Demolition theories are a huge embarrassment to the 9/11 truth movement.

[greyl]

Poll question: Demolition theories are a huge embarrassment to the 9/11 truth movement.

(Previous poll on No Planes theories)

[HamdenRice]

1. Incompetence theory

is a huge embarassment to OCTers -- ie the idea that the Bush administration is simply too "good" to do anything evil and everything they have done can only be explained by incompetence -- true or false?

[hack89]

2. You misunderstand

where do you get the notion that we feel Bush is too good? I don't recall anyone here ever advancing that argument.

The fact that Bush is evil enough to pull off 911 is not proof that he actually did it.

The CD theories are embarrassing because they fundamentally rely on the scientific ignorance of truthers. Which in turn requires elaborate conspiracy theories to explain why the vast majority of the engineering and scientific world doesn't embrace CD. If a cornerstone of your version of "truth" is that millions of engineers can be intimidated into silence (despite a thriving online truth movement), than perhaps there is less to CD then one would like to believe. We also have the not so minor issue that six years after the fact, the truth movement has not advanced their "science" one iota. Not a single new fact, not a single new theory - the same stuff repackaged over and over again. Why is it that the truth movement has yet to advance a detail, plausible scenario on how the WTC CD was actually carried out? Perhaps because of the "plausible" requirement?

[HamdenRice]

3. "millions of engineers can be intimidated into silence"

I hate to be blunt, but that's a really dumb premise. I am not personally a proponent of CD, but I don't think the proponents believe that millions of engineers have been intimidated into silence.

That's why my original analogy is apt -- that if you are an OCTer you must believe that Bush is simply too good to have engaged in any wrongdoing and everything he has done must be the result of incompetence.

[hack89]

4. A fundamental premise of CD

is that NIST, FEMA and other agencies knowingly whitewashed the WTC investigations with poor, misleading and deceptive science. When asked why the rest of the scientific community stood by and let this monumental deception slide by, the common response is government intimidation. You have been here long enough to know better - perhaps you should review the archives to refresh your memory.

[HamdenRice]

5. That is not a premise

Yes, I've been reading this forum a long time. This is a strawman that OCTers always raise, but is rarely posited by proponents of CDers.

That's why it is fair for me to take as a premise that all OCTers believe that Bush is simply too good natured to have committed any evil acts.

[hack89]

6. So the truth movement accepts the science in NIST report?

that it was a good faith attempt to the best of their ability to explain the WTC collapse?

[petgoat]

38. What science in the NIST report?

When the floor-sag tests gave them only four inches of sag, they threw out the tests
and put four feet of sag in their computer models. Bush Science!

[noise]

7. Why should we believe NIST was immune?

Look at the monumental deception of the "non science" aspects of the 9/11 Commission report. Are scientists more ethical than the rest of the population? Was the (JFK assassination) magic bullet theory a good faith scientific explanation? Am I an unpatriotic moron for wondering if the science was used in an improper manner?

[hack89]

15. Because you are unable to show that it was influenced, perhaps?

Plenty of scientist have stepped forward to challenge the government on global warming. Where are all the challengers to the NIST report?

We are not talking the 911 Commission report - it was a political document. We are talking the NIST studies.

[noise]

17. NIST findings had plenty of potential political consequences

For example, if NIST had found that explosives were used that could have led to a political crisis.

I'm not suggesting this actually happened but IMO this is a realistic scenario (preventing a political crisis) in which political considerations could take precedent over proper scientific inquiry.

[Ghost in the Machine]

18. NIST didn't test for explosive residue... in fact, they aren't even *sure* which metal

came from which towers except for the Twin Towers... I posted this last week here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x203623#203631

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was absolutely NO steel that was positively identified as coming from WTC 7 that was used in their analysis. Period. Below is a copy of an email exchange I had with Michael Newman of NIST...

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

from D D <[e-mail] > hide details May 1 (2 days ago)
to [e-mail]
date May 1, 2008 3:37 PM
subject Analysis of WTC 7 Steel
mailed-by gmail.com

Hello,

I was wondering if you could tell me how much steel from WTC 7 has actually been analysed during your investigations. I have seen a report stating that there has been NONE, but I find that hard to believe. Any information you could provide would be greatly appreciated as I am in a debate/discussion over this matter and would like to have an informed opinion with which to speak from.

Thanks in advance for your time,

Douglas Davis
Niota, Tn

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from "Michael E. Newman" <[e-mail] > hide details May 2 (1 day ago)
to D D <[e-mail] >
date May 2, 2008 4:06 PM
subject Re: Analysis of WTC 7 Steel
mailed-by nist.gov

Douglas,

NIST sought to positively identify the origin of all steel used in its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. This was accomplished either through identifying markings (stampings) or by geometry of the recovered steel. Of the seven buildings in the WTC complex, only the towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) had identifying markings, or shapes of columns or beams sufficient to unambiguously identify the original building. It was not possible to unambiguously distinguish the steel from the hotel (WTC 3), the three similar nine story buildings (WTC 4 through WTC 6) and the 47-story WTC 7.

If NIST was not able to positively identify the origin of a sample of steel, then it was not used to draw conclusions or inferences. While NIST is aware of the steel sample described as "Sample 1" in Appendix C of the FEMA report on the WTC disaster, NIST found no evidence that the sample was from WTC 7. Since we have been unable to verify that this sample came from WTC 7, it was not used in the investigation.

NIST conducted tests of many specimens of steel identified from the WTC towers to obtain both physical and mechanical properties. The properties so obtained were found to fall within the expected variation. The measured properties were used in conjunction with historical values from the literature and, in some cases, recovered mill test results for the subsequent analyses. Using this same approach, even if "Sample 1" had been known to be from WTC 7, NIST would not use properties obtained from testing a single piece of steel as the basis of its calculations.

Furthermore, in its testing of recovered steel for the investigation, NIST has taken great care in preparing test specimens only from steel that did not show any evidence of damage. As indicated in the FEMA report, Sample 1 was severely eroded and, therefore, one would not expect to obtain reliable mechanical properties from a sample that was altered by high temperature corrosion.

Hope this answers your question.

Thank you,
Michael Newman
NIST Public Affairs

****************************************************************
Michael E. Newman
Senior Communications Officer
Public Affairs Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070

Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

NIST info at http://www.nist.gov
NIST news and Tech Beat newsletter at http://www.nist.gov/news
WTC investigation info at http://wtc/nist.gov

****************************************************************

It does look like NIST is going to explore the possiblity of controlled demolition, though...

"This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm **scroll all the way to the bottom of the page**

[hack89]

19. And you understand that the NIST report was not a criminal investigation

don't you?

[Ghost in the Machine]

22. You *do* understand that the point of investigating a collapse is to find the *cause*

of the collapse... right? ANY kind of *real* investigation looks at ALL POSSIBLE scenarios. Of course, some can be dismissed without much thought, but you can't rule out CD in a building that wasn't hit by a plane, yet collapsed anyways...

So... what was your point?

[hack89]

26. But there was never any reason to suspect CD in WTC 1 and 2

it didn't look like a CD and there was absolutely no way to wire the towers without being detected. Dust analysis found no trace of explosives.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

In the case of WTC 7, there was massive structural damage and uncontrolled fires - it was not a surprise that it collapsed.

And since the truth movement has yet to advance a plausible scenario for how CD was planned and executed it is no surprise that no one takes CD seriously.

[Ghost in the Machine]

27. WTC 7

Please point out all of these "uncontrolled fires"... especially the ones that were "Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says." (firefighter accounts posted by boloboffin here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x202816#202979 )

Here's a picture of WTC 7 DURING the collapse... where are the flames??


from this post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x202816#203085

You *do* realize that "uncontrolled fires" just means that they didn't try to fight them, right? A fire in a wastebasket can be an "uncontrolled fire" if you just let it burn out by itself instead of trying to extinguish it...

[hack89]

28. Sure

I am willing to trust the FDNY - it wasn't a surprise to them.

One Battalion Chief coming from the building indicated that they had searched floors 1 through 9 and found that the building was clear.390 In the process of the search, the Battalion Chief met the building’s Fire Safety Director and Deputy Fire Safety Director on the ninth floor. The Fire Safety Director reported that the building’s floors had been cleared from the top down. By this time, the Chief Officer responsible for WTC 7 reassessed the building again and determined that fires were burning on the following floors: 6, 7, 8, 17, 21, and 30. No accurate time is available for these actions during the WTC 7 operations; however, the sequence of event indicates that it occurred during a time period from 12:30 p.m. to
approximately 2:00 p.m.

The Chief Officer then met with his command officer to discuss the building’s condition and FDNY’s capabilities for controlling the building fires. A Deputy Chief who had just returned from inside the building reported that he had conducted an inspection up to the 7th or 8th floor.392 He indicated that the stairway was filling with smoke and that there was a lot of fire inside the building. The chiefs discussed the situation and the following conditions were identified:

• The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.

• The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.

• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.

• They didn’t have equipment, hose, standpipe kits, tools, and enough handie talkies for conducting operations inside the building.

At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to completely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacuate the site around the building. 395, 396 The order terminated the ongoing rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At approximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was abandoned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-81.pdf

[Ghost in the Machine]

31. Where, besides in Bizzarro World, does fires on 6 floors equate to

"Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says." ???



Also, what's wrong with this?

"• There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires."

Ummm.... correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a little thing called the HUDSON RIVER about 2 blocks from WTC 7???

If I were grading your answer, I'd give you an F MINUS... you didn't even come close to answering the questions I asked...

Once again, please point out these raging fires in the collapse video. You know... those fires that were "on all 47 floors" and that "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block,"... yeah, *those* fires...

Where is all the fire damage, or even smoke or soot damage, on this building? Please point it out...

Thanks,

Ghost

[hack89]

32. Do you think the FDNY was suprised WTC 7 collapse?

the evidence point towards sufficient damage and fire for the building to collapse.

But your mind is made up so bye.

[Ghost in the Machine]

33. So, you don't have an answer then, right?

I didn't think so...

The NIST report is pure speculation, and some of it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, does it? More holes than Harry Whittington's face, huh?

[hack89]

35. If your theory depends on the FDNY

participating in a cover up that shields the murderers of hundreds of their friends and family, then perhaps your case is not as strong as you think it is.

You were not there - neither was I.

[Ghost in the Machine]

37. I don't really have a theory of my own.. I'm just poking around in the holes

of someone else's theory. That's part of those "critical thinking skills" you always spout off about, but seldom, if ever, use. Critical thinking requires you to think for yourself, not just follow along with what someone else is saying. If you notice an inconsistency or error, you should study it and try to correct it, right?

I also know, firsthand, how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be during a disaster. There's a LOT of inconsistency, confusion and just flat out false accounts due to disorientation and high levels of adrenaline pumping through people. You see, hack89, I lived through Hurricane Andrew in Florida City, Florida. During the eye of the storm I helped rescue about 40 people, including my own family, who I had to dig out from under a wall. I got trapped outside as the back wall of the storm came through. I took refuge under a concrete stairwell at the motel we were at. I saw wind flip a rig and a one ton dually with a 35' 5th wheel travel trailer on their sides. I also saw the wind blow parts of the roof off. Other people, who were inside rooms, said that tornadoes flipped the rigs and blew the roofs off. I'm sorry, but they were wrong... although the hurricane spawned over 2000 tornadoes, there was no tornado that did this. It was nothing but wind gusts. I KNOW that for a fact, because I saw it, up close and personal, for myself.

So here we are once again. Please provide photographic proof of WTC 7 being "Fully involved," they say. "Fires on all 47 floors," they say. "you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block," one says." It shouldn't be hard, there were cameras on the building all day, right up to and during the collapse.

If you could "see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other, that’s an entire block,", please point them out in this photo, which is a still of the building during the collapse:


Thanks,

Ghost

[hack89]

43. Of course you don't - that would be too hard

it is much easier to nit pick at eyewitness accounts to demonstrate --- what exactly? That they don't match up perfectly? To what end? Do you honestly think that any fire fighter there would disagree with the idea that the damage and fires were sufficient to bring down WTC 7? Are you really saying that this discrepancy blows a huge hole in the official story? OK - if thats the best you can do then I guess we will settle for that.

Don't you think that critical thinking concerning 911 involves at least being able to put forward a plausible theory as to how it was pulled off? How can you tell me that you have spent any time thinking about it yet have no clue as to how it was done?

[petgoat]

48. I find it significant that ALL the reports of damage to WTC7 come from FDNY brass.

No rank-and-file firefighter has ever weighed in.

That Steve Spak photo? I'd like the firefighters pictured
in it to come forward, identify themselves, and say they saw
the damage Spak depicts.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Are you claiming the FDNY "brass"....

are in on it, too, Petgoat?? If you are, please tell us why the FDNY brass would willingly go along with a plot that murdered hundreds of their compatriots. You're kidding, right?

[petgoat]

93. I'm pointing out, not claiming, that the FDNY brass accounts are mutually contradictory

Which is why FEMA threw up its hands and left ALL the testimony
about structural damage out of their report. And now NIST seems
to be doing the same thing, focusing on the interior column 79
that can not plausibly be claimed to have been injured by flying
debris.

Sheer speculation, here, so don't read it if that offends you.

I think the truth is something like this:

FDNY personnel believed there had been bombs in the towers.
Scouts in WTC7 may have found really strange and disturbing
things--fires that were obviously arson, looted file cabinets,
smashed computers, illegal and robust locks. They probably knew
that the fire alarm system had been put in "test" mode early
that morning and was still in test mode and so, crippled.
Chiefs were thus highly reluctant to order men into the building.
Perhaps there were anonymous but highly credible telephone
warnings to stay out.

At one time I speculated about the possibility that in a
CIA-inhabited buildings there were psy-op defenses too.
Strange electrical-system malfunctions, strange noises
at subliminal levels, sounds of a creaking building,
groaning and snapping steel.

After 9/11, talk about the explosions was streng verboten.
So how do they explain why they stood back and let the fires
burn and let an $863 million building burn to a total loss?
They make up this story about structural damage. But they're
honest enough to lie inconsistently.

[SDuderstadt]

96. I give up, Petgoat...

there's no reasoning with you about anything. Anything.

If we could invent a time machine that would allow us to go back to that day and see exactly what happened, you'd claim I staged a re-enactment. Unbelievable. No wonder the "truth movement" is such a laughingstock.

[AZCat]

98. I read that "theory" too.

I'd be shocked, except that petgoat has been cranking these out for years. Remember the one about junkies wiring the towers for demolition? That was one of my favorites.

[petgoat]

102. You don't know what you're talking about. nt

[AZCat]

105. No, I have no idea what YOU'RE talking about.

Seriously - junkies wiring the trade centers for demolition? That one was waaaaaayyyy off the charts.

[petgoat]

107. Why was it off the charts? They'd do it, they'd stay quiet til death, and nobody'd miss them nt

[AZCat]

109. You're not one to let a theory die a decent death, are you?

It was stupid (although not quite in spooked's category), yet you won't let it go.

[petgoat]

111. So now you're an expert on junkies? What's stupid about it?

You guys burying in spam my post #93 about the FDNY lying with honesty
after the wierd shit in Building 7 scared them off makes me think
I was on the mark.

Jazz didn't like that one either. She said I was accusing FDNY of
cowardice.

[AZCat]

113. What's stupid is that you seem to think...

that this has anything to do with whether I'm an "expert" on junkies or not.

[petgoat]

114. You don't seem to feel it necessary to support your assertion that the thesis is stupid.

Why should anybody care about the unsupported opinions of an anonymous
internet poster? Especially one who claims undemonstrated expertise
and unproven credentials, and supports with an air of bemused boredom
the incredibly dishonest official report on the most significant
architectural disaster in history.

[AZCat]

116. It is readily apparent to those who do not suffer from mental illness.

If you continue to make up shit like the bulk of your post, I'll continue to think you are incapable of rational, truthful argument.

[petgoat]

117. So now you're a psychiatrist too. You're melting, AZ. You and Bolo and Dude. Melting!

Why don't you try responding to one of the posts on topic?

#38 What science in the NIST report?

#44 At some point the structure was overwhelmed.

#99 They were not permitted on site except by guided tour.

[AZCat]

119. Because when I do...

you either ignore it or go off on one of your fucked-up tangents. Trying to have a productive discussion with you is like... Well, I haven't ever experienced anything quite like it. "Strange and unsettling" is close, I guess. I at one time had thought that most of us (meaning humans in general) had a better grip on reality. I guess I was wrong.

[petgoat]

120. From engineering to psychiatry, now you're mumbling about reality,

I think it's sinking in for you. Don't worry, you don't have to
do it all at once.

The way I got through was pretend al Qaeda rented office space and
planted the explosives. That way I could de-link my prejudices
from the evidence.

[petgoat]

103. You SHOULD give up, Dude. It's over. We've won. We've got collapse initiation.

Total Progressive Collapse of the official story is inevitable.

NIST knows it. John Gross knows it. Phil Zelikow knows it. Kean
and Hamilton know it. I bet they're all figuring cute ways to get to
Paraguay.

When it starts coming down the whistleblowers will be deafening.

[jberryhill]

357. About the Hudson River

http://everything2.com/?node_id=1832861

When the "all boats" call went out the morning of September 11, the Harvey's owners called the Fire Department to see if they could be of service. The answer was a resounding "yes," and a few minutes later she pulled up at the seawall at Pier A south of the World Financial Center, to take on her first load of 150 passengers.

No sooner was the Harvey headed for Staten Island than she got another call from the Fire Department. She was asked to discharge her passengers as quickly as possible, and then return downtown to help pump water. The Harvey, it seems, had suddenly become one of the most important ships on the river.

The force of the explosions at the World Trade Center had ruptured virtually every water main in downtown Manhattan, leaving firefighters with no water, and no way to fight the fires raging in the buildings left standing in World Trade Plaza. Since the Fire Department had only two under-sized fireboats, and its fire engines were worthless, the Harvey was now an answer to a fireman's prayer.

