ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11

Reply
Old 13th September 2017, 02:11 PM   #1
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,107
General 9/11 Conspiracy Discussion

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No, ralfyman is right, you're the one who is blind but fancies yourself a skeptic with high standards.

Sent from my IBM Simon at Mount Hua Teahouse.
The high standard is using facts. There were none in ralfyman's post.

The majority of the WTC stell was not sold for scrap until much later,and each piece of steel was inspected by a team of experts before being removed from the pile. Some were sent to scrap, others were sent for more forensic work based on type of damage.

They only way to recreate the collapse is with computers, unless you think they should have rebuilt the entire WTC complex, and flown 767's into them.

That leaves computer modeling, and a lot of grease-board work by men and women way smarter than I am. I understand that my lack of education in physics, metallurgy, engineering, and a host of specific technical training means that when a bunch of qualified experts tell me what happened was "X x Y + Z = BOOM" then I have two options: One - go to college and get an Masters in structural engineering, and review their work. Two - STFU about it because I lack the ability to grasp the majority of the technical work.

CTists never acknowledge their intellectual shortcomings and insist on a level playing field where their hair-brained theories hold equal weight as the experts. That can't be allowed to happen in the real world.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 04:33 PM   #2
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The high standard is using facts. There were none in ralfyman's post.

The majority of the WTC stell was not sold for scrap until much later,and each piece of steel was inspected by a team of experts before being removed from the pile. Some were sent to scrap, others were sent for more forensic work based on type of damage.

They only way to recreate the collapse is with computers, unless you think they should have rebuilt the entire WTC complex, and flown 767's into them.

That leaves computer modeling, and a lot of grease-board work by men and women way smarter than I am. I understand that my lack of education in physics, metallurgy, engineering, and a host of specific technical training means that when a bunch of qualified experts tell me what happened was "X x Y + Z = BOOM" then I have two options: One - go to college and get an Masters in structural engineering, and review their work. Two - STFU about it because I lack the ability to grasp the majority of the technical work.

CTists never acknowledge their intellectual shortcomings and insist on a level playing field where their hair-brained theories hold equal weight as the experts. That can't be allowed to happen in the real world.
I'm reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin asks his dad how they know the listed weight limit to put on signs for bridges. Calvin's dad says (jokingly): "They drive heavier and heavier trucks until the bridge collapses, and then they build it all over again."

I imagine that's how conspiracists think real engineers work.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th September 2017, 07:01 PM   #3
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Tens of thousands of tons of steel debris, and they put them in some yards, spend several hundred hours selecting several hundred pieces, and then sell everything else as scrap several weeks later. After that, they pursue an investigation driven by videos and computer models. That alone makes the investigation open to a lot of skepticism.
Why did the FBI need to save steel until conspiracy theorists', with wild baseless fantasy claims, skepticism is satisfied?

You were debunked over 2 years ago, 19 terrorists did 9/11.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:38 AM   #4
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Tens of thousands of tons of steel debris, and they put them in some yards, spend several hundred hours selecting several hundred pieces, and then sell everything else as scrap several weeks later. After that, they pursue an investigation driven by videos and computer models. That alone makes the investigation open to a lot of skepticism.
Only if you are ignorant of statistics.
Animal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 05:04 PM   #5
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Tens of thousands of tons of steel debris, and they put them in some yards, spend several hundred hours selecting several hundred pieces, and then sell everything else as scrap several weeks later. After that, they pursue an investigation driven by videos and computer models. That alone makes the investigation open to a lot of skepticism.

Why would anyone check each steel structural member of the WTC buildings? It would be a waste of time. If wings of an aircraft were known to have failed, why would investigators spend wasted time and money examining the tail cone mounts of that aircraft?

Certain steel members were selected for examination for a very good reason.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:22 PM   #6
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by buka001 View Post
Perhaps in your mind it does?

In the minds of rational people, it was relatively obvious.

