

[petgoat]

115. You're absolutely correct. That's why I called it a "so-called refutation"

It is features on the "debunking911" website under the title

" Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory"

Just another indication of how silly that site is.

[petgoat]

9. Care to provide any specific criticisms of 9/11 Mysteries?

I've seen about half of it; saw a couple of minor errors.

One was the repetition of the 10 sec. collapse time, but
since the 9CR (and reportedly, NIST) repeated that time
I suppose it can be forgiven.

[William Seger]

15. The closest 9/11 mysteries ever gets to the truth

... is about half of it. One big and specific one: They completely dismiss the damage done to the towers by the planes, then falsly claim that experts believe that fires alone caused the collapses. They make a big "mystery" out of that, but the mystery disappears if you consider the reality.

[petgoat]

18. "They completely dismiss the damage done to the towers by the planes"

And they're right to do so. The structure was highly redundant, the period
of oscillation remained the same after the damage, there are no reports of
major damage to the core area, Dr. Eagar minimized the effects of the planes'
impacts, likening them to "a bullet hitting a tree," and NIST clearly exaggerated
the core damage.

Here NIST postulates ten core columns severed in WTC2.



Here is the path of the fuselage:



In addition, Dr. Asl's sample of a core column with a bite taken out of it
shows that even a direct hit, presumably by an engine, would not necessarily
sever the column. How many direct hits by engines do you think were made?

NIST's ultra summary from the press reports was: The planes didn't do it,
the fires didn't do it, the fireproofing did it.

[William Seger]

19. "And they're right to do so."

This is the reason you'll never understand what happened: You just don't want to.

[LARED]

20. This statement really peaks my curiosity

The structure was highly redundant, the period of oscillation remained the same after the damage, there are no reports of
major damage to the core area,


The period of oscillation and redundancy are related in what way?

Whom are you expecting to provide reports of major damage to the core area?


Seriously PG, you sound good, but you're a millimeter thick.

[petgoat]

22. The period of oscillation and redundancy are related in that both

are reasons to downplay the significance of structural damage
as a causative factor in the destruction of the towers.

Whom are you expecting to provide reports of major damage
to the core area?

Witnesses who made cell phone calls, people like Brian Clark
who walked down from WTC2 84, cleared away some drywall in
the stairwell, saw no major fires, reported no structural
damage, and stopped at 31 to make phone calls.

A plot like 9/11 could not be done today. Too many people
with cell phone cameras.

you're a millimeter thick.

Said the rock. Try scissors next time.

(edited to add comment about cell phone cameras)

[William Seger]

23. Gee, how come only one guy made it down from above the collapse?

All the other people didn't think of that? Or were the stairways blocked by all that non-existent core damage?

[petgoat]

26. There were four. Brian Clark, Stanley Praimnath, Ron Defrencesco,

and one other.

Read "102 Minutes."

The reason people didn't go down is because they were scared of the smoke and the dark,
they had no idea the building was going to collapse, and 80 floors is a long way to
walk for most Americans, even downstairs.

[William Seger]

29. Oh, sorry, there were FOUR of them? That changes everything

So, they were scared of the smoke and the dark, so instead, they were hanging out the windows a hundred feet above the ground? Now it all makes sense.
:eyes:

[petgoat]

32. Asphyxiation will do that to a person. You've never tried that?

I use the technique all the time before making a dreaded phone call.

"I'm not going to breathe until I dial."

Anyway, you've changed the subject again. Yes, there were four. Did any
of them report structural damage to the core?

[William Seger]

96. One stairway

According to the NIST report, that one stairway A (the farthest from the impact zone) was the only one in the south tower that wasn't blocked, and all three stairs in the north tower were blocked. The only people who got down from above the impact zones came down that one stairway. Yet you use that one stairway as evidence that there was no core damage. Amazing how far you'll go to keep your delusions alive.

[petgoat]

106. "there was no core damage" is a stupid straw man. nt

[tenseconds]

84. 4-0 ...you lose...