Pulling up to the seawall in North River, the closest proximity possible to the World Trade Center, the Harvey set up alongside the Fire Department's other two fireboats to begin her work. Fire hoses were quickly run from the Harvey to the World Trade Center, and the firefighters were able to put down the remaining fires, saving everything but World Trade Center 7, which collapsed later that day.

The Harvey worked non-stop until Friday night, September 14, when water service to the City's fire hydrants was restored.

[petgoat]

39. Reason to suspect CD: Asymmetrical damage CAN NOT yield symmetrical collapse. nt

[hack89]

40. Sure it can

simple vector logic. The downward force of gravity on that huge mass dwarfed by orders of magnitude any horizontal forces. Besides, the collapse wasn't symmetrical to start with - remember the tilt of the spire?

[petgoat]

41. You're missing the point. Comparing the magnitude of gravitational force to lateral force

is meaningless.

The point is that the resistance to gravitational force was asymmetrical.
The collapse should thus have been asymmetrical as well.

Instead it came down floor by floor by floor, just like a controlled demolition.

[hack89]

42. Except when the resistance is significantly less

the KE of the falling mass. Don't forget that the mass increased as the collapse progressed. There may have been asymmetrical resistance to start with but the structure was simply overwhelmed.

[petgoat]

44. At some point the structure was overwhelmed.

You picture it as overwhelmed from the onset.

Any asymmetry should have resulted in lateral forces tending to
move debris to one side or the other.

How can you assume the asymmetry would be self-correcting?

[AZCat]

21. That's not quite correct.

The NIST was able to positively identify seven samples that originated from WTC 5 (reference NCSTAR 1-3B).








On Edit: 1-3B, not 1-2B.

[Ghost in the Machine]

23. Sorry, but I'll have to take the word of the Senior Communications Officer of NIST on this one...

He says the *only* steel they were able to positively identify was from the Twin Towers. I'm guessing because of the 'tube in a tube' design?

"NIST sought to positively identify the origin of all steel used in its investigation of the World Trade Center disaster. This was accomplished either through identifying markings (stampings) or by geometry of the recovered steel. Of the seven buildings in the WTC complex, only the towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) had identifying markings, or shapes of columns or beams sufficient to unambiguously identify the original building. It was not possible to unambiguously distinguish the steel from the hotel (WTC 3), the three similar nine story buildings (WTC 4 through WTC 6) and the 47-story WTC 7."

Here's his contact information if you think he's wrong.. or if you know something he doesn't:

Michael E. Newman
Senior Communications Officer
Public Affairs Office
National Institute of Standards and Technology
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070

Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

NIST info at http://www.nist.gov
NIST news and Tech Beat newsletter at http://www.nist.gov/news
WTC investigation info at http://wtc/nist.gov

[AZCat]

24. I think he's wrong. I'll send him an email.

It's all over NCSTAR 1-3B. The appendix tables listing all the NIST samples (including those not positively identified) includes all seven WTC 5 coupons. The executive summary mentions the WTC 5 samples. Chapter 2 describes who took the coupons. It is not a typo.

[Ghost in the Machine]

25. Cool! I'm sure they'll appreciate the correction...

But first you might want to read page 5 of the 112 page PDF found at:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3B.pdf (it's under the ABSTRACT title)

It states:

"The lack of WTC 7 steel precludes tests or actual material from the structure; however, WTC 7 was constructed of three grades of conventional steel (36ksi, 42ksi & 50ksi) and literature values may be used to estimate properties."

[AZCat]

45. Yes, I know that.

My comment was about the seven samples from WTC 5 that they positively identified, not about samples from WTC 7. Mr. Newman seems to think only steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 was positively identified, and this is incorrect (at least according to NCSTAR 1-3B).

For example, page 32 of the pdf (page 4 of the text) has the following paragraph:

Once identified for recovery, the samples were marked as "SAVE" and given an alphanumeric code relative to the recovery yard from which they came and an accession number. Some pieces were not saved in their entirety, but instead, small portions were removed, hereafter called coupons. (Coupons were also removed in the field for WTC 5, held at Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP, and later brought to NIST.)

The next page (page 33 of the pdf and page 5 of the text) contains a breakdown of the types and quantities of samples, and lists "Coupons from WTC 5" as a type with 7 pieces. Then in Appendix A, all seven samples are listed in A.1 Database of Recovered Steel (page 90 of the pdf, 62 of the text).

[Ghost in the Machine]

50. You're right... sorry, I was focusing on WTC 7....

But, if they're wrong, they're wrong... and it should be pointed out...

[AZCat]

53. Not a big deal.

It's a nitpick on my part because it doesn't have anything to do with WTC 7, but I will send him an email.

[wildbilln864]

11. millions!?

where do you guys get that "millions" shit from? I like the term "Non-Truthers" instead of OCTers myself. Just sayin!

[hack89]

13. How many engineers, active and retired are in America alone

besides the rest of the world? And why can the truth movement muster a tiny fraction of them as supporters? Just asking.

[wildbilln864]

14. and you think....

everyone of them has looked into the collapses!? :eyes:

[wildbilln864]

16. how many of those have you corresponded with....

or did you just make the shit up again? :shrug:

[AZCat]

20. I've talked in person to about twenty.

One is strongly suspicious of the collapses, the rest are dismissive of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

[wildbilln864]

34. that's a long way from millions!

or thousands.
or even hundreds. And it's not near the total here.

[AZCat]

47. That's a stupid argument.

Of course I haven't talked to a million engineers - why would you think I was making that claim, or anything related? I don't even know a million engineers. Besides, we're not arguing about quantity - the truth movement doesn't produce many reasoned arguments from an engineering perspective, and when they do they aren't exactly supportive of the various crackpot theories espoused by conspiracy theorists.

[wildbilln864]

51. No, your's is a careless reply...

as I never said you said it. I was refering to posts up-thread. That's what those little verticle dotted lines are for. To show you which post is a response to which post. You jumped in. Keep up please.

[AZCat]

54. You need to fucking keep up.

Your post #16 said

how many of those have you corresponded with....
or did you just make the shit up again? :shrug:

to which I responded

I've talked in person to about twenty.
One is strongly suspicious of the collapses, the rest are dismissive of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Pay attention. I don't give a shit if half a dozen posts upthread someone said something about "millions of engineers". I was responding to your post.

[freedom fighter jh]

36. Most of my engineer friends are dismissive as well . . .

. . . to the point where they won't engage in a technical discussion on the matter.

That doesn't show that professionals support the official story; it shows only that these people are in denial.

[AZCat]

46. It doesn't show they are in denial at all.

Refusal to discuss technical issues with laypersons is not evidence of denial - it's a recognition of the inevitable futility of a large percentage of these discussions.

[petgoat]

49. They are in denial, They won't recognize an explosion when they see one.

[AZCat]

55. Thank you for summing up the "truth movement" in one post.

Someone might be an expert, but they're in denial if they don't agree with petgoat (the layperson).

Have you ever considered that it might be you who is wrong, not them?

[petgoat]

57. Of course I've considered that I might be wrong.

I'm prepared to eat every word. Even if the controlled demolition
hypothesis turns out to be complete hogwash, we were right to put it
forward because the abysmal quality of the official explanations
and the media examination of the issues does not serve the needs of
an open and democratic society.

[AZCat]

59. Forgive me if I doubt your ability to determine...

if the "official explanations" were indeed of "abysmal quality". Normally I would expect a reviewer to have read the material in question before passing judgment, yet I have seen you excoriate the NIST for years even when you haven't had the decency to read the relevant sections prior to making up your mind.

I also find it difficult to understand how championing a hypothesis lacking any real evidence is in any way helping the situation (re. an open and democratic society). Just because you find the various investigations lacking does not mean that any alternative narrative has merit because it is an alternative. There are plenty of informed and rational criticisms of both the 9/11 Commission and the NIST investigation and subsequent report - why do you have to invent others?

[petgoat]

61. There is plenty of evidence to support CD.

Symmetry of collapse, molten metal, pulverization of concrete, squibs,
speed of collapse, explosive ejection of dust--none of it explained
by official reports.

I have read the FEMA report thoroughly and it's obviously baloney.
It doesn't even try to explain what took down the core.

I have read enough of the NIST report to see that it's Bush Science
and I needn't waste any more time on it. They invented the data they
needed to explain the collapse. They don't have the honesty to express
regret for the destruction of the steel. They threw out the studies that
didn't give the desired results. They didn't test for explosive residue.
They didn't test for thermite. They don't explain how asymmetric
damage yields symmetrical collapse. They won't provide the visualizations
from the computer simulations, they won't give us the 6000 photos and
6000 videos, they won't give us the blueprints, and it's obviously a
trumped up whitewash.

[AZCat]

63. Your post is chock-full of ignorance.

How, if you have been following this for as long as you seem to have been, can you be this ignorant of some of the most basic elements of the behavior of the collapses? Maybe if after this long you have progressed no farther than what your post indicates, you should give up and switch to another endeavor - this one is a bit beyond your ken. Some people understand math and science if they put in a bit of effort, but other people don't. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong point either, so perhaps a career that involves none of those things is appropriate for you.

[petgoat]

67. Have you got anything of substance to say or are you just going to make snide ad hominems? nt

[AZCat]

68. It doesn't matter - you'd just ignore it anyway.

You've proven invulnerable to knowledge so why should I waste my time imparting it? Instead, I'll point to your post in the future as an example of how little the "truth movement" has learned over the years.

[petgoat]

69. It does matter. You sow FUD about good info, claiming superior knowledge you never demonstrate nt

[AZCat]

71. Says the poster who couldn't find Section 6.3.4 of NCSTAR 1-3C.

It's not like there's a table of contents or anything...

I could be in the third grade and demonstrate superior knowledge compared to that!

[petgoat]

72. More smug ad hominem. I can find it. Can't be bothered to waste my time with lying Bush science.

Why should I read the biography of Roy Cohn? I know about him all I need to know.

Also, I must admit I feel the need to disinfect my computer after visiting the NIST
website.

[AZCat]

88. Your entire post is meaningless gibberish.

I find your posts entertaining, especially since I began thinking of you as a stupid conspiracy theory generator. Please continue responding! It gives me something to discuss with the boys over the water cooler the next day. They get a chuckle out of your posts. Unfortunately you don't quite rate as highly with them as spooked, but we aren't all as special as he.

[petgoat]

94. Says he who never heard of Roy Cohn, can't be bothered to google it, and doesn't do metaphor. nt

[AZCat]

97. *** forbid you make a coherent, cogent post. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

80. Self-delete

[MrMickeysMom]

266. Oh! I know!

Surely it would be ad hominems and flawed arguments.

Lots and lots are required to reinforce why questioning is a very, very, very bad thought process.

Also, he/she/they will never seek out anything that compares and contrasts the evidence.

[AZCat]

274. Nobody ever fucking said questioning is a bad thought process.

That's just fucking stupid.

[hack89]

56. I thought no explosives were used in the towers

didn't you say that thermate was used because it could not be detected like high explosives? Wouldn't using explosives negate the reasons for using thermate?

[petgoat]

58. Thermate was used to cut the core columns.

Obviously explosives were used to shock the perimeter walls into
pieces -- otherwise the walls would have peeled off in 300-foot sheets
to fall on adjacent buildings.

Thermate can't explain what pulverized the concrete, or what caused the
pyroclastic dust clouds.

[hack89]

60. Wouldn't KE explain the pulverized concrete?

didn't it have the equivalent power of a couple of hundred tons of explosive? Dropping a 30 story building 10 feet would release an enormous amount of energy.

Why use thermate on the cores - high explosives are more powerful, less bulky, and easier to detonate. Why use a substance that has never been used in high rise demolition before when it provides no added benefit?

[petgoat]

62. You're talking idealized kinetic energy, perfectly applied.

Falling floors could not have completely pulverized all the
other floors. But the floors were completely pulverized--
not just the concrete, but the carpets and the steel floor
pans too. There are no floor pans. None. The debris pile
should have been full of 200 acres of carpet, which
should have greatly interfered with the ability to take the
debris pile apart. There wasn't any.

Why use thermate? Because it's silent. Because it fools
the bomb-sniffing dogs. Because its chemical precursors are
not traceable.

[hack89]

75. But why blow up the floors just to blow up the floors?

that's what doesn't make sense. All you need to do is sever the core columns and the building comes down. And linear shaped charges are very focused - there is no excess energy to cause wide spread damage.

http://www.dynawell.de/explosives_lsc.html

And why every floor? Charges spaced every 10 floors or so would have been more than adequate.


What difference does it make if thermate is silent and hard to detect when you simultaneously detonate tons of noisy, easy to detect high explosives? Don't see the logic in that one.

[petgoat]

78. How should I know? I'm trying to figure out what happened, not rationalize the motives of the perps

It was conceived and executed by lunatics. Why should everything make sense?

If a gravity collapse can not have powdered the concrete and rugs and shredded the
floor pans (and I don't see how it could), and if thermite can't have done it (and
I can't see how it could) then what could it be but explosives?

[hack89]

86. But they can't do the impossible regardless of their motivation nt

[petgoat]

92. It's not impossible---it happened. You guys are melting. nt

[hack89]

140. Since you are unwilling to tell us how it was done, how can you say that it was possible?

another possibility is that you don't understand the science involved.

[petgoat]

141. It was possible because it happened. Unlike some people around here I don't try to force reality

into my little box of what's reasonable or try to make it comport with my knowledge of science.

What happened happened. NIST denies reality. I don't.

[hack89]

144. A collapse is the only reality

you think it was caused CD but can't venture a plausible theory as to how. Perhaps that because CD was never a plausible theory to start with.

[petgoat]

146. Pulverization is a reality, Free-fall speed is a reality. Destruction of the cores is a reality.

Asymmetrical damage impossibly leading to symmetrical collapse is a reality.

Certainly there's a plausible theory for CD. What's so complicated? Dr. Van
Romero said a few charges in a few key places could have brought the towers down.
FEMA said a few flimsy truss "clips" could have brought the towers down. That
was plausible enough for you for three years, even though it doesn't explain
what took down the cores. Nothing explains what took down the cores except CD.

[hack89]

147. Then why can't the truth movement explain how it was done?

Six years later and absolutely nothing. Perhaps your understanding of pulverization, free-fall speed, and symmetrical collapse is the real problem here.

[petgoat]

148. What do you mean absolutely nothing? You never heard of thermate in the elevator shafts? nt

[hack89]

149. How about a few details?

Show me a detailed scenario that shows how the towers were prepped for CD. Show me that it was plausible.

[petgoat]

150. Look at the Blueprints. Core columns accessible from elevator shafts.

Stand on top of the elevator car. Cut the drywall fireproofing
off the columns. Affix the thermate shaped charges.

[hack89]

155. Now tell me about the high explosives used to pulverize the concrete floors?

that's a lot of floor space and a lot of explosives, wouldn't you say?

And why use non-existent thermate charges when high explosives are simpler and better suited for the job?

[petgoat]

161. I don't know anything about high explosives.

All I know is that the floors were completely smithereeened and I can't
believe that was done with blunt force.

I've explained three times why the thermate. You're not reading my posts.
The precursor chemicals are not traced. It doesn't leave provocative
residue.

[hack89]

165. So it simply a matter of your personal disbelief?

Ok - at least you are honest.

I read your posts on thermate - the logic behind them is ridiculous. In essence, you believe that after choosing thermate because it is hard to detect (despite the fact that Dr Jones did not seem to have that problem), the plotters then also used tons of noisy, easy to detect high explosives. And you still have yet to explain how much thermate is needed to create the massive hot spots in the rubble pile - from what I can see, it was an impossibly large amount. Several dozen thermate charges place via the elevators can't account for it all.

[petgoat]

166. No. It has not been demonstrated how a gravitational collapse can smithereen the floors.

The disorganized mat of debris falling is more like a birdsnest than a
pestle.

you believe that after choosing thermate because it is hard to detect (despite the fact that Dr Jones did not seem to have that problem), the plotters then also used tons of noisy, easy to detect high explosives.

The thermate was detected only because Jones was looking for it. How would anybody anticipate
that someone would do that? It was much easier to anticipate that someone might analyze for
residues from conventional explosives.

I don't believe the plotters used tons of high explosives. I don't know what they used. I don't
believe that gravity turned the tops of the towers to powder 800 feet in the air, and nobody who
has eyes should.

You have not demonstrated that massive amounts of thermate would be necessary to create the hot
spots. Your suggestion that only several dozen thermate charges were necessary is ludicrous.
47 interior columns 1300 feet high were cut into 30 foot lengths. That's 2000 charges right there--and that's assuming that one charge can cut through all sides of the column.

[petgoat]

179. Why the Thermate?

It evades the bomb-sniffing dogs.

It doesn't leave provocative residue.

It doesn't make noise.

The chemical precursors can't be traced.

When you cut the columns with thermate, you delink-them from the ground so you can use explosives without tickling the seismographs.

[squawk7700]

247. Obviously you also don't know anything about

physics - particularly statics and dynamics
strength of materials
metallurgy
chemistry
thermodynamics.

But you know for sure all the engineers are wrong.

Got it.

[petgoat]

248. Who says all engineers are wrong? Ever hear of Jeff King? Charles Pegelow?

Ever hear of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

384 architects and engineers! Go ahead, shake a stick!

And if you knew anything about me you'd know that I never
know anything for sure. That's not scientific.

Science can only disprove, not prove, and surely in the
future people will laugh at our "current dogma."

[squawk7700]

249. Nope, never heard of them. But then there are millions of morons I never heard of.

...

[petgoat]

250. Oh so now you're sure 384 architects and engineers you never heard of are wrong.

Can you spell "hypocrisy" ( or are you one of those who spells it hipocracy?)



Oh, by the way: Welcome to DU! :hi:

[squawk7700]

251. Heh...well, I have been an aeronautical engineer for 45 years and a commercial pilot

for 43. And I learned to spell hypocrisy back in..probably 1953. Nobody hates the BFEE any more than I do but there are a few people who hate me because I think controlled-demolition-conspiracy people are shithouse-rat nuts.
:hi:

[MrMickeysMom]

267. The real problem here is how much energy you give to simply wanting to disprove

what you have no intent of wanting to understand.