Everyone saw the planes strike the towers and the ensuing fireball and the fires afterwards.

Rational, sensible and logical people can derive that, that has pretty much everything to do with why they collapsed.

Logical, rational and sensible people would have understood that the likelihood of mysterious people sneaking in undetected for several months, ripping out dry walls, drilling into columns, placing in detonation charges, laying of thousands of meters of detonation charges, completely undetected is as near to zero as possible, would mean the collapse had something, if not everything to do with the impact and subsequant fires that followed the plane crashes.

So to examine every single member of steel would be superfluous and a reasonable engineer would understand that they would only need a select few structural members to examine the specific dynamics of the collapse.

But, lets be honest, even if they had studied and documented every single piece of steel recovered, you and the truth movement would still reject those findings as that would not satisfy your psychological cognitive bias that this tragic occurence must be a conspiracy.

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
For a rational person, an investigation of a crime of this magnitude would involve careful analysis of physical evidence. And it doesn't involve examining "every single member of steel" but storing them, which ironically they were able to do before the debris was sold off as scrap. Analysis could be done readily across many years (which is ironically what happened for this investigation) involving thousands of experts on the matter. Finally, the claim that such a process is not necessary because any findings would still be rejected is nonsense.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:26 PM   #7
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The high standard is using facts. There were none in ralfyman's post.

The majority of the WTC stell was not sold for scrap until much later,and each piece of steel was inspected by a team of experts before being removed from the pile. Some were sent to scrap, others were sent for more forensic work based on type of damage.

They only way to recreate the collapse is with computers, unless you think they should have rebuilt the entire WTC complex, and flown 767's into them.

That leaves computer modeling, and a lot of grease-board work by men and women way smarter than I am. I understand that my lack of education in physics, metallurgy, engineering, and a host of specific technical training means that when a bunch of qualified experts tell me what happened was "X x Y + Z = BOOM" then I have two options: One - go to college and get an Masters in structural engineering, and review their work. Two - STFU about it because I lack the ability to grasp the majority of the technical work.

CTists never acknowledge their intellectual shortcomings and insist on a level playing field where their hair-brained theories hold equal weight as the experts. That can't be allowed to happen in the real world.
According to the FEMA report, much of it was sold as scrap, and given a description of the selection process, not likely involved careful examination.

Also, there was no valid reason for selling the debris as scrap. They could have stayed at the yards for further examination.

Relying solely on computers without careful analysis of the debris is illogical.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:29 PM   #8
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
I'm reminded of the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon where Calvin asks his dad how they know the listed weight limit to put on signs for bridges. Calvin's dad says (jokingly): "They drive heavier and heavier trucks until the bridge collapses, and then they build it all over again."

I imagine that's how conspiracists think real engineers work.

Hank
Exactly. The materials used for constructing bridges are examined and tested, among others, before the bridges are built.

Similarly, physical evidence is important in a crime scene, and must be stored and examined properly. That did not happen with 9-11.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:30 PM   #9
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Animal View Post
Only if you are ignorant of statistics.
Even statistical information is based on physical realities.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:32 PM   #10
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Why did the FBI need to save steel until conspiracy theorists', with wild baseless fantasy claims, skepticism is satisfied?

You were debunked over 2 years ago, 19 terrorists did 9/11.
Your first sentence is not clear.

Your second sentence makes no sense at all. Whatever motive is given, physical evidence in a crime scene is always stored and examined carefully.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:34 PM   #11
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
FBI's biggest investigation in history, ignored by 9/11 truth fantasy believers. 16 years of 9/11 truth spreading dumbed down lies fooling gullible CTers; mocking the murder of thousands by gullible followers of UBL.

Gullible truthers, gullible terrorists.
As I explained earlier, what's illogical about this investigation is that most of the physical evidence was sold off as scrap without careful examination, and the FEMA report reveals this.