Thats four more witnesses than you have buddy.

[William Seger]

98. Uh, no it isn't

According to witnesses (including some of those 4), that was the only stairway in either tower that wasn't blocked.

You lose.

[petgoat]

107. Can you name these witnesses? Did anybody try to get down

other stairways and fail?

Perhaps no one tried other stairways simply because no one exercised
leadership like Clark did. People had no idea the towers would fall.
They went up, trying to get away from the smoke from smoldering rugs
and the heat, expecting to be rescued from the roof.

[William Seger]

119. Yes

The NIST report doesn't list names of witnesses, but yes, I have seen other sources if you're not willing to believe that NIST actually did rely on witnesses to make that determination. I might even go to the trouble of digging some up for you, but only if you promise that if I do, you will never again try to use that "no core damage because the stairs weren't blocked" argument. Deal?

[petgoat]

124. I never said "no core damage because the stairs weren't blocked."

Brian Clark testified that the stairs were blocked by drywall.
He moved it out of the way.

Stairs blocked by drywall would be sufficient to turn back
unathletic office workers who were scared of the dark, bothered
by smoke, and thought the buildings would not collapse.

Actually, any competent plot would have installed charges to
blow the drywall in to block the stairs, and even smoke generators.
You couldn't have people descending the stairs, maybe taking
pictures of the impact zone.

The woman waving from the bottom of the impact zone on WTC1, Edna
Citron--I've always wondered why she couldn't get into the stairwells.
I've seen a picture that appears to be her falling, and I've wondered
what could have induced her to jump.

So let's see, William--first you said (post 23) there was only one survivor
from above the impact zone, and now you're saying you've seen testimony
of such survivors but you can't remember where?

Umm, excuse me Bill, I think you're busted.

[William Seger]

126. No, genius

I'm talking about reports from people who phoned from above the collapse -- people who never got out -- not survivors.

The stairway that Clark was able to clear was the one farthest away from any plane collision: in the corner of the core opposite the corner that Flight 175 cut through. Flight 11 ploughed almost directly into the core of WTC1.

[petgoat]

130. According to Brian Clark, the stairwell he used was blocked

by drywall. So all the stairways were at least nominally blocked.

The question is, were they truly irreparably blocked, or were they
simply sufficiently blocked to repel people who wanted to avoid the
dark and the smoke?

[LARED]

40. I can say this with great confidence

80 floors is a long way to walk for almost anyone, even us Americans.

[William Seger]

24. Please explain how the "period of oscillation"

... allows us to "downplay the significance of structural damage."

[petgoat]

28. Significant structural damage would cause the period of

oscillation to change.

[AZCat]

33. You have no idea what you are talking about.

The liberty bell is a poor analogy for the towers and once again displays your woeful lack of scientific and engineering fundamentals.

[petgoat]

52. The liberty bell is not an analogy for the towers. It's a dramatic

demonstration of the concept of the period of oscillation
as related to structural integrity.

Obviously the WTC was a reed, not a bell. And no, I'm
not claiming the WTC vibrated at audio frequencies.

[AZCat]

59. Obviously?

That word, coming from you, means anything but. Please get grounded in these topics before making such foolish claims.

[petgoat]

63. If the tower is not a reed, what is it? nt

[AZCat]

64. It's a complex structure...

something that seems to have slipped by you.





On Edit: included missing word.

[petgoat]

65. I've got a secret for you: So is a reed.

[AZCat]

75. Congratulations - you can use google.

Now can you tell me why a reed is a poor analogy for the towers?

[tenseconds]

85. get on it...

Well give us some of your scientific and engineering fundies..dude. Step up to the plate. How come only 2 of the NIST steel samples only sustained temperatures past 250C.And somehow heat helped bring these towers down? Lets hear YOUR THEORY!!!!!!!! NOW DUDE!!!! Get on it...

[AZCat]

88. First why don't you correct the information in your post?

Then we can start to work on the explanation of my theory. Of course, it would be nice if you were conversant with several relevant technical subjects first - are you?