Time to water your leaves as soon as you check the soil in your clay pot.

[SDuderstadt]

153. How anyone can look at a video of the collapse of WTC 1 or 2....

and see the debris falling faster than the building and, nonetheless, conclude the building is "falling at free-fall speed" is beyond me. Perhaps you could explain how this is possible, Petgoat.

[petgoat]

164. Because NIST says the buildings came down in 10 sec and 9 sec. nt

[SDuderstadt]

170. That's not what I asked you, Petgoat

If WTC 1 and WTC 2 came down at "free fall speeds", then the buildings would be falling at the same speed as the debris, which they clearly weren't. I'm asking you to explain this. It's obvious that you can't.

[petgoat]

173. It's a moot point. Waste of time. nt

[SDuderstadt]

174. Why don't you just admit that...

you cannot answer the question?

[SDuderstadt]

171. That's not what I asked you, Petgoat

If WTC 1 and WTC 2 came down at "free fall speeds", then the buildings would be falling at the same speed as the debris, which they clearly weren't. I'm asking you to explain this. It's obvious that you can't.

[petgoat]

175. I can explain it. I don't see why I should. It's a moot point.

NIST says the buildings fell in 10 and 9 seconds, and
until they admit they're wrong I guess I can say the
same thing.

You just want to play "gotcha". Let's not talk about
petgoat. Let's talk about controlled demolition of the
WTC, and how Gene Corley was part of the suspect OK City
investigation, and how "the bone guys" who did the
Pentagon DNA were part of the Waco investigations, and
how Leslie Robertson and his wife were directors of the
FEMA investigation, and how Phil Zelikow had such blatant
conflicts of interest he appeared as a witness before the
Commission of which he was Executive Director!

You want to gossip about me. I'm sick of it.

[SDuderstadt]

176. Read the NIST report again, Petgoat.....

I'm pretty sure the times they report are for the FIRST DEBRIS TO HIT THE GROUND, not for the entire buildings to collapse. So much for your goofy claims.

[petgoat]

177. Read the FAQs, Dude

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that.... the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

So my "goofy" claim comes right from NIST. I know it's a goofy claim. I think the towers came
down in more like 15 seconds. But as long as free-fall speed is part of the official story, the
fact that NIST believes the videos show the collapse to be at free fall speed is part of the
evidence for controlled demolition.

[SDuderstadt]

188. You need to learn how to read, Petgoat

Either that, or you need to learn how to be intellectually honest.

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

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

The first portion I underlined makes it clear that the 9 and 11 second times cited by NIST refer specifically to the time it took for the first exterior panels to hit the ground, not for the buildings to collapse. As if that isn't enough, the second underlined portion makes it clear that NIST is referring to the building SECTION (not building or buildings) above the collapse initiation level essentially coming down in free fall speed. Either you need to learn how to read and comprehend better or you need to learn to refrain from your typical intellectual dishonesty. Either way, you've been roundly debunked yet one more time. You might want to consider a different hobby.

[petgoat]

193. You need to learn to read, Dude.

Read NIST's lips:

" the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

Free fall was (if memory serves) 9.5 seconds. That means NIST is validating the
9 second and 10 second times it cites above.

Jeez!

[SDuderstadt]

195. For the building SECTION, Petgoat

Not the entire building. How many times must this be pointed out to you? And how many times do NIST's exact words regarding the 9 and 11 second times have to be pointed out to you? Seriously, how many?

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

How you can read the underlined portion above and conclude that it refers to the buildings themselves rather than the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS (as NIST explicitly states) is beyond me. Anyone other than a "truther" caught in a blatant falsehood (claiming that NIST itself stated that either tower fell in 9 or 11 seconds - which they never ever say) would have the integrity to admit their mistake and refrain from spreading such misinformation in the future. With that, Petgoat, I bid you adieu...you're simply too much of a "true believer" (in Logic, someone who clings tenaciously to a false claim, despite overwhelming evidence of its falshood) to attempt to reason with. Fricking unbelievable.

[petgoat]

200. Your "exterior panel" apple is not the "building section" orange and you are totally wrong.

The context of the words "building section" makes clear that they are
not talking about your "exterior panels" but the top section of the
building.

The FAQs cite section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1:

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

[SDuderstadt]

204. No shit, Petgoat....

They address the building section when they state it fell at free fall speed. They are referencing the exterior panels when they refer to the 9 and 11 second times. Where do they say that either tower fell in 9 or 11 seconds like you claimed?????

Are you seriously claiming NIST is your source for your goofy claim that the towers fell at free fall speed????

[petgoat]

208. the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.

That's NIST's words, talking about the top of the building falling
through the rest of the structure.

Learn to read, quit spamming with your miscomprehension

[SDuderstadt]

209. The BUILDING SECTION, Petgoat

Please show us where NIST ever says that WTC 1 or 2 collapsed in 9 or 11 seconds liked you claimed.

[petgoat]

211. The Building Section, the top of the building, fell through the rest. See Post 200 nt

[SDuderstadt]

213. Petgoat....

Earlier you claimed that NIST stated that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds, yet you continue to post material that contradicts your own claim. Why do you do this?

[petgoat]

214. The material does not contradict my claim.

NIST says the top section of the building fell through the rest at free fall speed.
Free-fall speed is something like 9 seconds.

Therefore, NIST said the building fell in 9 seconds.

[SDuderstadt]

216. No, Petgoat....

it explicitly said it took 9 and 11 seconds for the first exterior panels to hit the ground. Why do you continue to misstate what NIST said?

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

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

Try some basic math here, Petgoat. If it took 9 and 11 seconds for the FIRST EXTERIOR PANELS to hit the ground as NIST explicitly stated, then obviously the entire buildings took more than that to collapse. I don't know why this has to be pointed out to you over and over.

[petgoat]

217. Why do you keep insisting the apple is an orange?

Why are you trying to make the apple and the orange consistent?

NIST says in one statement that exterior panels fell in 9 seconds.


They say in another COMPLETELY DIFFERENT statement that the top
section of the building fell through the rest of it at free fall
speed.

For some reason you are conflating these two separate statements.

This is why it's important to remain civil in discussions. When we
assert things in an insulting manner, we become married to our
positions and then become blind to their untenability. It's
impossible for you to even SEE that you're wrong, let alone admit
it.

This human characteristic has affected many people in the Truth
movement who find themselves married to unreasonable statements
and positions they put forth years ago. That's one reason I try
real hard not to say anything I'm not willing to eat.

You're wrong. The statement about the external panels and the
statement about the top section of the building are two separate
statements.

[SDuderstadt]

231. Are you denying that you claimed that NIST stated the....

BUILDINGS came down in 9 and 11 seconds?? Because, if you are, here's where you claimed exactly that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x204280#205254


Can you even follow your own argument, Petgoat? This is what we've been going back and forth about. How can you argue with your own claim? It's obvious that the buildings did not collapse in 9 and 11 seconds, yet you continue to make this rather stupid claim and attermpt to buttress it with an even stupider claim that NIST said things they never said. Try to weasel your way out of this one.

[petgoat]

232. NIST said the building came down at free fall speed. See post 200. Learn to read. nt

[SDuderstadt]

234. It said the "building section", not the building....

now you are misquoting NIST. Your intellectual dishonesty apparently knows no bounds.

[petgoat]

236. It said "building section," meaning the top section of the building near free-falling to the ground

Please stop interpreting your own miscomprehension of reality as
dishonesty on my part.

[SDuderstadt]

241. Please cite where NIST says the building section was...

near free falling "to the ground". They said no such thing. They're talking about the building section free-falling until it hit the remainder of the building. If not, they would not have distinguished the exterior panels hitting the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. It's also clear that "building section" is referring to one of the towers, not both. Your argument gets sillier and sillier. I'm also bowing out of responding further to you. As I stated previously, anyone who seriously claims no planes were involved in the attacks is not worthy of debate. Bye.

[petgoat]

242. See post 200. Stop writing until you've learned to read.

The statement on the lack of resistance to the fall mass is meaningless
unless they're saying the top section of the building fell through the
lower part at freefall speed.

There is no logical connection between the lower structure's lack of
resistance and the hypothesized initial pre-impact fall.

And now you're pretending I'm a no-planer!

Next you'll be accusing me of holocaust denial!

[Ghost in the Machine]

257. You're wrong on this, SDude...

Read it again, clearly...

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Now let's take a look at that last paragraph, removing the redundant parts:

In other words, the momentum of the 12 to 28 stories falling on the supporting structure below so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that the structure below was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Does *that* help make it clearer? YES, the NIST Report says that *the whole buildings* came down in essential freefall, because the structure below offered minimal resistance....

Oh, yeah... ummmm... "It's also clear that "building section" is referring to one of the towers, not both".... yeah, *that* is wrong, too, as you can read above. Here it is again, though:

"In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below...."

See? They're talking about BOTH BUILDINGS....

Check your own comprehension skills before you question those of others.... :wink:

Ghost

[vincent_vega_lives]

360. There's your problem

"and I can't see how it could"

[vincent_vega_lives]

77. Breaking my rule by responding to one of your posts.

Breaking a second rule by repeating myself. I break these rules not for you but for others who may read the post.

YOU DONT GET IT. Goat you have ZERO concept of the forces involved.

The fucking carpet was shredded and distibuted all over Manhatten, or crushed INTO the concrete floors, along with everything else. You think thermate burned up all the carpet???? Melted all the 'floor pans'???

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/911/am-wtcrelics-pg2006,0,1977579.photogallery?coll=all-911-blurb&index=36

Large pieces of debris, likened to meteorites by preservationists, are actually several floors of the towers compressed together as the buildings collapsed. Furniture, twisted metal, pipes, cords and even papers with legible type are visible. The pieces are kept in a humidity-controlled tent in Hangar 17 of Kennedy International Airport. (Photo by Lane Johnson)

[petgoat]

84. I don't think thermate melted all the floor pans. I don't know what shredded them to slivers. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

131. Exactly

Again, you just don't understand the forces involved in that much mass in motion.

[petgoat]

135. It is absurd to believe that blunt instrument brute force shredded 220 acres of steel floor pans

and carpeting so that none of it exists.

[Bolo Boffin]

136. No, it is not absurd to believe that.

It is hard to.

That is, until you understand the forces involved in the collapse.

The meteorites show the pancaked floors. When have you ever seen hunks of iron and steel rust in bands? Only when there is material between the iron and steel. Materials like carpeting, concrete, paper, plastics, etc.

Weigh the miracle against the miracle. You think it absurd that the buildings could have torn themselves apart like that, but you think organized bands of child molesters and junkies planting the necessary explosions are less absurd.

Petgoat, come on!

[MrMickeysMom]

268. Good God

:crazy:

[vincent_vega_lives]

138. Blunt instrument brute force

I can understand why this is hard to grasp. But it is certainly not impossible.

I did the math once and came up with the amount of MJ of force behind the top part of the building collapsing just one floors distance. It came to the equivalent of between half a ton to a ton of TNT (because the mass of the building was in contention).

The carpet exists to this day, just not in a form that would be recognizable. I'm sure GZ was littered fibers that could be attributed to carpeting, chairs...clothing.

[petgoat]

142. The numbers are irrelevant. The energy can not be brought to bear on every

centimeter of steel floor decking so that none of it exists. That's impossible.
There are inefficiencies.

Have you ever tried to start a fire by rubbing two sticks together?

[SDuderstadt]

154. It's actually easier to start a fire by rubbing...

one "truther" the wrng way.

[petgoat]

336. If you think that's a fire you haven't seen two truthers rub the right way. nt

[vincent_vega_lives]

362. IT DOESN'T MATTER

That would be true if the mass fell only 20' but with that much mass moving from that height...we are talking super shreader...at the molecular level.

You can start a fire by rubbing two pieces of anything together if you apply enough energy.

[vincent_vega_lives]

361. Oh it exists

Just in particulate form. And again, you have zero comprehension of the forces involved.

[vincent_vega_lives]

359. Noooo petgoat went over the KE subject before

and likened it to a fork with spaghetti on it. :crazy:

[freedom fighter jh]

89. Your comment is based on an invalid assumption. nt

[AZCat]

90. Your comment is based on a lack of reason. n/t

[petgoat]

100. You're having a bad night, AZ. Why not pack it in?

You're going to have nothing bad bad nights, bad weeks, bad months,
and bad years from here on out.

The Truth Train is chugging. NIST's lies are going to suffer
total progressive collapse, and some of their guys may wind up
in jail.

[AZCat]

104. Some nights I really worry about you, petgoat.

Your grip on reality sometimes seems a bit tenuous. Please - for your sake - see a professional. You might be able to get some help for whatever ails you (I speak from experience).

[petgoat]

106. Substanceless FUD from a self-proclaimed expert--and I'll eschew the ad hominem zinger nt

[AZCat]

108. "Self-proclaimed expert"? Making shit up again, petgoat?

I reiterate - see a professional. Help is out there.

[petgoat]

110. Self proclaimed. I haven't seen any credentials, and damn little expertise.

All you ever do is cite some Big Fat Book and say it's all way
too complicated for any silly little bubblehead like me to understand.

A case in point. I was talking about heat-sinking. You started a
snow job dissertation on irrelevant convection.

[AZCat]

112. Your interpretation of "expert" is seriously flawed.

No wonder the "truth movement" is in so much trouble.

And I'm not really concerned about your opinion of my credentials or expertise. From what I've read of your posts you have absolutely no basis for judging my knowledge or skills.

[petgoat]

115. I'm not here to talk about me, or you. Too bad you are. What a bore. nt

[AZCat]

Pathetic.

You can't produce a reasoned argument, so you call me a bore. You use fucked up definitions of terms, refuse to investigate your claims, and smear dedicated professionals without any real understanding of the content of their work. You propose wildly improbable or impossible theories to explain events while dismissing more rational ones, yet grow angry when the basis of your theories is questioned. If refusing to go along with the charade that is the "truth movement" makes me boring, then so be it. I guess reality is just not as interesting as the made-up world you inhabit.

[petgoat]

121. You certainly are. The NIST report is a lie that assumes what it purports to prove,

It dodges, weaves, obfuscates, reverse-engineers to achieve the desired
results, discards evidence that refutes its claims, and lacks the honesty
to express regret that the evidence was destroyed before they could see
it.

And you defend that steaming pile of shit the only way you can, not by
demonstrating its scientific validity, but by belittling anyone who
objects to it.

It's done, AZ. You guys have lost. Murder will out. Truth will prevail.

[AZCat]

122. Still haven't read it yet, I take it? n/t

[petgoat]

125. Nobody has read 10,000 pages. Not you, either. I read enough to see it's shit. nt

[AZCat]

160. Argument from personal incredulity noted.

It doesn't count as "reading" the report if you merely read what other conspiracy theorists (who probably haven't read the damn thing either) wrote about it.

[petgoat]

163. I have read parts of the report that offended me so deeply I refuse to read any more.

It's like a coroner's report that notes that the decedent's
hands and head were missing, but concludes that he died of
natural causes.

For anyone impressed by that shit I can only offer pity for
their impaired intellect or contempt for their lack of integrity.

[AZCat]

167. I guess some people are offended if technical reports aren't written at the 3rd grade reading level.

Your shitty analogy is one more in a string of misconceptions, mistruths, misunderstandings about the NIST report and the science behind it. What you continue to avoid is that it is you who is lacking integrity. I'd explain why, but I'm afraid ethics is a closed book to you (much like the engineering subject matter covered in the NIST report). This is why you and your pathetic movement are going nowhere. There are plenty of rational questions to ask about the investigation, but you continue to focus on the irrational (or fake) ones.

[petgoat]

168. It wasn't the diction or the sentence structure that offended me. It was the mendacity.

And there you go again with your vague and undemonstrated statements,
except now you've given up even trying to sound like an engineer.

From engineering to psychology to reality, now you're talking ethics.

What are the ethics of foisting on the American public a report that
assumes what it purports to prove, ignores the tests that don't provide
results to validate its pre-conceived story, tweaks the data until it
gets the desired results, buries the essential vapidity of its reasoning
in a mountain of irrelevant detail, can't be bothered to perform simple
tests to discard alternative hypotheses, truncates its model and assumes
it would show the desired results, and lacks the basic scientific
integrity to express regret that empirical data is not available because
someone destroyed the evidence before the investigation started.

Give it up, AZ. Your phony disgust isn't working. My real disgust is.

[AZCat]

169. I don't give a shit what you think I sound like.

Your opinion is demonstrably crap, whether propounding on engineering or ethics. I can't believe you waste so much time flogging this shit, and it still hasn't sunk in how woefully unprepared you are to analyze any of the NIST report. You keep dragging out the same complaints every time (that you probably copied from some other CT nut) yet don't understand any of the basis for the report (if you actually read the portion relevant to a particular "claim"), so why should anyone listen to you? You and your pitiful movement are worth nothing.

[petgoat]

182. Thanks, AZ, I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

I think I'll frame that quote and put it on my wall. It just about
says it all.

Have a nice weekend!

[freedom fighter jh]

133. I'll spell it out.

I am a degreed and licensed engineer.

[Bolo Boffin]

134. What's your discipline? n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

158. civil engineering

[Ghost in the Machine]

258. What's *yours*? Since you went down that road...

Funny *you* should ask about someones credentials when the only answer you give when asked about yours is "that's not important" or "this isn't about *my* credentials"...

You opened the door, it's time lay *your* cards face up on the table... play your hand, player...

Are you man enough to do it?

:popcorn:

[petgoat]

261. Bolo aspires to a career in the hospitality industry. He's not quite there, yet. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

293. Another example of your stellar research skills.

I'm a live voice writer and hope to get back to acting some day. Neither are careers in the hospitality industry.