BTW, I'm not a truther. My argument is actually based on being a skeptic.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 08:38 PM   #12
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Why would anyone check each steel structural member of the WTC buildings? It would be a waste of time. If wings of an aircraft were known to have failed, why would investigators spend wasted time and money examining the tail cone mounts of that aircraft?

Certain steel members were selected for examination for a very good reason.
Because that's what they do in aircraft crash investigations.

Also, it's a matter of storing the evidence and examining them later. There was no valid reason for selling them off as scrap, and the excuse that that happened because there would have been no time to examine them is illogical, either, as the investigation extended to many years.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 09:21 PM   #13
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Because that's what they do in aircraft crash investigations.

Also, it's a matter of storing the evidence and examining them later. There was no valid reason for selling them off as scrap, and the excuse that that happened because there would have been no time to examine them is illogical, either, as the investigation extended to many years.
On 9/11 the aircraft had no need to be put back together, the planes were crashed by terrorists, it is a crime, not an accident. Aircraft are put back together to solve why, what caused the accident. On 9/11 the aircraft were crashed on purpose, there is no need to put Flight 93 back together, we have the black box, it shows the terrorists flew the plane into the ground. We know from passengers, black box, CVR, ATC tapes, who caused the crash.

There is video evidence fire caused the collapse. Steel saved, was unique, or near the impact zones; however damage to the steel made it hard to identify where the steel was from in the WTC towers. Don't need steel saved to know who did 9/11, 19 terrorists committed the crime. The massive crime was done by 19 terrorists, ignoring this fact is not being skeptical, it is ignoring evidence.

Do you know NIST Goals, and with a few samples of steel, able to confirm the WTC towers steel was right, as built. NIST was not out to solve crime, NIST had goals which you ignore. Don't need steel to know who did 9/11. Fire caused the collapse, what is your point; did you see fire, do you understand fire science, and the properties of steel.

Knowing the design of the WTC towers is enough to solve how they collapsed; what is the point. If you want a new investigation, what is the purpose - we already know the tower collapsed after the planes hit due to office fires, the biggest ones in history.

Fires has totaled highrise buildings in the past, nothing new on 9/11 except the fires were not fought in 1, 2, and 7. Fires not fought.

What are you skeptical about? Fire caused the collapse, unless you have other evidence.
19 terrorists took four planes and crashed them, nothing to be skeptical about that unless evidence is ignored.

Ignore the evidence, ignore engineers, that is not being skeptical. Why do we need to put the planes back together? 9/11 was not an accident, NTSB does accidents, FBI does crime. If the FBI thought the steel was needed to solve why 19 terrorists took four planes and murder Americans, they would have saved the steel. It was not needed to solve the crime.

If you don't understand steel fails in fire, and a WTC tower floor fails at 29,000,000 pounds, you are not a skeptic, you lack knowledge of the WTC structure, and the effects of fire, the properties of steel.

When we know a pilot crashed a plane on purpose, we don't have to build the plane - it makes no sense. You are confusing solving an accident cause, vs solving a crime. To solve 9/11 the FBI found who on the planes had motive, identified by last words from crew and passengers about who did what... 9/11 was solved on 9/11 because the terrorists used airline tickets, and left DNA behind in the impact areas, and in the places they were at before 9/11.

What are you skeptical about? 19 terrorists did it, due to evidence, fire caused the collapse, due to evidence, science, engineering etc.

Did you miss the FBI investigation, the biggest in history? Did you tell the FBI they needed to save the steel, and why? What did the FBI say. WDTFBIS

Quote:
Because that's what they do in aircraft crash investigations.
Yes, for accidents, but not when a pilot crashes on purpose. Crimes and accidents are different.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 14th September 2017 at 10:26 PM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:27 PM   #14
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
 
Ape of Good Hope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,483
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Even statistical information is based on physical realities.

Another area in which Truthers display considerable ignorance.
Ape of Good Hope is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th September 2017, 11:52 PM   #15
Sceptic-PK
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,697
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Because that's what they do in aircraft crash investigations.