[tenseconds]

89. step to the plate

I'd don't have to be conversant on anything. Its your oral exam...step to the plate. Your final grade is counting on it...so far you're not doing too well.

[AZCat]

90. I already passed all my exams.

That's why I get to do what I do for a living.

Have you figured out yet what you need to correct, or am I going to have to respond to yet another misdirect?

[tenseconds]

91. ignore

I'm putting you on the ignore list where you belong.

[AZCat]

92. Okay.

Good luck.

[William Seger]

36. So you're claiming that it didn't?

What was the period of oscillation before and after the crashes, and how much difference would you expect if the damage had been "significant" -- and why that specific amount of difference?

We can directly see the damage to perimeter columns -- but apparently you don't consider that to be "significant" :eyes: -- so how did that perimeter damage affect the period of oscillation, or are you saying that it did not?

[petgoat]

68. "What was the period of oscillation before and after the crashes"

Check your beloved NIST report.

[William Seger]

76. I have read it

That's why I asked those questions.

[LARED]

39. I take back what I said

make it a nanometer thick

BTW, a bell emits a spectrum of frequencies when it is rung.

How much do you think it could change? Even if the "official story" (whatever that mean) is correct?

[petgoat]

69. "How much do you think it could change?"

Oh sort of from "BONG..................." to "thunk"
(for a qualitative example).

Which is not to say I think the WTC should have thunked before
it disintegrated into dust.

[AZCat]

25. Petgoat - haven't you learned by now to stop trying...

to use terms and ideas that you clearly don't understand? How many times do I need to correct your interpretation of engineering principles before you get a clue?

[petgoat]

70. Poof poof poof poof poof. nt

[AZCat]

74. I guess that means...

you haven't learned yet.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. That last drawing is a crock, petgoat.

Do you think the damage should have been contained to the area of that brown line? That's only an indication of the trajectory; the plane itself was far wider, and the wings were loaded with fuel.

Your four witnesses to "no structural damage" were using the only staircase passable after impact. For technical reasons, it was outside the core at this point on the north side, well away from any structural damage being rationally posited by the NIST report.

[petgoat]

71. "the wings were loaded with fuel."

Aha! The fuel severed the ten 18" X 36" core columns in WTC2!
My, what an innovative theory!

[LARED]

78. Why not just admit

the whole mass, velocity, energy thingy in a complete mystery to you.

[AZCat]

79. It certainly seems that way.

Yet our poster will not stop trying out different theories, regardless of any deficiencies.

[LARED]

80. It must be a conspiracy theorist thing

It seems quite common place that CT'ers feel instant expertise once they have amassed enough Google credits. Most non CT'er once they know they have reached their limit in a particular field have enough sense to at least be quiet.

Although it could be a engineering thing as well. I often marvel at the expert opinions voiced by accountants and sales guys when it comes to designing and building engineering systems. Somehow they think because they manage to change the oil in the car without screwing it up, they are qualified to tell me the proper way to redesign or rebuild the 1000 hp centrifugal compressor.

[AZCat]

81. Hah!

"Back seat engineering" is always a pain to deal with. Plenty of people know more than I do about various subjects and I welcome advice from those individuals, but there are plenty of others who think they possess a greater understanding than they actually do and they all seem to want to share their misconceptions with me.

[petgoat]

103. So did the fuel sever the columns, or didn't it ?

One thing I notice about "debunkers".

I want to talk about 9/11. They want to talk about me.

[AZCat]

110. How 'bout we talk about resonance instead?

I would be glad to talk about my pet theories regarding the building collapses but you've a little homework to do first. I can recommend a couple of good texts, but they're all calculus based (at least). I'm sure there are others out there that are written for non engineering types but I am not familiar with them - you'd have to seek out other sources for recommendations.

Can you explain yet why buildings such as the World Trade Center towers have complex responses to wind?

[petgoat]

117. How bout we stick to the core discussion? Does anyone here

believe that the fuel severed the columns? If not, what
(according to NIST) severed the ten core columns in WTC2?