[Name removed]

269. Deleted message

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

[AZCat]

156. You think that somehow innoculates you from stupidity? n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

157. This came up in response to a reference to me as a lay person, rather than an engineer.

[AZCat]

159. Ahh, I see the confusion.

When I said

It doesn't show they are in denial at all.
Refusal to discuss technical issues with laypersons is not evidence of denial - it's a recognition of the inevitable futility of a large percentage of these discussions.

in response to your post stating

Most of my engineer friends are dismissive as well . . .
. . . to the point where they won't engage in a technical discussion on the matter.

That doesn't show that professionals support the official story; it shows only that these people are in denial.

I did realize you meant they wouldn't engage other engineers in technical discussion. It still doesn't show they are in denial - they just don't want to talk about it (for whatever reason, which might indeed be denial but not necessarily). Maybe they just find you annoying.

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. No I don't think Bush is a mass murder

I think he is a terrible president, rather dim, incomprehensible, but I am not one of these saliva slinging Bush haters who thinks he drinks the blood of babies for breakfast.

[petgoat]

130. They didn't mean to kill 3000 people. The op was botched.

This is, of course, speculation mixed with fact.

It was supposed to be happy tales of heroism and miraculous escapes
before the buildings came down. Just before 10:00 the OEM was
advising FDNY that the building was in danger of collapse. How they
knew this is quite the mystery, because no one in FDNY had any idea
they might collapse--they were engineered for plane strikes.

A couple of minutes later WTC2 did come down. They had to set the
explosives off early because firemen had reached the impact zone
and were reporting that the fires were small and isolated. And the
fires were going out.

Because of the need to bring the towers down early, there wasn't time
to evacuate. That janitor feller didn't get to fulfil his heroic mission
to rescue his friends at the top of WTC1, but he did get out before they
blew up the north tower.

[freedom fighter jh]

132. That's speculation, as you say, but it sounds about right.

I don't think they really planned to kill all those people. The towers' collapse would have been enough to catch everyone's attention.

[petgoat]

139. 300 people dead might have been more effective than 3000

We would have learned the stories of the victims as individuals, instead
of just looking numbly at pages and pages of faces.

It would have been a lot more like "Invade Iraq for Kathie and Phil and
Marcie!"

And we would have had some actual rescue stories (like Rodriguez's
aborted mission) to make rushing into danger look heroic instead of
futile.

[greyl]

255. New Definition: OCT = Obama's Conspiracy Theory

Please start realizing who you are attacking by default when you attack those you don't agree with on this issue. As far as I know, Obama, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Al Gore all disagree with you, and I'd bet they would all agree with me that CD is an embarrassment to liberals who would like to see Bush et al. held accountable for fucking up our country and others so badly.

OCT = Obama's Conspiracy Theory

[SidDithers]

8. Can the 9/11 Truth Movement be embarrassed by anything?...

I don't really think so. The nutters aren't only on the fringes of the movement.

Sid

[seemslikeadream]

9. Can the 9/11 Truth Movement be embarrassed by anything?...

[SidDithers]

10. And another incoherent post from slad...

thanks for contributing.

Sid

[wildbilln864]

12. self deleted

no good way.

[MrMickeysMom]

270. That's about the side of it...

Plus, the eventual history, beginning to seep out as slow festering wound.

These guys that get on this board keep thinking the pablum will be eaten, if they keep shoveling it. What a bunch of plants.

[number6]

30. Can the OCT Movement be embarrassed by anything?...

:smoke: :hi: the OCT is the lifeblood of GWB

[SDuderstadt]

64. Srupid either-or argument...

it assumes there are only two choices...support the "truth movement" or be the lifeblood of GWB. And, to answer your question, the "OCT movement" can be embarrassed...by the goofy ramblings of the "truth movement".

[elias7]

29. Those trying to suppress the truth are an embarrassment

Those seeking it are not.

[biermeister]

52. anyone familiar with this report?

www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

65. Jesus, this study is stupid...

it assumes right off the bat that the molten metal observed was steel with no proof whatsoever. It is just, if not more likely, that whatever was observed was aluminum.

[SDuderstadt]

66. Jesus, this study is stupid...

it assumes right off the bat that the molten metal observed was steel with no proof whatsoever. It is just, if not more likely, that whatever was observed was aluminum.

[petgoat]

70. Numerous witnesses described molten steel. Please provide one that says it was probably aluminum.

http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D


Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of “literally molten steel” at the World Trade Center. (source)

Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.
ALLBAUGH: That’s right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov)
Source publication date: CBS Early Show 10/04/01
Interviewer: Bryant Gumbel
Witness: Joe Allbaugh
MMdate: up to 10/04/01

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org)
Source publication date: SEAU News Volume VI Issue II 10/2001
Interviewer: James M.Williams October 5, 2001 National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference.
Witness: Leslie Robertson
MMdate: up to 10/02/01

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (audio)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (audio)

A NY firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano. (source) (source) (hi-res_source)

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." (source) (cached_copy)
Source publication date: July/August 2002 Atlantic Monthly

The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,”. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. (source)

Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue (source_upenn.edu)

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." (source_jhsph.edu)

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said. Additionally he stated "Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses." (source_neha.org)

"They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton (source_istructe.org.uk)

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing (source)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source)

"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." -William Langewiesche (source_p32) (cached_copy)

He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters (source)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source)

...numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (source_9-11commission.gov) (2) (3)

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said "Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (source)

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." (source)

Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down." (source_nd.edu)

Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary "deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above." (source_NIH.gov)
Source publication date: 10/30/2001
Interviewer: Rich McManus

Guy Lounsbury with the 109th Air Wing of the New York Air National Guard wrote "The men who work on this must constantly change their boots as the heat melts them. Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains." (source)

A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on "how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris." (source)

Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source)

The workers go through three pairs of rubber boots a day because they melt in the three-week-old fire of molten metal and jet fuel. The health hazards are everywhere: the fire, molten metal, the lack of breathable air and 3000+ decomposing bodies. (source)

[Bolo Boffin]

74. These are all quotes of conditions under the Pile, well after the buildings had fallen down.

You have this problem understanding the notion of controllability in scientific inquiry.

[petgoat]

178. You seem to think that cooking steel a long time in the pile will melt it.

Temperature does not pump up, bolo. Kerosene under
the best of conditions will not burn hot enough to
melt steel, it doesn't matter how long you cook it.

It doesn't matter how long after the collapse the
molten steel was observed. It can not have been
melted in the pile.

[Bolo Boffin]

180. Heat energy will accumulate in the proper conditions. n/t

[petgoat]

181. Heat yes, Temperature no. A 1200 degree fire cannot melt steel, no matter how long you cook it. n

[AZCat]

185. I thought you said you'd studied heat transfer.

Thank you for proving to me and anyone else who knows anything about thermodynamics that you are as clueless as a newborn babe. Don't think that you can pull that shit here. It might work on other forums, but your ignorance is blatantly obvious to us.

[petgoat]

186. There you go again, claiming knowledge you don't demonstrate.

Steel will not get hotter than the fire cooking it, no matter
how long you cook it. Heat always flows downhill from hotter
to cooler-- never from cooler to hotter.

(And don't bring in your heat pumps and refrigerators, because
you know they're irrelevant to this discussion.)

[AZCat]

187. Again you demonstrate ignorance.

Heat pumps and refrigerators follow the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics also - the operating fluid is compressed or expanded (usually undergoing a phase change) to raise or lower the temperature so heat transfer can occur.

Your fundamental misunderstanding is in this idea of a fire having a maximum temperature. This is incorrect. Anybody who has ever had any kind of thermo or heat transfer would know this.

[petgoat]

191. There you go, invoking irrelevant heat pumps when I asked you not to.

The issue is not fires having a maximum temperature.

The issue is steel in a fire having a maximum temperature no greater than
the temperature of the fire.

[AZCat]

201. Considering you were wrong about heat pumps, I felt it necessary to correct you.

And again you commit the same fallacy - a fire does not have a "temperature" - it is a heat source (the heat being generated by the combustion of reactants). The temperature of anything in the area (including the products and reactants) depends on how that heat is transferred - there is no maximum temperature for anything. Temperatures are only stabilized (i.e. steady-state) when the net rate of heat transfer from the fire is equal to the rate of heat generation. That is dependent on geometry and materials of the surroundings.

[petgoat]

219. I am right about heat pumps. They are irrelevant.

A heat pump is a highly organized system which operates with a
net energy loss to move heat from one place to another.

Are you maintaining that somehow in the disordered debris pile
a heat pump was spontaneously assembled?

It's irrelevant. The steel can not get any hotter than the fire
that heats it. You don't have 2800 degree fires in a debris
pile.

[AZCat]

221. Wow - your reading comprehension is worse than I thought.

Perhaps you should go take slad's literacy test.


You persist in fucking up any science or engineering that you encounter. Are you even capable of understanding anything? Please tell me this is some long-running gag. I can't think of another person I've met who has consistently been as wrong as you. You think you can lecture others on thermodynamics when you don't even understand heat transfer.

There is no "temperature" for a fire! Go buy an elementary physics book and read it.




On Edit: Of course I wasn't claiming a heat pump was used in the debris pile - that's just fucking stupid. However, they still obey the same laws of thermodynamics as everything else - something to which you seem to be oblivious (see your previous posts for reference).

[petgoat]

223. You persist in sowing FUD and claiming expertise you don't demonstrate.

How do you get steel to melt in the debris pile?

What fuel burns hot enough to do that?

Thermite! Name another.

[AZCat]

229. Any hydrocarbon, given the right conditions. n/t

[petgoat]

230. Like forced oxygen, you mean? Get Real. nt

[AZCat]

235. No, that's not what I mean. n/t

[petgoat]

238. What fuels and what ideal conditions do you mean? This should be good. nt

[AZCat]

239. Any hydrocarbon - doesn't matter.

It doesn't even need to be a hydrocarbon, but most people are more familiar with those than other fuels.

I didn't say "ideal" conditions, I said the right conditions. Please work on that reading comprehension - there are plenty of programs out there on adult literacy.

[petgoat]

240. You say any hydrocarbon can melt steel in the debris pile.

And rather than describe the conditions under which such alchemy takes place,
you accuse me of illiteracy.

That's rich, coming from one who gets baffled by simple metaphors.

[AZCat]

243. So I'm held to a different standard than you? That's bullshit.

All you do is name your "fuel", and then you expect me to not only name one but then describe the conditions under which it could reach those temperatures? That's bullshit! If I have to do it, then so do you. Make sure you list your assumptions so I can use the same ones for my example (we want to be consistent). You can use english or S.I. units - I don't care, but for temperatures please stick to absolute (Kelvin or Rankin) and then convert at the end to a relative scale. Any diagrams you draw should probably be in something other than MS Paint - I recommend scanning hand sketches if you don't have access to better software.



On Edit: Remember the duration of the fires and when the supposed "molten steel" was sighted - you need to show time dependency in your calculations too.

[petgoat]

245. You make the ABSURD CLAIM that fires in the pile can melt steel. Support it, please.

I name my fuel. The reaction generates temperatures of 4000 degrees.

You don't name anything. Just bluff and claimed knowledge you don't demonstrate.

Give it up AZ.

Here are my assumptions: fires in the pile can not melt steel. Until you
show me how they can, that will remain my opinion.

[AZCat]

256. Yer doin' it wrong!

Stating that "the reaction generates temperatures of 4000 degrees" is insufficient. Under what conditions does this reaction generate these temperatures, and what is the released energy per unit mass? You'll need at some point to determine the rate of reaction, so you can figure heat flux. Once you've done that, you'll need to describe your debris pile and what material properties you used in figuring the heat transfer. When you're done, get back to me and I'll do my work.

[petgoat]

259. Yer the one who says the debris pile can melt steel. Show how. nt

[AZCat]

263. You have yet to show how thermite in the debris pile can melt steel.

This isn't very difficult (especially for someone who has supposedly studied heat transfer, like you claimed to have done), so I don't know why you're refusing to do it. Once you provide your model of the debris pile with thermite, I will provide mine with a hydrocarbon in lieu of thermite.

[petgoat]

265. You're the one making the affirmative claim that fire in the pile can melt steel. Support it! nt

[AZCat]

273. You've had plenty of time...

to either google the information you need or ask someone else to help you (preferably someone who isn't as lazy), yet you still haven't done it. Your reading comprehension seems to be regressing also. You asked what fuel burns hot enough to get steel to melt in the debris pile (post #223). You proposed thermite, and asked what fuel I had in mind. I provided an answer, but then you asked about the mechanism. I refuse to spend time modeling the debris pile (or a reasonable simplification) until you prove that your suggested fuel can indeed do what you claim. This is important - stating that thermite can produce certain temperatures is in no way a complete answer. I expect an actual series of calculations, as I have stated before. Your refusal (or inability, I'm not sure which) to do so is yet another example of a do nothing, know nothing movement.

[petgoat]

276. YOU've had ample time to support your affirmation that hydrocarbons in debris piles melt steel.

You haven't done so.

Thermate can create molten iron. You're busted, AZ.

[AZCat]

278. Where's your calculations? Oh wait - you can't produce any.

Quit whining - I've told you I'm not doing anything until you get off your lazy ass and do a little work yourself. Prove you're not as useless as the rest of the "truth movement".



Here's a starting point:
www.google.com

[petgoat]

281. It's YOUR absurd claim that debris pile fires can melt steel, Prove it. You're melting, AZ. nt

[AZCat]

282. Since you've forgotten, I'll remind you - it's your turn.

Time for you to back up your claim about thermite, petgoat. If you do it (and by "do it" I mean demonstrate using calculations that thermite under the debris pile would create X pounds (or kilograms, if you prefer metric) of melted steel for every pound of reactants) then I will gladly produce calculations for a hydrocarbon fire under a debris pile. Until then, I'm not doing a goddamn thing. Too many times have I seen the members of the "truth movement" dance around a substantive argument by any of their various methods (moving the goalposts seems to be in vogue). I'm tired of chasing a moving target. I'll reciprocate if you show you're willing to buckle down and do some work, but this isn't a game of "fetch" and I'm not a fucking dog.

[petgoat]

285. The thermite rxn is 4000 F. YOU refuse to back up your claim that hydrocarbs can melt steel nt

[AZCat]

288. This is pretty stupid.

Why do you persist in thinking that a particular temperature is produced by a reaction? I thought you studied heat transfer. Maybe if you admitted you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about we might get somewhere.

[petgoat]

290. Well, finally some truth in packaging!

Still trying to distract from your inability to support your claim that fires
in the piles (any hydrocarbon would do, you said) can melt steel, are you?

Certainly there are variables that can affect the temperature of the products
from an aluminothermic reaction. But that doesn't make the statement that
the reaction proceeds at 4000 degrees F any less reasonable, Elmer FUD.

[AZCat]

294. Care to provide proof of that?

Or is this yet another unsupported claim? How many is that now? Ten? Twenty? Fucking pathetic. I've never met a person less willing to provide backup for his claims. Yet you expect me to do what you will not - hypocrite. Is this how your "movement" plans on running their "new investigation"? By forming conclusions and then not bothering to check the actual evidence? Sounds like a wonderful idea to me. :eyes:

[petgoat]

298. It's your claim, not mine, that hydrocarbon fires in the debris pile can melt steel. Support it!

Obviously you and NIST and all the debunkers are confusing the
process of cooking coke or cooking charcoal to create smelting
fuels with the process of smelting iron.

If thermite doesn't create temperatures of 4000 degrees F, what
temperatures does it create?

I'm not going to try to prove to you that water is wet, night is dark,
and tiny squiggles on paper actually mean something to people who
know how to read.

[KSCFAN]

301. Why does the steel have to melt?

I'm trying to understand why the steel has to melt for there to be a collapse? Steel weakens with temperature. Structures are designed with allowable stresses that give some margin over the design loads. Plane cuts away alot of that steel which lowers your margin. Fire weakens the steel which lowers it until it fails. What is so difficult?

[petgoat]

302. Welcome to DU, KSC! How did you find your way to the dungeon so fast?

Steel doesn't have to melt for there to be a collapse.

The issue is, molten steel was found in the rubble pile, and
official discussions don't explain it. NIST lead engineer
John Gross denied that it existed. And look how nervous he is!
The water gulping.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7180303712325092501&hl=en

Here FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo tells about the molten steel:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=molten%20steel%20wtc&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#



Molten steel is not consistent with jet fuel fires, but it is
consistent with explosives or thermate--or, I suppose, exotic
weapons hypotheses.

[SDuderstadt]

303. Prove it was molten STEEL, Petgoat

Surely you have something other than people just saying that's what they thought it was....

[petgoat]

304. Hey, the authorities gathered up all the evidence and shipped it off to China, Dude.

Don't you know anything?

They put gps machines on the transport trucks and fired a driver for taking a long lunch.

They wouldn't let people take photos.

Dr. Astaneh Asl said he saw melted WTC girders. He was talking about the California Freeway
Collapse at the time, so he wasn't talking about aluminium.

[SDuderstadt]

305. I can disprove your stupid claims in 3 easy steps....

1) the authorities gathered up all the evidence and shipped it off to China


Wrong. Investigators sifted through the steel at the site and preserved pieces they wanted. It's currently being stored in various locations.

http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html

http://www.wtcgroundzerorelief.org/freshkills.htm

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf


2) They wouldn't let people take photos

Demonstrably false, as shown by the numerous photos in the sites above.

3) Dr. Astaneh Asl said he saw melted WTC girders.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a structural engineer from U.C. Berkeley who was on-site after 9/11 to examine steel, saw a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. Less clear was whether the beam had been charred after the collapse, as it lay in the pile of burning rubble, or whether it had been engulfed in the fire that led to the building's collapse, which would provide a more telling clue. The answer lay in the beam's twisted shape. As weight pushed down, the center portion had buckled outward. "This tells me it buckled while it was attached to the column," not as it fell, Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, adding, "It had burned first, then buckled."<13>

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/7_World_Trade_Center#_note-6

So, not only didn't Astaneh Asl say what you claim, his actual words contradict your claim that he was talking contemporaneously about seeing molten metal.