Are you seriously telling me you can't tell the difference between an accident of unknown origin vs what happened on 911?
Sceptic-PK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 12:22 AM   #16
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Because that's what they do in aircraft crash investigations.
No they don't and I was an aircraft airframe inspector. You don't waste time on structural members that have no bearing to the primary structural failure. Ever wondered what the so-called black boxes are for? Why waste time checking the tail cone when the it was determined the failure was cracked wing spar? You concentrate on where the failure occurred.

Quote:
Also, it's a matter of storing the evidence and examining them later. There was no valid reason for selling them off as scrap, and the excuse that that happened because there would have been no time to examine them is illogical, either, as the investigation extended to many years.

It is evident that you have no experience in making that determination. I might add that I have posed with some WTC steel and knew that some of the steel had made its way into the construction of the USS New York and knew that impact damage and fire were responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

It was evident that some of the WTC steel was weakened by fire in addition to impact damage where structural loads were redistributed before fire finished the job in all three cases. I might add that WTC 5 had suffered an internal collapse due to fire only.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 12:29 AM   #17
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
As I explained earlier, what's illogical about this investigation is that most of the physical evidence was sold off as scrap without careful examination, and the FEMA report reveals this.

What physical evidence? Are you claiming that CD was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

The fact the WTC buildings were buckling during the fires before they collapsed was evidence enough that fire in conjunction with impact damage was responsible for the collapse of those buildings. Videos and seismic data proved that CD had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings. There was not a hint nor sound of explosions in the seconds before nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 12:34 AM   #18
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Similarly, physical evidence is important in a crime scene, and must be stored and examined properly. That did not happen with 9-11.

That is false and I have even posted photos of WTC steel that were being marked and examined by investigators.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 12:40 AM   #19
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
For a rational person, an investigation of a crime of this magnitude would involve careful analysis of physical evidence. And it doesn't involve examining "every single member of steel" but storing them, which ironically they were able to do before the debris was sold off as scrap. Analysis could be done readily across many years (which is ironically what happened for this investigation) involving thousands of experts on the matter. Finally, the claim that such a process is not necessary because any findings would still be rejected is nonsense.
Let's take a look here.

Quote:
Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

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

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

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

Last edited by skyeagle409; 15th September 2017 at 12:41 AM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2017, 01:35 AM   #20
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,364
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No, ralfyman is right, you're the one who is blind but fancies yourself a skeptic with high standards.

Sent from my IBM Simon at Mount Hua Teahouse.
Wasn't that an accusation somebody directed at a certain JFK CTist?
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 08:30 AM   #21
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
On 9/11 the aircraft had no need to be put back together, the planes were crashed by terrorists, it is a crime, not an accident. Aircraft are put back together to solve why, what caused the accident. On 9/11 the aircraft were crashed on purpose, there is no need to put Flight 93 back together, we have the black box, it shows the terrorists flew the plane into the ground. We know from passengers, black box, CVR, ATC tapes, who caused the crash.

There is video evidence fire caused the collapse. Steel saved, was unique, or near the impact zones; however damage to the steel made it hard to identify where the steel was from in the WTC towers. Don't need steel saved to know who did 9/11, 19 terrorists committed the crime. The massive crime was done by 19 terrorists, ignoring this fact is not being skeptical, it is ignoring evidence.

Do you know NIST Goals, and with a few samples of steel, able to confirm the WTC towers steel was right, as built. NIST was not out to solve crime, NIST had goals which you ignore. Don't need steel to know who did 9/11. Fire caused the collapse, what is your point; did you see fire, do you understand fire science, and the properties of steel.

Knowing the design of the WTC towers is enough to solve how they collapsed; what is the point. If you want a new investigation, what is the purpose - we already know the tower collapsed after the planes hit due to office fires, the biggest ones in history.

Fires has totaled highrise buildings in the past, nothing new on 9/11 except the fires were not fought in 1, 2, and 7. Fires not fought.