If you want to talk about resonance, nobody's stopping you
from demonstrating your genius and vast engineering knowledge.

[AZCat]

120. I can always count on you to exaggerate.

I have never claimed to either be a genius or have vast engineering knowledge. I do have a competent grounding in engineering principles (at least most of them - damn you Professor E*****!), relevant experience in the building construction industry (where I currently work) and experience in aviation (where I worked during college).

More importantly, who originally suggested that the fuel severed the columns? I believe that would be you, in Post #71 of this thread. This was in response to a post by boloboffin where he says, "Do you think the damage should have been contained to the area of that brown line? That's only an indication of the trajectory; the plane itself was far wider, and the wings were loaded with fuel." You apparently misunderstood his statement and have compounded your original foolishness by pursuing this line of reasoning. The difference between the collision of an unbound fluid and a solid object and the collision of a bound fluid and a solid object seems to have escaped your notice. Perhaps you'd be willing to acknowledge your mistake?

[Bolo Boffin]

125. A simple experiment for you to try.

Go to the store and buy two gallons of milk.

Empty one of them out, but leave the top intact on the second.

Give the empty gallon to one of your friends, and the full gallon to another of your friends.

Have them take turns striking you in the face with their gallon containers.

Report back to us on your findings.

[petgoat]

129. I'll do that right after you kick me to the kerb.

So are you claiming, bolo, that the fuel tanks got through the perimeter
columns instact?

[tenseconds]

87. because...blahblahblah

Are you still explaining the collapse because of the blown away asbestos? huhuhuhuhuh. I don't need to go to the funny papers.

[LARED]

93. Can I get on your ignore list?

Please

[AZCat]

94. No way, man!

You get a daisy committee named after you - no more perks until the rest of us get our share!

[LARED]

95. Dang, I am honored

I never really figured out what a Daisy committee is, so I googled and found this

http://911closeup.com/nico/911truthlings.html

http://www.911closeup.com/nico/FAQ_planehuggers.html

I am more than willing to share, if I knew how.

[William Seger]

102. Go get some sleep, LARED!

"A 'Daisy Committee' is able to post 24/7 without any sleep."

WOW! I'm impressed! (Apparently, the paranoids are, too. :rofl: )

[William Seger]

101. Do your "funny papers" come in a Zig-Zag pack?

[William Seger]

44. By the way, forgot to mention this one:

> NIST's ultra summary from the press reports was: The planes didn't do it, the fires didn't do it, the fireproofing did it.

Um... that's bullshit. Their conclusion was that the combination of the plane damage and the fires caused the collapses, and that the fire damage was exacerbated by the fireproofing damage. Is this explanation just too complicated for you to get your head around? That's a shame, but that doesn't mean you can use your own simplified misunderstanding as the basis of an argument.

[petgoat]

72. "Is this explanation just too complicated "

Not at all, but it's too complicated for the American People to get
their head around.

What they got was that a heavy-duty Fed commission blamed it on
the fireproofing. I've discussed it in open forums. They think
the fireproofing was negligently installed. Some think there
wasn't any fireproofing at all on upper floors, because of
corruption in the Port Authority.

I saw the press writeup. I think it was AP. It said that NIST
said the towers could take the impact, they could take the fires,
and if not for the damage to the fireproofing, they would still
be standing.

[tenseconds]

83. why?

Why did the 911 Commission completely misrepresent the 47 core columns of the towers? Why did NOVA completely misrepresent the 47 core ciolumns of the towers?

[LARED]

86. Did the 9/11 commission even mention the core column?

I think you are mistaken.

[William Seger]

99. I think "ten seconds" is the amount of research he's done

[petgoat]

108. That's the point. They didn't. They said the core was

"a hollow steel shaft."

You really are ignorant about this stuff, aren't you?

[William Seger]

100. Do you mean NIST?

The NIST report didn't "misrepresent the 47 core columns"; in fact, they reverse-engineered them precisely for their model.