I can understand that "truthers" lack the critical thinking to examine evidence and draw proper conclusions from it; what I can't understand is why you guys choose to spread crap which is so easily debunked. Maybe you have some sort of genetic flaw that causes you to regard truth so lightly.

[petgoat]

306. You do pretty well, Dude, considering that the truth isn't on your side

Point 1: You say: Investigators sifted through the steel at the site and preserved pieces they wanted.

They did? Then how come they don't have any that shows the heat
damage they claim in the report? None of the core steel samples show
heating above 480 degrees F. The steel that would have told the tale
was shipped to China and destroyed.

Point 2: They wouldn't let people take photos.


City: No more photographs of World Trade Center site

By Elisabetta Coletti, Associated Press, 09/26/01


NEW YORK -- Photography at the World Trade Center site, where thousands of curious New Yorkers and tourists have gathered with still and video cameras since the terrorist attacks, was banned by Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

"No photographic equipment or video equipment may be brought into the area or used, except with the approval of the Police Commissioner," said a statement issued by the mayor's office on Tuesday.

The statement said that the ban was issued because the site is a crime scene and that cameras and video equipment could be seized. No one from the mayor's office was available early Wednesday to explain why the order wasn't issued earlier.

Small signs were posted around the Trade Center site late Tuesday, warning passers-by that they risk prosecution for a Class B misdemeanor for taking pictures or violating any of the order's other provisions, including no pedestrian or vehicular traffic or occupancy of buildings within site boundaries.

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/26/photo_ban.htm

Point 3, Dr. Astaneh saw melted steel girders. You say: not only didn't Astaneh Asl say what you claim, his actual words contradict your claim

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html


Sid, if you had simply googled "astaneh melted girders," you would have found that. Lay off the debunking
koolaid and do some real research just once on your life, Dud.

Your claims of proof and dishonesty are as overblown as that hero feller's.

[SDuderstadt]

307. Jesus, Petgoat...

Your original first claim was that NO steel from Ground Zero was preserved. Rather than simply admit that you got your ass kicked on that one, you've now changed the claim into something to the effect, "Well, they may have preserved steel, but not the steel I think they should have preserved". It is so laughable. Go back and read your original claim and be honest enough to admit your claim was totally demolished, so now you are trying to change the subject.

304. Hey, the authorities gathered up all the evidence and shipped it off to China, Dude.
Don't you know anything?

They put gps machines on the transport trucks and fired a driver for taking a long lunch.

They wouldn't let people take photos.

Dr. Astaneh Asl said he saw melted WTC girders. He was talking about the California Freeway
Collapse at the time, so he wasn't talking about aluminium.

More importantly, do you realize that amended claim # 1 is contradicted by claim # 3? On the one hand, you're claiming that the fires at ground zero couldn't possibly have gotten hot enough to melt steel, then you turn around and claim, "Well, actually, Astaneh Asl saw melted girders". You can't have it both ways, Petgoat. So which is it? Is amended claim # 1 false or claim # 3 false? Try to weasel your way out of this one.


You're also now trying to weasel your way out of the second claim. Your claim was that people were not allowed to take pictures at ground zero. Of course, it is correct to say that SOME people were not allowed to take pictures after a certain date, but that hardly means no one was allowed to take pictures at the site, which is easily shown by a multitude of pictures taken after that date by various photographers. Are you claiming that the pictures took themselves or were they faked? Otherwise, you'll be forced to admit your second claim is false.

As far as the third claim, you're simply playing word games again. Is Astaneh Asl claiming he actually saw the girders melting (I guess in a attempt to shore up your silly claim that "molten steel" was in the debris pile) contemporaneously? Or, was he simply imprecise in his wording, describing the aftermath of the attack and subsequent fires as there was melting of girders, as opposed to saying he witnessed the girders melting himself? Of course, he is describing it after the fact, not contemporaneously and this is just one more example of your dishonest quote-mining.

What is particularly delicious, as I mentioned earlier, is how you've painted yourself into a corner with your amended claim # 1. If you read the quote I provided, Astaneh Asl is clearly concluding that the girder "melted" as the building was still standing, obviously destroying your claim that it somehow proves "molten steel" in the debris pile.

As I have stated numerous times before, I just love it when "truthers" actually provide the evidence that undermines their own claims. You seem to be a master at it. Again, I recommend a class in critical thinking. I am certain your local community college provides them.

[petgoat]

310. Stop mischaracterizing what I said. Stop playing dumb. Learn to read, Dud.

I didn't say no steel was preserved.

I said the evidence was destroyed.

I CAN have it both ways. The jet fuel fires can not possibly have melted
the steel. Something melted the steel.

Various photographers were permitted to take various pictures. Read my
lips: "They wouldn't let people take photos." That's technically factual
as long as there were two people they prohibited from taking photos, and
it's generally true when only approved people were allowed to take photos.

As to Astaneh, what the hell are you talking about? The girder melted.
Where was it found but in the debris pile? That doesn't disprove the fact
of molten steel at all.

You are wasting my time and the time of everybody who reads your false
claims of victory, and burying truth under layers of bullshit. Stop
being disruputive.

And stop taking the name of Jesus in vain. How old are you?

[SDuderstadt]

323. You said ALL the evidence was destroyed....

Now you're trying to weasel out of it again. Are you honestly claiming the steel at Fresh Kills is NOT evidence?? You're floundering again, Petgoat.

And it's YOU who are mischaracterizing what Astaneh Asl said, not me. If you'd bother to read the exact (and properly sourced) quote I provided from him, he concluded that what he saw actually happened before the collapse of the building. Funny how you keep ignoring that, but you have to, because you realize it destroys your claim. We've come to expect that from you, Petgoat. Your intellectual dishonestly is stunning. You compound it repeatedly by getting caught in another blatant fabrication, then claiming you are being mischaracterized. Pathetic.

Contrary to your other claim, you didn't say SOME people were not allowed to take pictures. That would have, at least, been true. You said people were not allowed to take pictures. Period. It's clear you were trying to imply there were no pictures of the steel or the scene past a certain point, when just the opposite is true. More of your word games. If you knew anything at all about Logic, you'd realize that all I have to do is produce evidence of at least one person being allowed to take pictures and your claim is debunked. Unless, of course, you're claiming pictures were taken, but not by people. I think you're at least smart enough (barely) to try to go down the path of trying to reframe what you actually said. Oh, wait....you already DID try that and looked amazingly foolish in the process.

The bottom line, of course, is that you are a shameless quote-miner. Even when confronted with direct evidence that rebuts your claim, you just obfuscate, dodge, weave, weasel and backpedal. The really ironic and disappointing thing is you have the nerve to call yourself a "truther" despite your obvious disregard for the truth.

[AZCat]

308. You're correct, but on the wrong track.

petgoat and I are arguing about the post-collapse debris pile and the fires present there. There is some anecdotal evidence of melted steel in the debris pile (but no physical evidence). petgoat's trying to claim that melted steel is possible with thermite but not with hydrocarbon fires. A little background: petgoat has been posting here for some time and has consistently showed evidence of no formal training in engineering or an equivalent grasp of related subjects. In fact, I would call his comprehension of most engineering topics "appalling". This whole argument started when I (being the pedant that I am) called out petgoat for once again screwing up heat transfer (back in post #181). Reluctant to admit he doesn't know anything about the subject, petgoat promptly dug an even bigger hole by making the same mistake over and over.

I don't know how familiar you are with conspiracy theorists in general and the 9/11 CTers in particular, but it has been my experience that they love to send you on long errands to fetch this piece of information or perform that calculation, then when you have done so to their (dis)satisfaction, they change topics - never acknowledging either their mistake or amending their claims. I am tired of this roundabout and refuse to heed petgoat's demands until he proves he is willing to do a little hard work (the CTers are notoriously lazy) on his own. But instead of spending an afternoon learning about chemistry and thermodynamics (and therefore enriching his life, regardless whether I am moved to hold up my end of the bargain), petgoat would rather waste time chiding me for failing to do the exact same thing he is refusing to do! I don't think I've met many people as willfully ignorant as the members of the so-called "truth movement". It's sad, in a way.

Anyway, welcome to the forum. :)

[petgoat]

309. Typical AZ, wallowing in the fetid argument from his own undemonstrated authority. Phew! nt

[AZCat]

311. Yet another post from you confirming you can't walk the walk. n/t

[petgoat]

313. You're just trying to bury the fact that you CAN'T SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM

under heaps of AZ gilamonstershit.

You said fires in the pile could melt steel, you can't prove it,
and you're trying to make that my fault.

[AZCat]

315. My criteria was made VERY FUCKING CLEAR at the beginning of this sub-thread.

You have FAILED TO MEET IT so I'm not going to rushing off to satisfy your demands. Get off your lazy fucking ass and do a little work and I will reciprocate. Until then, this is all you get.

[petgoat]

317. The temperature of the steel can not exceed the temperature of the fire.

Unless you've got a 2800 degree fire, you get no melted steel.

[AZCat]

318. I can't believe you're still making the same fucking mistake. n/t

[AZCat]

319. Wait, I can.

No really, I'm starting to get it.

You are not capable of understanding the underlying principles at hand. This is completely fucking pointless.

Yep, I got it.

[petgoat]

320. I am capable of understanding the principles. You are unwilling to even try to

support your claim that fires in the debris pile can melt steel.

[AZCat]

321. No you're not.

Just because you intentionally break things people give you doesn't mean you understand the relevant principles. Some of us put in the time and effort to learn this shit, and find it absolutely hilarious that you think you can pick it up by playing Godzilla with a bunch of old chairs. Get a fucking clue, petgoat. You look like an idiot.

[petgoat]

322. Stop spamming threads about me and start talking engineering, Mr. self-proclaimed Expert. nt

[SDuderstadt]

325. I assume this is unintended irony from Petgoat....

Imagine him having the audacity to call someone else a "self-proclaimed expert".

[petgoat]

326. Learn to read, Dud. Talk 9/11, not petgoat. I never said I was an expert. nt

[SDuderstadt]

328. If you're not an "expert", then....

why should we give any of your "technical" claims any weight at all?

[petgoat]

330. You SHOULDN'T give my technical claims any weight--I'm just an anonymous internet poster.

For the same reason, you should't give AZ's technical claims any
weight. (AZ doesn't actually make any technical claims--he just
says over and over "This is so complicated an idiot like you can't
possibly understand it." At first I thought this was the hubris
of the narrowly educated but I'm coming to believe it's all bluff.)

When I cite authoritative sources, you should consider what those
sources have to say.

When I present interesting objective evidence, you should consider
that.

When I present a logical analysis you should criticize my logic,
and provide a better analysis if you can.

If you find my speculations, which are clearly labeled as such,
interesting then perhaps they will inspire research and thought.
If you don't, no skin off my nose. I've got no interest in the
opinions of people who can't see the obvious implications of
the rake-on-rake sketch on the question of how the core came
down.

[SDuderstadt]

332. Okay

WHEN you cite an authoritative source, I'll gladly consider it.

WHEN you present objective evidence, I'll consider that too.

WHEN you present a logical analysis, I'll also consider it.

That's the problem. You rarely cite authoritiative sources but, in those few times when you actually do, you typically cherry-pick what they said and omit anything that gives the reader the full picture or context, thus badly lisleading them. Your "evidence" suffers the same fatal flaw. As far as logic, I have pointed out your fallacies numerous times. You usually respond by presenting more fallacies. And it's really a hoot that you claim you label your speculations as such, when you routinely post pure speculation and try to pass it off as a statement of fact. If there is any "truth" to the "truth movement", it is not well-served by either the tactics or strategy of most, of not all, "truth" posters here.


The real irony is I despise the Bush administration and believe he should be prosecuted after he leaves office. Right after 9/11, I had many of the same questions and reservations I hear voiced by "truthers". But, one by one, those questions were answered sufficiently. The crowning blow to whatever doubts I still harbored was the absolute illogicality, intellectual dishonesty and gullibility of the "truth movement". As I have stated before, just at the time when we, as liberals, see our star rising, the "truth movement" and most of its adherents are an absolute embarrassment/

[petgoat]

333. You're still disputing eyewitness accounts of competent witnesses to molten metal.

Until you read it in an official government report, you won't believe it.

Are you seriously maintaining that the collapse WTC7 has been explained?
The gullible one is you, Sid, falling for the sophism in those juvenile
debunking sites.

You bandy the phrase "intellectual dishonesty" around like a six year old
says "doodoohead."

People with your kind of credulous acceptance of official bullshit are
dangerous for democracy.

[SDuderstadt]

337. I'm not Sid...

and show me where I dispute eyewitness accounts of molten metal. I'm disputing your contention the molten metal can only be "molten steel". Also, as I have said before, I don't get my information only from "government reports" nor do I only rely on debunking sites. It's funny that you claim I'M gullible, when it's you who apparently posts things without bothering to fact-check them. You claim the debunking sites are "sophist". Okay. I have repeatedly pointed out the errors in your sources and precisely where they're wrong. If one must be gullible to believe factual information from the debunking sites, please show me where they get it wrong. It should be easy for someone with your intellectual superiority and deft fact-checking.

The reason I refer to your intellectual dishonesty is because you ARE intellecutally dishonest and I'm constantly providing proof of that by citing your own words. Do you honestly deny that you previously claimed that ALL evidence had been shipped off to China and destroyed? With proponents like you, it's no wonder the "trtuh movement" is floundering so badly.

People with your kind of credulous acceptance for nonsense from CT sites are not only dangerous to democracy, they're dangerous to intelligence. Try to weasel your way out of this one.

[petgoat]

339. ALL the evidence WAS shipped off to China! They took samples, yes. And guess what?

NIST tells us the samples (which by the way, DON'T support their claim
of heat-weakened steel) are not representative of the steel at the WTC
and thus are NOT evidence!

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The evidence was destroyed.

Will you lay off the "intellectually dishonest" bullshit, Sid? It's just your sleazy way of getting
around the ban on the word "liar" and you're obviously not competent to know what a lie is, let alone
what's honest or not.

[SDuderstadt]

You did it again, Petgoat...

Did you notice that? If you admit that they kept samples (which, by the way, amounts to tons at the various sites, even today), then your claim that ALL the evidence was shipped off to China and destroyed cannot, by definition, be true, can it? I don't understand why you keep beating this dead horse and why you keep calling me Sid. And you ARE intellectually dishonest as I have pointed out over and over. For example, in another post, you ADMITTED you knew that the Robertson quote was bogus, yet you linked to a site containing it nonetheless. What do you call that, Petgoat? It certainly is not intellectual honesty.

As far as NIST is concerned, I think they offered a reasonable explanation of why they couldn't be positive of identification of certain pieces of steel, which would make sense given the gross destruction that day. Of course, they went on to develop other kinds of perfectly valid evidence, but that's not good enough for you because it contradicts your preconceived notion. The problem with "truthers" like you is you can take perfectly reasonable situations and ascribe nefarious motives to anyone and everyone without much in the way of facts. Like I said before, pathetic.

[SDuderstadt]

340. You did it again, Petgoat...

Did you notice that? If you admit that they kept samples (which, by the way, amounts to tons at the various sites, even today), then your claim that ALL the evidence was shipped off to China and destroyed cannot, by definition, be true, can it? I don't understand why you keep beating this dead horse and why you keep calling me Sid. And you ARE intellectually dishonest as I have pointed out over and over. For example, in another post, you ADMITTED you knew that the Robertson quote was bogus, yet you linked to a site containing it nonetheless. What do you call that, Petgoat? It certainly is not intellectual honesty.

As far as NIST is concerned, I think they offered a reasonable explanation of why they couldn't be positive of identification of certain pieces of steel, which would make sense given the gross destruction that day. Of course, they went on to develop other kinds of perfectly valid evidence, but that's not good enough for you because it contradicts your preconceived notion. The problem with "truthers" like you is you can take perfectly reasonable situations and ascribe nefarious motives to anyone and everyone without much in the way of facts. Like I said before, pathetic.

[petgoat]

341. You do not understand the nature of evidence, Sid.

Since the steel that would have told what happened was destroyed, and since the
steel that was preserved does not tell what happened, the evidence was destroyed.
I can't say it any clearer.

I linked to the list of quotes because the force of the quote evidence is cumulative.
It's the best list I know and arguing with fools on the internet gives me little
time to seek out a better one.

Even Hamilton and Kean admit now that the 9/11 Commission Report was set up to
fail. It's becoming clear that the NIST report is just as bogus.

I keep calling you Sid, because you are Sid, Sid. I hear Aunt Polly calling you.

[SDuderstadt]

342. QUIT BEATING A DEAD HORSE, PETGOAT!

Christ, you are pigheaded. Are you seriously claiming that no samples pertaining to any building was preserved? If not, then knock this off simply because it doesn't explain the one thing you want to have explained. You're implying that it was deliberately covered-up and you know that is not the case. We've already been over this countless times. You know there were numerous pieces of steel preserved from the site, it just doesn't happen to be the piece you think they should have been able to identify. NIST isn't conducting a criminal investigation, Petgoat, for a very simple reason. If you look at the preponderance of the available evidence, there is no reason to suspect CD, or space beam weapons or anything else. NIST is conducting the invesigation so they can improve construction methods/materials to prevent or mitigate a similar situation in the future.

Just because NIST doesn't have the one piece you think they should have doesn't mean your goofy claims are remotely true. You can respond to this if you want, but I've said all I am going to say on the subject. If you want to engage me further, then start exhibiting some intellectual honesty. BTW, as to your previous claim of the "sophist" debunking websites, I have a simple question. I will state that clipped/cherry-picked/out-of-context quotes are only found on CT websites. Why is that? Why won't you cknowledge the dishonesty of large segments of the "truth movement"?

[petgoat]

343. Learn to read, Sid. "Samples" >=< "Evidence"

Don't tell me what I know. Whenever an OCT believer tells me what I know,
they're invariably talking bullshit.