What are you skeptical about? Fire caused the collapse, unless you have other evidence.
19 terrorists took four planes and crashed them, nothing to be skeptical about that unless evidence is ignored.

Ignore the evidence, ignore engineers, that is not being skeptical. Why do we need to put the planes back together? 9/11 was not an accident, NTSB does accidents, FBI does crime. If the FBI thought the steel was needed to solve why 19 terrorists took four planes and murder Americans, they would have saved the steel. It was not needed to solve the crime.

If you don't understand steel fails in fire, and a WTC tower floor fails at 29,000,000 pounds, you are not a skeptic, you lack knowledge of the WTC structure, and the effects of fire, the properties of steel.

When we know a pilot crashed a plane on purpose, we don't have to build the plane - it makes no sense. You are confusing solving an accident cause, vs solving a crime. To solve 9/11 the FBI found who on the planes had motive, identified by last words from crew and passengers about who did what... 9/11 was solved on 9/11 because the terrorists used airline tickets, and left DNA behind in the impact areas, and in the places they were at before 9/11.

What are you skeptical about? 19 terrorists did it, due to evidence, fire caused the collapse, due to evidence, science, engineering etc.

Did you miss the FBI investigation, the biggest in history? Did you tell the FBI they needed to save the steel, and why? What did the FBI say. WDTFBIS

Yes, for accidents, but not when a pilot crashes on purpose. Crimes and accidents are different.
The purpose of storing and analyzing physical evidence is not to put back together planes but to find out why the towers pancaked, and why a third building that was not hit by the planes fell.

Physical evidence involving plane wreckage and steel tresses of buildings are collected in any crash, whether or not it is accidental.

According to the FEMA report, the steel debris was not examined carefully. Only a few hundred pieces were selected only a few weeks into an investigation that took years and the rest sold off as scrap.

There was absolutely no reason to sell them off as scrap. The authorities had the means and the funds to store them for the whole period that the investigation took place.

The reason why I am skeptical about the investigation is clearly explained above. Also, if I am not mistaken, this is a skeptics' forum.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 08:33 AM   #22
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Ape of Good Hope View Post
Another area in which Truthers display considerable ignorance.
The completely opposite. Any crime scene involves storage and analysis of physical evidence. Skeptics should know that because it's based on logic and common sense.

BTW, I am not a truther.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 08:35 AM   #23
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Sceptic-PK View Post


Are you seriously telling me you can't tell the difference between an accident of unknown origin vs what happened on 911?
All aircraft crashes involve storage and analysis of physical evidence, among others, because that's how "what happened" can be explained.

In this case, there was no valid reason for selling off most of the physical evidence.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 08:41 AM   #24
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
No they don't and I was an aircraft airframe inspector. You don't waste time on structural members that have no bearing to the primary structural failure. Ever wondered what the so-called black boxes are for? Why waste time checking the tail cone when the it was determined the failure was cracked wing spar? You concentrate on where the failure occurred.
Any comment you make about yourself is meaningless because this is a forum that operates on anonymity. You should know that by now.

The physical evidence to be collected comes from both the planes and the buildings, including the third one.

Black boxes are retrieved, together with the steel debris.

Arguing what is worth analyzing or not is determined given physical evidence that is stored, not after most of it is sold off as scrap.

Quote:

It is evident that you have no experience in making that determination. I might add that I have posed with some WTC steel and knew that some of the steel had made its way into the construction of the USS New York and knew that impact damage and fire were responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.
Again, anything you say about yourself is meaningless. What you want to consult is the FEMA report because that can be verified by anyone.

And the point that the steel was used to make a ship does not help your argument in anyway.

Quote:

It was evident that some of the WTC steel was weakened by fire in addition to impact damage where structural loads were redistributed before fire finished the job in all three cases. I might add that WTC 5 had suffered an internal collapse due to fire only.
It was not evident because most of it was not examined carefully and sold off as scrap for no reason at all.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 08:49 AM   #25
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
What physical evidence? Are you claiming that CD was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings?