I'm not talking about The One Piece in the Haystack, Sid. I'm saying that
NIST has not one piece of physical evidence to support their bogus claim
that fires weakened the steel, and the reason is that the FEMA team was
not allowed on the site until weeks after, and the samples that would have
told what happened were shipped off to China before anyone could see them.

I do acknowledge the dishonesty of large segments of the truth movement,
Kevin Barrett for instance, which is why I resent you associating me with
their bullshit. Your "cherry picking" claim is complete bs. ALL quotes
are cherry picked. You want to eat leaves and stems and trunks, too?
Sheesh!

We're not paid for this. Nobody gave us $35 million to perpetrate a
PR fraud on America.

[SDuderstadt]

345. Quit calling me Sid.

Seriously.

I'm saying that NIST has not one piece of physical evidence to support their bogus claim
that fires weakened the steel, and the reason is that the FEMA team was
not allowed on the site until weeks after, and the samples that would have
told what happened were shipped off to China before anyone could see them.

Your claim above, as usual, is total bullshit and you know it. First of all, every piece of debris (I am not claiming total recovery as that would not be possible) from the site was taken and sorted at one of several sites, as I have demonstrated before and which you conveniently ignore. In fact, in one of your previous posts, you stated that the trucks carrying the debris were outfitted with GPS units and a truck driver who took an overly long lunch was fired. I don't know why you were pointing this out because it's evidence that they took great pains to preserve and vaidate the chain of custody precisely BECAUSE they wanted to make sure evidence was preserved. As stated previously, I love it when you provide evidence or make statementss that actually undermine your claims/positions.

Crime Scene Info

WTC Crime Scene

From Report From Ground Zero. Smith, Dennis. New York: Penguin, 2002

And although this is a fire scene, it is also a crime scene, which means a large unit of crime scene investigators is present, working from a tent at the corner of West St. and Liberty. (p. 194)

NYPD Detective first grade Hal Sherman: "At Ground Zero the CSU is responsible for photographing the site, recovering physical evidence, documenting body parts and any other physical evidence like weapons or a wallet, manning the temporary morgue at the site (as well as the city morgue up on 28th Street), inspecting debris that leaves the site, and inspecting debris as it gets sifted out at Staten Island. ...All evidence is documented– airplane parts were essential to the beginning investigation, but now they look for hair, fibers, glass particles, semen, ballistics. ...We ID every part. Pillars and beams are swiped for hair, tissue and blood, evaporated body evidence. We have two police officers with mortuary degrees, and they are either in the medical examiner's office or the police lab, because you must be a sworn police officer to take evidence.

If you step on a fly ten times there will be nothing left. And here we have no couches, no computers, no chairs, no glass. Any small trace of anything is evidence. Anything to bring closure to the families. Human body part, clothing, jewelry, equipment and tools, anything. If there ever is a trial, we will be prepared. We've been here from day 1, and we'll be there well after the regular police officers go home, when everyone is packed up and gone." (p. 326-327)

There are two dump sites. One is in Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, and the other is in Great Kills, Staten Island. At each location police Investigations Unit detectives and FBI agents are spotting and sifting through every truckload, searching for the flight recorders of the planes and for any remains of the victims. (p. 201)
"Law enforcement authorities survey the material for evidence. Only then is it released to a scrap processor under an existing long-term contract with the NYC Department of Sanitation to purchase and then recycle scrap metal."– Source

http://www.americanrecycler.com/11wtc.html

Fresh Kills Crime Scene Info
The site covered 175 acres. • 24 local, state, and federal agencies participated, with as many as 1,000 workers a day • 17,000 tons of material were processed daily. • 55 FBI Evidence Response Teams worked the site -- over 1,000 agents -- plus FBI medics, safety officers, and other specialists. • New York Evidence Response Team members worked over 8,000 hours at the site, at the morgue, and at Ground Zero. Source
There are currently 600 NYPD detectives, 50 FBI personnel...working tirelessly at Fresh Kills landfill. Source
Number of U.S. Customs Agency volunteers working search and inspection at Fresh Kills Landfill: at least 193. Source
Recovered at Staten Island: 4,257 human remains helped bring closure to hundreds of families; 54,000 personal items and 4,000 photographs, many returned to their owners; 1,358 personal and departmental vehicles; and thousands of tons of steel. Source (pdf)
At the close of the Staten Island Landfill mission: • 1,462,000 tons of debris had been received and processed • 35,000 tons of steel had been removed (165,000 tons were removed directly at Ground Zero) • 806,000 tons of debris had been screened, an average of 75 tons per hour • 14,968 workers had been through the PPE process • 43,600 people (39,795 NYPD, 6,212 non-NYPD) had been through the Site Specific Indoctrination • Over 1.7 million man hours had been worked • Over 55,000 discrete pieces of evidence had been recovered • 4,257 body parts had been recovered • 209 victims had been positively identified. Source (pdf)

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/nov03/nyhs112703.htm
http://www.wtcgroundzerorelief.org/freshkills.htm
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2002/March/custoday_location.xml
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf




In your claim about the "FEMA team", you're up to more of your word games by giving the reader the impression that FEMA was not onsite at all during that time, which is also bullshit. In fact, in other CT's, they make much of a statement from FEMA in which they mistakenly said they arrived at the site on 9/10 (the speaker got the date wrong...they clearly got there on Tuesday).

I'm curious about something though. Let's say that NO one from FEMA was there until weeks later. Wasn't FEMA in on it? Wouldn't their purpose there have been to conceal or destroy evidence, according to the "truth movement"? I mean, wouldn't that have been a good thing if they weren't there during that time since they are part of the plot? In fact, both FEMA and ASCE have stated that they had access to whatever they wanted so, as usual, your intellectual dishonesty trumps your integrity.

Firehouse: If I could just go back, was there any mention of getting FEMA teams or did they already take care of that, or heavy equipment, the first time you saw some of these command chiefs?
Norman: There was heavy equipment already on the way. By the time I got to West and Vesey, it was already very clearly understood that there was nothing we were going to do until we got the big heavy construction equipment up in the way. I talked with Mike Pena early on while we were over at the Broadway side still when we first got into the scene and got a handle on the size of the devastation. One of the things that he took care of was making arrangements to get the New York City FEMA task force on the way. We got the FEMA task force organized from New York City, got the equipment coming. Mike actually handled most of those arrangements.

Firehouse: How much equipment is there and how big of a deal is it to get it to respond?
Norman: It�s a big deal. It�s basically three tractor-trailer loads worth of equipment. You got to get the tractors hooked up, they�re not kept up where you jump in and drive away.

Firehouse: Three tractor-trailer loads of the stuff coming out of FEMA, so it�s a big job at any time to get going?
Norman: Yes.

Firehouse: When did the equipment arrive?
Norman: It wound up there that evening. I guess it was the next day before I got up to see it. Tommy Richardson, John La Femmina, Freddy La Femmina, the whole staff of them pitched in on their own because we weren�t activated as a federal task force. We just brought it there as a New York City resource. We didn�t have the full FEMA staff with an operations chief in charge of that unit and all that because all our people were performing those functions in their own jobs.

Firehouse: At some point in time, did somebody recommend how many FEMA teams were coming?
Norman: Yeah, real early. We said we�ve got to get at least four FEMA task forces on the way. When we got another look at it, went over and spoke with Chief Fellini at the time at the west command post, I said you�ve got to get OEM and get at least half a dozen of them started here. We got at least that many buildings that need to be done. Unfortunately, by the time the task forces arrived and deployed, there was no live victims to be recovered. The last five victims were recovered about 26 hours later, just after noon on the 12th, and most of task forces hadn�t even deployed. Pennsylvania was in at that point already and Massachusetts, and I believe Ohio. They began working, but there were no more live victims for them to recover.

As far as your comment about Kevin Barrett, I don't recall ever associating you with him. However, you do associate yourself with other bizarre and absurd claims. If you're looking to redeem your reputation, you're going to have to do better than simply distancing yourself from Barrett. For exaple, linking to a website caled www.governmentterror.com isn't doing much for your impartiality.

As far as your claim that "all quotes are cherry-picked"; that is so laughable that it doesn't even need rebuttal. I would think you'd know better than to make such egregiously inane claims, but I must be wrong. Please show me where the debunkers cherry-pick quotes. Be specific.


Anyhow, I don't think we're much further along, other than more of your falsehods being exposed, which is actually good in itself. It's such foolishness that prevents the "truth movement" being taken seriously by much of anyone.

[petgoat]

346. You are washing garbage, Sid. I haven't got time for your bs. nt

[SDuderstadt]

348. In other words....

you got your ass kicked on the facts again. Wouldn't it be easier to just say that?


And, seriously, my name isn't Sid and I've asked you politely to stop it.

[petgoat]

352. In other words, your post isn't worth the time to read it, let alone respond. Sid. nt

[AZCat]

351. What a pathetic post.

I'd love to talk engineering, but you haven't shown you're willing to pull your share of the load. I'm not a fucking mother bird, chewing up dinner for the chicks. You need to be able to digest this stuff before we can go any further. Unfortunately you seem reluctant (or unable - which, I'm not sure) to spend the time to acquire the requisite knowledge. I've never claimed to be an expert (something I have pointed out before to you). Instead, I'm just a guy who spent countless years in school and out learning this shit. I'm not unique - there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other people who are at least as capable as me. But you won't even try to improve yourself, instead you are seemingly satisfied with pretending you understand the topics.

Get past all that, and we might be able to do as you wish.

[petgoat]

353. If you want to be an authority, you have to be an authority.

You can't just go around saying "I'm an authority and you're full of shit."

All you do is go around muttering FUD. You haven't added any value in months.

[AZCat]

354. How many fucking times do I have to say this?

I'm not a goddamn authority. The knowledge I have is in no way special, nor does it require a special person to acquire.

It does, however, require that you be willing to lay aside your idolatry of ignorance.

[petgoat]

355. So you don't claim authority. You just want to yell "BS!" and not have to say why. nt

[AZCat]

356. There are some things so obvious they don't require explanation.

Except, of course, for the idolaters of the golden armchair. Throw down your false god, petgoat! Embrace the holy texts of Reynolds and Perkins!

[SDuderstadt]

82. Funny, not one of the witnesses you cite is a....

metallurgist, are they? Hint: no. So, how do you know what they actually saw as opposed to what they THOUGHT they saw? More importantly most, if not all the claims from your source are debunked here. I dare you to read it.


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

[petgoat]

83. Not one is a metallurgist because ASCE investigators were not allowed on the site.

I get real tired of these "All you've got it bad evidence
because we destroyed all the good evidence (heh heh!)"
arguments.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Please provide proof of your claim that...

no ASCE investigators were allowed on the site. And, even if they weren't, what would that have to do with a mettalurgist not being allowed on site? Where in the world are you going with this?

[petgoat]

91. Is the expression "Half-Baked Farce" at all familiar?

Fire Engineering Magazine:

"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=131225

[SDuderstadt]

95. God, this is funny, Petgoat

You just refuted your own claim. Did you notice that? Earlier, you claimed that ASCE was not permitted onsite. Now, you submit an opinion piece in which the author takes the investigation to task for apparently not being thorough enough, however, Gene Corley of ASCE tells a much different story. Did you bother to check out what Corley had to say?

I just love it when CT's provide sources that actually refute their claims. Classic.

[petgoat]

99. They were not permitted on site except in a guided tour. That's "not allowed."

I guess if you were investigating a crime, a guided tour
would satisfy you. I would probably refuse to legitimize
the tour and stay home.

Now you've been to Disneyland and ridden "Pirates of the
Caribbean" you're happy that you've seen Jamaica

[SDuderstadt]

118. Jesus, Petgoat

How you twist and spin. First you say they were not allowed onsite (which, to the average person would mean they were totally denied access) and now you retreat, waving the CT white flag and say, "well, they WERE allowed onsite, but only with escorts" or something to that effect. Wtf difference does it make? And, why would you be surprised that they had to be "escorted" onto a still very treacherous disaster site? Were you there? Are you claiming they were not alllowed to see what they wanted to see? Why does Corley say the opposite?

Actually, I have a simple yes/no question. For the record, are you a "no-planer"? If you are, consider this and all further discussions finished. I don't debate with reality-deniers.

[petgoat]

123. They were not allowed on the site except on a guided tour.

Maybe the "Pirates of the Caribbean" ride at Disneyland
is good enough for your investigation of Jamaica, but
some truth-seekers like to take a closer look.

[SDuderstadt]

124. Petgoat....

You initially claimed they were not allowed onsite at all. Now you claim it was a "guided tour" not unlike the Pirates of the Carribean ride at Disneyland. Do you have ANY evidence of that at all? Are you seriously claiming that ASCE was not allowed to look at whatever they wanted? Upon what grounds would you make such a claim? Why does Gene Corley state differently? Wouldn't you think the lead investigator would have raised a fuss if he felt they were denied access to critical evidence?

[petgoat]

126. I said they were not allowed on the site. They were not allowed on the site

except on a guided tour as a group. That it not being allowed
on the site as investigators.

Stop trying to play "gotcha" and start acting like you care about
the truth.

What does Gene Corley state exactly?

Here's what the NYT says:

"The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating."

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html

Here's the House Science Committee on the problems FEMA had getting site access:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/sciencecommittee_charter.htm

[SDuderstadt]

127. Jesus Fucking Christ, Petgoat....

Do you realize the second sentence contradicts the first sentence? As I said earlier, there is no reasoning with you. When confronted with one of your false claims, you just move the goalpost.


Here's what Corley told Congress, which absolutely contradicts your silly claim:

Data Collection

Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting
coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant
part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to
examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On
September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade
Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team
was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where
their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas
which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-
day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC
site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.

During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the
Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.
Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory
analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional
engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf
and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of
November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are
presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.

Unlike other structural collapses, there is an unprecedented volume of
photographic and video evidence available for the team to review, including more than
120 hours of network and private video footage. Individual team members have viewed
every foot of this videotape and provided information on the available data to the team
at large.

Beyond the information and data pertaining to the events on September 11th,
there is also a need to establish, as accurately as possible, the physical attributes of the
towers and surrounding buildings prior to the impact of the airplanes. Doing this is a
monumental task. The construction of the towers was documented by literally
thousands of engineering drawings. In addition, there were numerous changes to the
towers over their life. This effort is also being conducted for WTC 7, which is of
considerable interest to the team. These data, together with the data previously
described will be used to construct detailed computer models of the structures.
Impediments Encountered by the Building Performance Study Teams

In the 10 years in which ASCE has been conducting studies of disasters we have
learned that our teams will always encounter impediments. It is therefore not surprising
that the study team has encountered some difficulties in their data collection activities.
However, we have also learned that with time and persistence these difficulties are
either overcome or an alternate approach is found to enable the team to satisfactorily
complete their study as described below.

When studying damaged structures it is important to understand the physical
nature of the original structure as soon as possible. Commonly this is accomplished by
obtaining and studying the engineering plans of the structures. Because the team did
not have the engineering plans of the affected structures during the site visit in early
October, arrangements were made to have several of the principal designers make
presentations to the team. These briefings enabled the team to conduct their site visit
more efficiently and to better understand the structure of the affected buildings. The
delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team’s ability to confirm their
understanding of the buildings. Through the efforts of FEMA and others, the team
received the engineering plans for the WTC Towers on January 8, 2002, and work is
proceeding.

As noted previously, there is an enormous volume of video and photographic
documentation of the events of September 11th. This type of evidence can often yield
significant insights into the failure mechanisms but it is imperative that the highest
quality video footage be used. The team did experience some difficulty in obtaining
video footage from the various television networks.

Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search
and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all
studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in
order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be
useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the
BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather
critical data.

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.

Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for
one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources
being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has
allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials,
begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises
the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40
million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of
this magnitude and complexity.

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

[squawk7700]

252. A friend told me to look into this place...well, I have and I see you are arguing with an insane

person. It amazes me that you have the patience to keep up a "discussion" with crazy people...what's the secret?

[petgoat]

254. Gee, how did you know? Are you psychic? nt

[SDuderstadt]

128. Jesus Fucking Christ, Petgoat....

Do you realize the second sentence contradicts the first sentence? As I said earlier, there is no reasoning with you. When confronted with one of your false claims, you just move the goalpost.


Here's what Corley told Congress, which absolutely contradicts your silly claim:

Data Collection

Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting
coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant
part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to
examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On
September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade
Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team
was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where
their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas
which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-
day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC
site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.

During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the
Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.
Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory
analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional
engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf
and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of
November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are
presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.

Unlike other structural collapses, there is an unprecedented volume of
photographic and video evidence available for the team to review, including more than
120 hours of network and private video footage. Individual team members have viewed
every foot of this videotape and provided information on the available data to the team
at large.

Beyond the information and data pertaining to the events on September 11th,
there is also a need to establish, as accurately as possible, the physical attributes of the
towers and surrounding buildings prior to the impact of the airplanes. Doing this is a
monumental task. The construction of the towers was documented by literally
thousands of engineering drawings. In addition, there were numerous changes to the
towers over their life. This effort is also being conducted for WTC 7, which is of
considerable interest to the team. These data, together with the data previously
described will be used to construct detailed computer models of the structures.
Impediments Encountered by the Building Performance Study Teams

In the 10 years in which ASCE has been conducting studies of disasters we have
learned that our teams will always encounter impediments. It is therefore not surprising
that the study team has encountered some difficulties in their data collection activities.
However, we have also learned that with time and persistence these difficulties are
either overcome or an alternate approach is found to enable the team to satisfactorily
complete their study as described below.

When studying damaged structures it is important to understand the physical
nature of the original structure as soon as possible. Commonly this is accomplished by
obtaining and studying the engineering plans of the structures. Because the team did
not have the engineering plans of the affected structures during the site visit in early
October, arrangements were made to have several of the principal designers make
presentations to the team. These briefings enabled the team to conduct their site visit
more efficiently and to better understand the structure of the affected buildings. The
delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team’s ability to confirm their
understanding of the buildings. Through the efforts of FEMA and others, the team
received the engineering plans for the WTC Towers on January 8, 2002, and work is
proceeding.

As noted previously, there is an enormous volume of video and photographic
documentation of the events of September 11th. This type of evidence can often yield
significant insights into the failure mechanisms but it is imperative that the highest
quality video footage be used. The team did experience some difficulty in obtaining
video footage from the various television networks.

Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search
and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all
studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in
order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be
useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the
BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather
critical data.

There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.

Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for
one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources
being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has
allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials,
begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises
the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40
million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of
this magnitude and complexity.

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

[petgoat]

129. Let's see--Who to believe? The NYT and Fire Engineering Mag, or Gene Corley?

Corley: "On September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade
Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site."

In other words, the team was not allowed access to the site from 9/11 to 9/29, and it looks
like moist of the team was excluded until 10/7.

Corley: "the study team has encountered some difficulties in their data collection activities."

They had difficulty getting the information they needed.

Corley: "The delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team’s ability to confirm their
understanding of the buildings. Through the efforts of FEMA and others, the team received the
engineering plans for the WTC Towers on January 8, 2002."

They were not given access to the blueprints for several months.

Corley: "gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in order to observe
and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be useful to consider
some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the BPST would be allowed on
site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather critical data."

They missed critical data because they were not allowed on the site.


Corley: "There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case."

This is a flat-out lie! The steel was recycled and NIST has no steel that is useful in
proving its case that fire weakened the core steel.

[petgoat]

137. On the other hand, what if Corley WASN'T lying?

What an admission that is if it's true! FEMA had complete
access to the steel and they still couldn't find any showing
heat damage to the core--except the Appendix C samples that
showed the bizarre sulfidative "evaporation."

[SDuderstadt]

143. Maybe because it was a DISASTER RESCUE SCENE and the priority was...

SAVING LIVES? Do you ever think past your little CT schemes? What do you think the mission of the ASCE BPAT was? To prove or disprove your silly theories? Here's an idea....why don't you e-mail Corley and accuse him of lying? I'm sure the ASCE would appreciate that. I'm done with you and your silliness. Life is too short to be exasperated by illogical thinking.

[petgoat]

145. What theories? The BPAT's mission was to find out what happened.

And it failed miserably in that mission, proposing a completely untenable theory,
partly because its investigation was obstructed. Can you provide any scenario
whatsoever supporting your assumption that having people on site taking steel
samples and photos and logging id numbers would interfere with the rescue effort?

Life is too short to be exasperated by illogical thinking.

I agree. Start thinking logically, and maybe you won't be so exasperated.
You can start with acknowledging that the hope for finding survivors was
gone after a week, but ALL ASCE investigators were excluded for another ten days,
and the entire team did not get on the site until a month after 9/11. And even
when the mission was no longer a rescue mission, the cleanup proceeded with haste
so reckless that the firemen rioted, protesting the desecration of the remains
of the dead.

[SDuderstadt]

151. Do you have any evidence at all that they were "excluded" before a certain date?

Of course you don't. It just sounds better to say it that way, doesn't it? Part of the CT methodology. Take perfectly innocent or explainable circumstances and reword them to make them sound sinister. In fact, Corley's testimony before Congress is totally at odds with your characterization.

Data Collection
Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting
coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant
part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to
examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On
September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade
Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team
was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where
their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas
which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-
day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC
site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.


During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the
Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.
Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory
analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional
engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf
and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of
November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are
presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.


Unlike other structural collapses, there is an unprecedented volume of
photographic and video evidence available for the team to review, including more than
120 hours of network and private video footage. Individual team members have viewed
every foot of this videotape and provided information on the available data to the team
at large.


Beyond the information and data pertaining to the events on September 11th,
there is also a need to establish, as accurately as possible, the physical attributes of the
towers and surrounding buildings prior to the impact of the airplanes. Doing this is a
monumental task. The construction of the towers was documented by literally
thousands of engineering drawings. In addition, there were numerous changes to the
towers over their life. This effort is also being conducted for WTC 7, which is of
considerable interest to the team. These data, together with the data previously
described will be used to construct detailed computer models of the structures.


Impediments Encountered by the Building Performance Study Teams


In the 10 years in which ASCE has been conducting studies of disasters we have
learned that our teams will always encounter impediments. It is therefore not surprising
that the study team has encountered some difficulties in their data collection activities.
However, we have also learned that with time and persistence these difficulties are
either overcome or an alternate approach is found to enable the team to satisfactorily
complete their study as described below.


When studying damaged structures it is important to understand the physical
nature of the original structure as soon as possible. Commonly this is accomplished by
obtaining and studying the engineering plans of the structures. Because the team did
not have the engineering plans of the affected structures during the site visit in early
October, arrangements were made to have several of the principal designers make
presentations to the team. These briefings enabled the team to conduct their site visit
more efficiently and to better understand the structure of the affected buildings. The
delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team’s ability to confirm their
understanding of the buildings. Through the efforts of FEMA and others, the team
received the engineering plans for the WTC Towers on January 8, 2002, and work is
proceeding.

As noted previously, there is an enormous volume of video and photographic
documentation of the events of September 11th. This type of evidence can often yield
significant insights into the failure mechanisms but it is imperative that the highest
quality video footage be used. The team did experience some difficulty in obtaining
video footage from the various television networks.
Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search
and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all
studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in
order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be
useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the
BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather
critical data.


There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.


Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for
one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources
being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has
allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials,
begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises
the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40
million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of
this magnitude and complexity.

As you can see, Corley himself states that they were granted access by 9/29 and goes on to say that the entire team was there from 10/7-12, which is SIX days, not the three you previously claimed. In fact, Corley's statement doesn't rule out the possibility that parts of the team were there prior to 10/7. Does that sound like the statement of someone who was actively excluded from the site, Petgoat??

As far as the comment about logical thinking, it's directly aimed at you and your goofy theories for which there is not a shred of concrete evidence and only speculation and supposition. C'mon, Petgoat, you've had 6 1/2 years to make your case. Where is it?

[petgoat]

162. Corley says they were granted access 9/29. That implies they were NOT granted access

from 9/11 to 9/28.

Corley's mealy-mouthed statement (Thank god the security officers who
checked my home did not kill 3 of my children and only two of them did not
survive their investigation! Thank god my wife did not get pregnant! Thank
god I still have almost all my fingers and my bone fractures were simple
ones!) is convincing only to someone who desperately wants to believe nothing's
wrong.

There is 180,000 TONS of concrete evidence, DUDE. 180,000 tons of powdered
concrete. Molten metal in the basements. Free fall speed. 118 first
responders report explosions. Explosive ejection of building debris
up to 500 feet away.

[SDuderstadt]

172. Again, you fail to provide any proof that the ASCE BPAT....

even requested access at an earlier date. Then you make matters worse but putting words in Corley's mouth. Most people know when they're beat, Petgoat. I guess you're not like most people. You demonstrate over and over why the "truth movement" is such a laughingstock.

And, once more, I have a simple question. If WTC 1 & 2, as you claim, fell at "free fall speeds", then why is the debris clearly seen falling faster than the building. It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it?

[petgoat]

183. Corley said they were given access 9/29. That implies they were not given access before.

Jesus, Dude, the contortions you go through trying to defend the
indefensible!

[SDuderstadt]

189. And, again, Petgoat...

Does Corley reference being denied access? Do you know when he specifically requested access? Do you think it took ASCE perhaps a little time to get organized prior to requesting access? If the time delay was unreasonabole, wouldn't you expect Corley to scream bloody murder about it? As usual, you take something fairly innocuous and pepper it with words like "denied access" to imply your goofy theories. More intellectual dishonesty from you.

[petgoat]

192. Why are you bending over backwards to support the unsupported?

Why is it so important to you to claim that ASCE had site access?

Corley says they didn't, Fire Engineering said they didn't, NOBODY
says they did.

Would I expect Corley to scream bloody murder? Hell no! I haven't
checked it myself, but friends tell me the dishonest investigation
he did at OK City leads one to expect dishonesty at the WTC too.

[SDuderstadt]

196. Jesus, Petgoat

Corley states explicitly that they DID have access! How can you be this blatantly dishonest? I seriously give up. I am starting to doubt your cognitive abilities. Goodbye.

[petgoat]

198. Corley states they had access 9/29. That implies they didn't before. nt

[SDuderstadt]

205. So, when did ASCE request access?

You don't seem to know, so you assume they requested access immediately (which doesn't even remotely make sense, as they would not have had time to assemble the investigative team) and infer from that they were "denied" access until 9/29. There you go with the intellectual dishonesty again. That's why you have zero credibility, Petgoat. You're like the mascot for the "truth movement".

[petgoat]

220. Who cares when they requested it? They didn't get it.

Here's from the NYT, 3/7/02

The lack of clear authority has had unfortunate consequences, the House members said. The Giuliani administration started to send World Trade Center steel off to recycling yards before investigators could examine it to determine whether it might hold crucial clues as to why the buildings fell. The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack, and it did not get a copy of the World Trade Center blueprints until early January, a delay House members found infuriating.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/groundzero/nyt_mismanagementmuddle.html

[SDuderstadt]

233. More of your intellectual dishonesty, Petgoat

How could permission have been denied until it was actually requested? Are you saying the authorities psychicly denied a request that had not been made yet? Do you know how stupid your statement is? If I didn't ask my wife to marry me until 2008, does that mean she turned me down in 2007? Does you understand the prinicple of precedence, Petgoat? You have to know when permission was requested before you could determine how much time elapsed until permission was granted.


I'm done wasting time with you, Petgoat. Your lack of intellectual honesty and integrity make it pointless to try to reason with you, although I do think it is valuable to engage you just so others can see how goofy your various claims are. Bye.

[petgoat]

237. What part of "NOT ALLOWED" do you not understand? The NYT said it, not I.

"The full investigative team set up by FEMA was not allowed to enter ground zero to collect other potentially critical evidence in the weeks after the attack"


Your desperation is showing.

[SDuderstadt]

152. Do you have any evidence at all that they were "excluded" before a certain date?

Of course you don't. It just sounds better to say it that way, doesn't it? Part of the CT methodology. Take perfectly innocent or explainable circumstances and reword them to make them sound sinister. In fact, Corley's testimony before Congress is totally at odds with your characterization.

Data Collection
Simultaneous with the efforts to assemble the team and organize the supporting
coalition, work began to collect data and information pertinent to the study. A significant
part of this data collection phase was holding a meeting of the team in New York City to
examine the wreckage and the surrounding buildings impacted by the collapse. On
September 29th, the City of New York granted the team access to the World Trade
Center site and from October 7th to the 12th, the entire team was on site. The team
was provided with unrestricted access to all areas of the site except for areas where
their presence might have impeded the on-going rescue and recovery efforts and areas
which were determined to be extremely hazardous. To aid the team in this intense 6-
day effort, FEMA made its Regional Operation Center (less that 8 blocks form the WTC
site) available for use by the team on a 24-7 basis.


During this time period, team members also examined structural debris at the
Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island and at the two recycling yards in New Jersey.
Samples of structural steel were obtained and have since been subjected to laboratory
analyses. Under the guidance of selected team members, numerous professional
engineers who are members of SEAoNY are continuing this work on the team’s behalf
and have been visiting recycling yards and landfills regularly since the beginning of
November. Additional samples of the structural steel have been obtained and are
presently being stored at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in
Gaithersburg, Maryland for use in future studies.


Unlike other structural collapses, there is an unprecedented volume of
photographic and video evidence available for the team to review, including more than
120 hours of network and private video footage. Individual team members have viewed
every foot of this videotape and provided information on the available data to the team
at large.


Beyond the information and data pertaining to the events on September 11th,
there is also a need to establish, as accurately as possible, the physical attributes of the
towers and surrounding buildings prior to the impact of the airplanes. Doing this is a
monumental task. The construction of the towers was documented by literally
thousands of engineering drawings. In addition, there were numerous changes to the
towers over their life. This effort is also being conducted for WTC 7, which is of
considerable interest to the team. These data, together with the data previously
described will be used to construct detailed computer models of the structures.


Impediments Encountered by the Building Performance Study Teams


In the 10 years in which ASCE has been conducting studies of disasters we have
learned that our teams will always encounter impediments. It is therefore not surprising
that the study team has encountered some difficulties in their data collection activities.
However, we have also learned that with time and persistence these difficulties are
either overcome or an alternate approach is found to enable the team to satisfactorily
complete their study as described below.


When studying damaged structures it is important to understand the physical
nature of the original structure as soon as possible. Commonly this is accomplished by
obtaining and studying the engineering plans of the structures. Because the team did
not have the engineering plans of the affected structures during the site visit in early
October, arrangements were made to have several of the principal designers make
presentations to the team. These briefings enabled the team to conduct their site visit
more efficiently and to better understand the structure of the affected buildings. The
delay in the receipt of the plans hindered the team’s ability to confirm their
understanding of the buildings. Through the efforts of FEMA and others, the team
received the engineering plans for the WTC Towers on January 8, 2002, and work is
proceeding.

As noted previously, there is an enormous volume of video and photographic
documentation of the events of September 11th. This type of evidence can often yield
significant insights into the failure mechanisms but it is imperative that the highest
quality video footage be used. The team did experience some difficulty in obtaining
video footage from the various television networks.
Obtaining access to the site of a disaster is always difficult and clearly the search
and rescue efforts and any criminal investigation must take first priority. However, in all
studies of this nature, gaining access to the site as soon as possible is important in
order to observe and document the debris and site conditions. For the future, it may be
useful to consider some protocol or process whereby selected individuals from the
BPST would be allowed on site in the initial days after a catastrophic event to gather
critical data.


There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team
has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently
been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the
scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this
point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World
Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of
the structures.


Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for
one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources
being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has
allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials,
begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises
the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40
million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of
this magnitude and complexity.

As you can see, Corley himself states that they were granted access by 9/29 and goes on to say that the entire team was there from 10/7-12, which is SIX days, not the three you previously claimed. In fact, Corley's statement doesn't rule out the possibility that parts of the team were there prior to 10/7. Does that sound like the statement of someone who was actively excluded from the site, Petgoat??

As far as the comment about logical thinking, it's directly aimed at you and your goofy theories for which there is not a shred of concrete evidence and only speculation and supposition. C'mon, Petgoat, you've had 6 1/2 years to make your case. Where is it?

http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf

[petgoat]

184. Corley said they were given access 9/29. That implies they were not given access before.

As to the CD case, it's clear.

Look at the videos and the photos.

That is an explosion, not a gravity collapse.

Look at 180,000 tons of concrete, turned to powder,
the steel floor pans smithereened.

Look at the failure of the robust core. How does a
disorganized mat of steel bring that down? It's like
a birdsnest taking down a fence post.

Look at the molten metal in the basements. How do you
explain that if not heat from explosives and/or thermite?

Look at the heat content of the pyroclastic dust clouds.

The case has been made, and the officials won't even try
to refute it, and you're blind.

Truth train is chugging!

[SDuderstadt]

190. Look at a CD video and compare it to WTC 1 and 2

Make sure they all have sound. Notice anything missing? Where are the load explosions that accompany CD in the video of WTC 1 and 2? Oh, wait, let me guess. The plotters confiscated all the video shot that day and edited out the explosions, right? Sheesh.

[petgoat]

194. I don't know what you're babbling about. I said look at the videos, not listen to them.

Do you think I'm Rod McKuen? I don't listen to videos.

[SDuderstadt]

197. You won't listen to the videos because...

it would be obvious there were no explosions like those one hears in a controlled demolition. Why can't you simply admit that? Oh, wait...I forgot....you're a "truther" but you place no actual value on truth if it contradicts your goofy theories.

[petgoat]

199. NIST is dishonest enough to "accidentally" silence an audio track.

You are gullible enough to think that means what you want it to mean.

Other videos floating around the internet may have audio dishonestly
added. That clip where the mysterious construction workers are
saying "Keep your eye on that building" bothers me because nobody's
mouth is moving. I'd like to get it from the CNN archives to confirm
it, but I don't have time.

I don't pay any attention to audio evidence, period, unless it's a talking
head and the witness's mouth is moving.

[SDuderstadt]

202. NIST silenced an audio track????

WTF are you talking about? Are you now claiming that only NIST has possession of the videos shot that day and somehow edited out the explosive sounds? Do you realize how stupid that sounds, Petgoat? NIST relied on the same videos as everyone else and that's my point. In EVERY one of them, there are NO explosions like one would hear accompanying a controlled demolition. Listen carefully to a video of an actual controlled demolition and you will hear very obvious and extremely loud explosions, as well as see the bright flashes right before the building starts to collapse. Where are those explosions and flashes in the video of WTC 1 & 2?

Are you seriously accusing NIST of doctoring videos? If so, this illustrates why it's impossible to reason with you. No matter what evidence you're confronted with, you just invent a new and even more ludicrous post hoc rationalization. It amazing to watch you grasp for:

[petgoat]

203. I didn't say that. I said I don't consider audio evidence, and explained why. learn to read nt

[SDuderstadt]

206. You don't "consider" audio evidence because...

it flatly contradicts your goofy claim. If you are seriously claiming WTC 1 and 2 were brought down by controlled demolition, why WOULDN'T you consider audio evidence? Again, Petgoat, compare a video with sound of an actual controlled demolition with the numerous videos of the collapse and WTC 1 and 2 and tell us why there are no explosions like in the actual controlled demolitions? Why can't you answer that? Is it because you are on the:

[petgoat]

207. I don't consider audio evidence because it is so easily manipulated. It's the worst evidence.

Your claim that if there is no sound there's no CD is as
goofy as the claim that if it starts at the top it's not CD.

I don't know what brought the towers down, but I know that
neither FEMA nor NIST could prove their case, and to me
the pulverization of the concrete and the smithereening of
carpets and floor pans remains a mystery that no one has
solved.

[SDuderstadt]

210. Simple question, Petgoat....

compare any of the available videos of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 with a video of an actual controlled demolition. Where are the incredibly loud explosions that accompany actual controlled demolitions? You claimed NIST edited them out of the WTC videos. Do you have any proof of that whatsoever?