The fact the WTC buildings were buckling during the fires before they collapsed was evidence enough that fire in conjunction with impact damage was responsible for the collapse of those buildings. Videos and seismic data proved that CD had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings. There was not a hint nor sound of explosions in the seconds before nor during the collapse of the WTC buildings.
I am referring to the steel debris from the three buildings which the FEMA discusses in its report. Most of the evidence was sold off as scrap for no reason at all.

In order to prove or disprove a CD, the physical evidence must be examined. That is the default for building collapse. And since it also involved air crashes, debris from the aircraft and all other physical evidence must be stored and examined carefully, too.

Only the illogical will come up with theories about this event and then select evidence to fit their beliefs: that applies to truthers and their opponents. And only non-skeptics will argue that the evidence is sufficient because it supports their views and thus there is nothing to question.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 08:53 AM   #26
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
That is false and I have even posted photos of WTC steel that were being marked and examined by investigators.
Read the FEMA report. Only a hundred or so pieces out of more than 100,000 tons of steel debris were collected, marked, and examined. Most of it was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 09:00 AM   #27
ralfyman
Thinker
 
ralfyman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
Let's take a look here.
Exactly my point: a hundred or so pieces out of almost 200,000 tons of debris were stored for analysis. Also, other agencies were not allowed to examine the debris for no valid reason. The debris was later sold off as scrap for no valid reason. The FBI even investigated some that was stolen:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rom-ruins.html

Thus, there was no "comprehensive investigation" of the debris.
ralfyman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 09:17 AM   #28
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
The completely opposite. Any crime scene involves storage and analysis of physical evidence. Skeptics should know that because it's based on logic and common sense.

BTW, I am not a truther.
The collapse of the buildings were a consequence of a crime. The crime was flying planes into the buildings.

What part of the collapse do you consider to be a crime? Please explain.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 09:22 AM   #29
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,609
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
In order to prove or disprove a CD, the physical evidence must be examined.
In order for CD to be considered, there needs to be valid reason to believe it was involved.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41

Last edited by DGM; 16th September 2017 at 09:25 AM.
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 09:38 AM   #30
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
The purpose of storing and analyzing physical evidence is not to put back together planes but to find out why the towers pancaked, and why a third building that was not hit by the planes fell.
WTC 1 and 2 failed because aircraft hit the building with 7 and 11 times the energy that the shell was designed to stop. The impact kinetic energy dislodged insulation on the steel, and the steel was subjected to the effects of fire without the protection of insulation. You can see the results, bowing of the shell as steel is failing to maintain shape under load. For the towers the floors can only hold 29,000,000 pounds, which you could calculate based on the strength of the connections of the floors to the shell and core, it takes math; can 9/11 truth, or you do math? Thus when the upper section failed and fell, or even placed gently on the lower floor, the floor fails essentially instantly, because the upper section not only is moving down, but it weighs more than 29,000,000 pounds. Thus you are in denial - you deny fire destroys the strength of steel, you deny a floor can only hold up 29,000,000 pounds, you deny physics, math, fire science, structural engineering, all the things even NIST used to explain what they think caused the collapse. The big picture, fire caused the collapse, office fires, you offer doubt based on nothing at all but talk of storing evidence. Kind of shallow doubt, since the crime was solved almost immediately because we know who on the planes had motive, and were able to rule out all the passengers and crew but 19 terrorists who were fooled by UBL, like 9/11 truth believers (who post the same BS as you do) were fooled by 9/11 truth claims made by fake "experts".