[petgoat]

212. Stop mischaracterizing what I said. Shouldn't you go outside and play?

You're just recycling the old "it doesn't look exactly like a conventional
controlled demolition so it's not a controlled demolition" argument.

It's obviously a controlled demolition. The building is exploding. Anybody
with eyes can see that, the wreckage shows it, the videos show it, the pictures
show it.

118 first responders testify to explosions.

[SDuderstadt]

215. It doesn't look anything like a controlled demolition, Petgoat

that's why all the controlled demolition experts laugh at your silly claims. Why don't you call Brent Blanchard of Implosionworld and ask him why he is dissing your goofy theories?

[petgoat]

218. It looks exactly like a controlled demolition, and Dr. Van Romero said so that same day.

Symmetry, near-freefall speed, pyroclastic dust clouds, sudden onset.
It shows every feature of controlled demolition.

[Bolo Boffin]

222. What does Van Romero say now? n/t

[petgoat]

224. He doesn't say anything. He got 56 million dollars for New Mexico Tech

and he doesn't say a damn thing.

But he never took back his statement that it looks just like a controlled demolition,
because he can't. It does.

[Bolo Boffin]

225. Another factually inaccurate statement from petgoat.

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives.

Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building.

But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

Conspiracy theorists have seized on Romero's comments as evidence for their argument that someone else, possibly the U.S. government, was behind the attack on the Trade Center.

Romero said he has been bombarded with electronic mail from the conspiracy theorists.

"I'm very upset about that," he said. "I'm not trying to say anything did or didn't happen."

Van Romero retracted that statement, petgoat. It is factually inaccurate for him to claim that he says nothing now.

[petgoat]

226. Dr. Romero NEVER retracted his statement that the 'collapse' looked like a controlled demolition

We've already been through this bolo, maybe even twice.

Here's from the ABQ Journal

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures.

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html

He never retracted that. He can't. It's the truth.


I find it interesting that so many people on this board are so little interested in the truth,
in what happened, in the science. They're interested in trying to slam an anonymous internet
poster.

[Bolo Boffin]

227. "Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led..."

"Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion."

I don't know why you, petgoat, an anonymous internet poster, continue to post factually inaccurace statements here at DU.

[petgoat]

228. The factual inaccuracy is entirely yours, bolo. We've been through this before.

The issue was not Dr. Romero's conclusions, but his take on the
appearance of the 'collapse'.

He changed his conclusions about the impossibility of a fire-generated
collapse. He did not change his observation that the 'collapse'
looked just like controlled demolition.

You seem to be unable to separate your facts from their implications
or interpretations. That does not speak well for your judgment.

[Bolo Boffin]

244. Van Romero doesn't think the buildings fell because of CD. Stop misrepresenting him. n/t

[petgoat]

246. I didn't say he did. Stop misrepresenting me.

I said he said the collapse looked like a controlled demolition. That is a fact.
He said "resembled." He never recanted that statement.

It seems these fine points evade your understanding. Give it up, bolo, you're not
equipped for this.

Have you ever considered a career in the hospitality industry?

[vincent_vega_lives]

287. At first I thought this was one

of petgoat's graphic aids demonstrating why the WTC towers couldn't have collapsed as they did!!

:rofl:

[petgoat]

297. You would. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

73. That corner of the building also held a UPS room with huge lead batteries. n/t

[petgoat]

79. Molten lead is not orange and yellow

[Bolo Boffin]

81. If it's hot enough, it is. Right?

Molten lead is usually silvery because it becomes liquid at such low temperatures relative to other metals.

But sitting enclosed in a huge plastic battery casing, that lead wouldn't get a lot of opportunity to wick away the heat. I think even wildbill could agree to that! :shrug:

Remember that molten liquid spill out? It came out off and on. Just like plastic battery casings were finally breaking, one by one.

Just a thought.

[wildbilln864]

101. wrong! nt

[squawk7700]

253. That's right. It's heliotrope and puce. Or maybe it looks just like SOLDER, you moron.

:eyes: :eyes:

[Name removed]

260. Deleted message

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

[petgoat]

262. Shucks, he said he was an engineer. We need some real engineers in here. nt

[AZCat]

264. I thought the "truth movement" already had engineers.

Why don't you ask them to start posting here?

[petgoat]

271. They haven't got time for bolo. Or you. nt

[AZCat]

275. I don't give a shit what they think of me.

Nor do I trust you to tell the truth, even if you did know their opinion.

I care whether they are willing to defend the ludicrous shit their organization seems to be supporting. Your post indicates otherwise.

[petgoat]

277. Try posting something of substance, instead of muttering FUD, Elmer. nt

[AZCat]

279. Jesus - I'm arguing with a five-year-old.

What ever will my colleagues think of me?

[petgoat]

280. Jesus, you're becoming Dude, muttering deities' names while sowing FUD. nt

[AZCat]

283. So, no engineers yet?

I guess they realize the inherent flaws in their arguments. Smart guys (although apparently not smart enough to abandon the "truth movement").

[petgoat]

284. 394 architects and engineers with real names vs. anonymous smart aleck.

Who to believe? Who? Who?

[SDuderstadt]

286. I don't know how many members the AIA has but...

ASCE has over 150,000. 394 doesn't sound like a very impressive number to me.

[AZCat]

289. Generally speaking, one examines their arguments.

So far AE911Truth has produced jack shit. Publishing their real names has only outed them as individuals deprived of critical thinking skills.

[petgoat]

292. Yours is "Trust me, I know, and it's all so complicated you can't possibly understand."

AE911Truth produced a presentation in Tucson last December I guess you were
too busy to attend.

The statements of the many scientists and licensed engineers on the "members"
page are quite interesting.

[AZCat]

295. I forgot about it.

I saw the notice but then completely spaced it.

My argument is simple, but you seem to be determined to misunderstand it: some of the discussion of the phenomena related to the collapses is outside the layperson's ability to understand. However, it is not difficult (it just requires time and dedication) for almost anyone to acquire the knowledge necessary to partake in the discussion - something you refuse to do. If you don't buy the ticket, you don't get to go on the ride.

[petgoat]

296. Any lay person can understand that symmetry of collapse, freefall speed,

pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete, and complete destruction of 220
acres of carpeting and steel floor pans are not consistent with a natural
fire-induced collapse.

The Bazant hypothesis is absurd on its face because the video evidence shows that
the allegedly monolithic, rigid, and indestructuable piledriver was coming apart
before it even began to impinge on the floors below the impact area.

When NIST's WTC7 report comes out this summer, all the gov't bullshit will
hit the fan. Give it up, AZ, you're wasting your time.

[AZCat]

312. Considering that you are a layperson and you managed to fuck that all up...

I think you are grossly in error. Your ignorance would be alarming if I wasn't used to it. Now it's just amusing (if a bit sad). Why do you persist in pretending that you understand these issues when it is clear to the rest of us that you know next to nothing about them? Are you so unwilling to either modify your outrageous positions or learn a little science to back them up that looking like a jackass seems attractive in comparison?

[petgoat]

314. Are you unwilling to post any substance on anything other than my alleged ignorance?

Man, I must be important if you have to waste so much
time trying to cover me with FUD.

You make no effort to show me wrong on even one point.
Instead you just call me a doodoohead.

With your supposed engineering expertise you should be
able to talk engineering. Instead you grumble like an
eight year old--the argument of someone who has no
argument.

You guys haven't got a leg to stand on.

NIST hasn't got a leg to stand on. The whole thing is
coming down this summer.

[AZCat]

316. That is incorrect.

I did not call you a "doodoohead".

[SDuderstadt]

324. "NIST hasn't got a leg to stand on. The whole thing is...

coming down this summer". Umm, isn't that you guys said LAST summer?? I just love the "just you wait!" promises from the "truth movement". Of course, when the promised revelation/smoking gun fails to materialize, the "truthers" simply sweep it under the rug or pretend they are being "mischaracterized". In the meantime, their movement is floundering as just aboit everyone realizes they are nothing but hot air and empty promises. Pathetic.

[petgoat]

327. The smoking gun will be the NIST report on WTC7. They can't explain it or the molten steel. nt

[SDuderstadt]

329. Again, Petgoat...

you're assuming it was "molten steel" (I'm assuming you're talking about the debris pile) simply because some people with no technical credentials thought that's what it looked like. When you can prove it's actually "molten steel", then you might have something. And, in case you try to hide behind Astaneh Asl, it's clear from reading ALL of his comments (not just quote-mining) that he's not saying he saw pools of molten steel. He examined a beam that had partically vaporized and concluded it "melted" before the building fell. Please provide any evidence you have that he claims he witnessed any steel in a molten state. You realize, of course, that if he witnessed steel pooled a molten state, he would not have been able to identify it as a beam. Try to weasel your way out of that.

[petgoat]

331. It doesn't matter when it melted. It melted. Your desperation is showing.

FNDY Captain Philip Ruvolo said there was molten steel flowing
like lava.

Astaneh saw a melted girder.

Here's a whole list of witnesses.

http://governmentterror.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D

Since I know the difference between molten steel, molten lead, and molten aluminum,
I trust these witnesses to know the difference.

Maybe you don't know the difference. That's not a problem. You're not a witness.

[SDuderstadt]

334. Is Ruvolo a metallurgist?

Hint: no. That's the problem, Petgoat. Just because someone thinks something looks like something, that doesn't mean that's what they're seeing. Do you honestly think the average person can look at a pool of molten metal and divine its composition??? It's also silly to believe that any pools of "molten anything" are purely steel or aluminum or even lead, when it is far more likely that whatever was observed was a cocktail of various substances, including others not even mentioned.

And, you did what I thought you'd do. Your "source" is a conspiracy website. What's funny, id that there are probably as many references to "molten metal" or "molten material" as there are references to "molten steel". So, it's clear that many witnesses did NOT identify it as "molten steel". If, as you imply, it's easy to distinuish "molten steel", why do those witnesses not identify it as such?

More importantly, your "source" does PRECISELY what I've noted in other posts. It quote-mines, cherry picks and clips quotes of both context and contradicting words. For example:

Among others, your "source" cites Leslie Robertson as one of the witnesses making a claim of "molten steel". Small problem: Robertson says he not only didn't say it, he also goes on to say he would not have been in a position to know. The actual source is someone names Stephenson, who claims Robertson said it in a presentation, however, Stephenson's own notes from the presentation do not support his claim.

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


Your source also cites Peter Tully. Forget about whether Tully is qualified to identify specifically what he saw. In the same article when "Asked what could have caused such extreme heat (clarification:necessary to 'melt steel'), Tully said, 'Think of the jet fuel'.”. So, one of the very sources relied upon to make the claim that the material was, in fact, "molten steel" thinks it was obviously something other than thermite or demolition that created it.

I could go on and on using your own "source", Petgoat. But I think it's time to stop and ask a question. Did you bother to fact-check ANYTHING your source claims? I doubt it. The rub here is that you're being taken for a ride by these CT cites and you're not smart enough to realize or question it. Pathetic.

[petgoat]

335. You clearly do not understand the nature of evidence, Sid.

What I linked is a list of quotes. That you can debunk one
or two does not make the rest of them meaningless. That
some of them testify to molten metal instead of molten
steel does not lessen the value of the molten steel quotes.
I know the problems with the Robinson quote. If it were
my website, I would take him out of the list.

Just because YOU can't recognize molten steel when you see it
doesn't mean Captain Ruvolo can't. There was testimony to
melted girders, girders dripping molten steel.

Do you mind if I ask what you studied in college?

Clearly it wasn't history. Clearly it wasn't science.
Clearly it wasn't engineering. Your lack of reading
comprehension suggests it wasn't English. It couldn't
be philosophy because you're too easily misled by
cynical sophists.

Psychology? Anthropology? Bible Studies? Art History?
Business? Poli Sci?

[SDuderstadt]

338. Petgoat....

I'm not going to go down the whole list and debunk the quotes one by one. But I'd be glad to debunk more of them just to show you how stupid they are. More importantly, what I am doing is perfectly valid from an evidentiary standpoint. As a matter of fact, you're further undermining your own claims again. You acknowledge that I can easily debunk the lead-off quotes. It's not statistically significant, but one can surmise that if you don't have to delve deep into the list before you run into bogus/unsubstantiated/clipped quotes, it's probably not likely the rest are too reliable.

Even worse, you admit the problem with the Robertson quote. If you knew about it, then why in the world would you offer it as evidence? You are either incredibly lazy or, as I have often maintained, you are stunningly intellectually dishonest. Or both. With you, it's hard to tell where one leaves off and the other begins.

Unsolicited hint: If you want to be taken more seriously, it's probably best not to offer hopelessly biased sites like www.governmentterror.com as "evidence". If you need more examples of how off the mark or wrong the quotes are, let me know. How many examples do you need before you click to the fact that you've been duped, Petgoat? 5? 10? 15? 20? 200?

[petgoat]

344. Your "debunking" is mistaken and irrational.

You seem to think if Tully says jet fuel melted the steel, somehow
that changes the fact of the molten steel? That's illogic, Sid.

The debunking of the Robertson claims the characterization came
from Stephenson when it really came from Williams (relying on
memory here). I don't have time to fact check your bogus cut and
paste from bogus debunking sites.

What's "worse" about noting the hearsay in the Robinson quote?
I thought you wanted "honest"?

What is hopelessly biased about a list of quotes? Either they're
true quotes or they're not.

Stop trying to deny the obvious--the molten steel at the WTC as attested
to by a dozen credible witnesses.

[SDuderstadt]

347. For the last freakin' time, quit calling me Sid

I included the Tully comment because you rely on him to establish that it was "molten steel" then ignore him when he posits it happened because of the jet fuel, thus contradicting whichever of the myriad of claims you're making this time around. Let's get something straight. I have NEVER ever said there wasn't molten metal at GZ...what I am saying is that you have no proof whatsoever except for non-expert witnesses (not a metallurgist among them) who state that molten steel is what they thought they saw. When asked for proof it was actually steel, you just start repeating all the quotes or drag Ataneh Asl into it (even though he's saying something much different than what you claim...if I'm wrong, please bring back a properly sourced quote from him where he references pools of molten anything). Face it, Petgoat...you can't prove that it was "molten steel", so you try to blow by it, stating it as fact and hoping no one notices you can't seem to prove it. More of your intellectual dishonesty.

As far as your claim of at least twelve witness who testified to seeing pools of "molten steel", your claim is no further along than it was before. Not one of those witnesses is a metallurgist nor did they conduct any tests on the pools. In addition, you conveniently ignore the testimony of numerous other witnesses who stated they saw "molten metal" or "molten material". In fact, some of the very same witnesses you cite sometimes refer to it as molten metal in the same quote where they refer to it as "molten steel". Here's a hint: maybe they're regarding any molten metal as "molten steel", in the same way that someone can refer to a Zee bandage as a "Band-aid" which happens to be trademarked. Some people call all sodas "cokes". That doesn't make them "Cokes".

The funniest thing about "Truther Logic" is you'll ignore the testimony of 100 or more witnesses who saw a passenger plane fly into the Pentagon, but you'll take the word of a dozen witnesss with no expertise in metallurgy when they say they saw "molten steel". I don't know about you, but I don't think the level of training needed to positively identify a passenger aircraft is anywhere near that needed to identify "molten steel" by merely looking at it.

[petgoat]

349. I don't rely on Tuilly and I don't ignore him.

Stop demonstrating your logical incompetence in the first line of a longwinded post.

Hey Einstein! Metallurgists were not allowed on the site!

And why do you accuse me of ignoring eyewitnesses on the Pentagon? When have I ever
ignored them?

Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop wasting the time of everyone who reads you.

You are a disruptor Sid. Go find Injun Joe. I think he's trapped in a cave and he
needs you.

[SDuderstadt]

350. Please prove that no metallurgists were allowed on site

Are you saying there were no materials experts in the ASCE/BPAT team? It's interesting how you have a ready-made weasel answer everytime you can't prove your claim. It's always, "Everyone who could prove my claim was barred from the site" or "All the evidence needed to prove my claim was mysteriously whisked away". Pathetic.

By the way, if you'd read carefully what I said about the Pentagon, I was talking about the "truth movement" in general, not you. I'm not surprised you have difficulty in following segues, Marv. BTW, if the first line of my post was "logically incompetent", it shouldn't be hard for you to point it out. By name, please. I'd be glad to send you a relatively comprehensive list of logical fallacies, if you'd like.

[whoshaq08]

272. Demolitions Not an Embarrassment, but these are...

The no plane theories and the tv fakery are the real joke...a total embarrassment to our cause.
The demolitions are at least plausible and with motives behind them.

[wildbilln864]

291. Welcome to the DU dungeon whoshaq08. nt

:hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

358. "plausible" explosives that

make no disernable noise, aren't affected by fire, leave no chemical residue, and don't leave spalling effects.

[petgoat]

363. 115 first responders heard explosions.

nanothermate is explosive, and residues consistent with it were found in the dust.

How do you know there were no spallong effects? The steel was destroyed.

Would fire be a problem if the explosives were planted inside the hollow core
columns?

[vincent_vega_lives]

299. Answer

9-11 Demolition theories are a huge embarrassment to the Democratic Underground.

[petgoat]

300. I hate to admit it but you've convinced me, Your logic is overhwleming.

I will ignore the impossible symmetry of collapse, the impossible pulverization of
180,000 tons of concrete and the smithereening of 220 acres of carpet and steel floor
pans, the reports of explosions, the squibs, the ejection of massive components
several hundred feet, the molten metal in the basements, lack of physical evidence for
fire damage, the obstructions to the investigations, and the evidence for thermite.

I will bow down to the 9/11 Commission's story of the "hollow steel shaft" at the
building's core, NOVA's animations of the floor trusses unzipping, Bazant's magical
reaction-immune piledriver, NIST's fudged and incomplete computer models, FEMA's
"low probablity" WTC7 hypothesis, and NIST's Column-79 fantasies.

You've convinced me, vince.