Why did the fires cause the collapse. The fires were not fought. This makes it simple, fire did it, and there is no evidence for CD, thermite, or the super secret silent explosives. Steel was searched for unique damage, and some was found. Some steel was corroded in fires about 1100C, and 9/11 truth nuts use this steel (appendix C FEMA) to make up melted steel because there is talk of eutectic (chemical engineering term 9/11 truth believers have no clue what it means) and intergranular melting. Thus we get quote mining gone wild and we have melted steel from the failed BS of 9/11 truth, melted steel from corroded steel - the sign of failure.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Physical evidence involving plane wreckage and steel tresses of buildings are collected in any crash, whether or not it is accidental.
The FBI does crime, not NIST, not the NTSB. The crime on 9/11 was 19 terrorists using four planes as WMD. Right and wrong. When the NTSB starts an investigation, sure the collapse parts etc. As soon as the NTSB figured out the pilot went nuts (aka, they decode the FDR and CVR and find out the pilot committed suicide, or crashed on purpose) there is no need to study the wreckage, and the case is not given to the FBI, who uses the FDR, and CVR to convict (i guess not since the crash was murder suicide, case closed as people sue the estate) the murdering pilot, or suicide terrorist. And guess what, for 9/11 the site was restricted, evidence was maintained until the FBI was satisfied they had the evidence to solve the case. The site was for months used to recover any body parts or evidence for DNA, steel was studied by engineers and scientist, I have photos of scientist studying WTC steel. Steel was studied, and selected.

In the cased on 9/11, saving steel is not required to solve the crime; even the FBI was able to correctly figure out 19 did it. Do you disagree?

Do engineers need to save steel to figure out how the WTC failed? No. Did they have steel saved? Yes, which makes your claim silly.

Please explain to me which FEMA or NIST goal was not up to your liking. FBI solved who did it, NIST and FEMA claim fire due to the terrorist act caused the collapses. What caused your collapse in your skeptical mind which seems to think the FBI needs steel saved to solve 19 nuts for UBL murdered Americans on 9/11 as promised in 90s by UBL. UBL made good his promise. Who did 9/11 in your skeptical evidence free mind?

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
According to the FEMA report, the steel debris was not examined carefully. Only a few hundred pieces were selected only a few weeks into an investigation that took years and the rest sold off as scrap.
Oh, please give a page and paragraph for this cherry picked quote mine tidbit... Do you mean FEMA has no clue who did 9/11? Do they disagree with the FBI that 19 terrorists did it? Or what? What is your point, and please the source.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
There was absolutely no reason to sell them off as scrap. The authorities had the means and the funds to store them for the whole period that the investigation took place.
Fire caused the collapse, we know it was 19 terrorists, thus how long do you need the steel. There was enough steel left to verify it was the kind of steel it was suppose to be. Fact is the WTC tower steel was unique, with varying grades used to make the shell strong enough to stand up to hurricanes, and to stop aircraft at the shell going under 200 mph. NIST verified the building was up to "standards", and other studies verified the shell could stop planes going 200 mph, at the shell.
It appears you have no clue what the goals of NIST and FEMA were, and prefer to make up BS about steel not being stored.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
The reason why I am skeptical about the investigation is clearly explained above. Also, if I am not mistaken, this is a skeptics' forum.
No, you seem to deny fire science, deny physics, and post BS about FEMA/NIST without sourcing the facts and claims.

The FBI did the investigation, and found 19 guilty suicide terrorists.
NIST explained the cause of the collapse, if you don't like NIST read the many other studies which agree that fire was the cause, and add their own take on the details.

As for the towers, once you have more than 29,000,000 pounds of debris falling (actually less mass is required to fail a floor if the mass is moving down), the WTC tower floor fails; this is why once started the collapse continues. The lower floors don't hold up the upper floors, the shell and the core hold up all the floors, floors only hold up themselves. This is why once started the collapse continues for the WTC towers.

WTC 7 was totaled by fire, no big surprise, fires not fought cause great damage. Even fires fought have not saved highrise building from being totaled, but have saved them from complete collapse. Had fires in WTC 7 been fought, WTC 7 may of survived, yet still be totaled. You are not being skeptical, you are ignoring evidence.

What caused the collapse in your skeptical version, and who did 9/11 in your skeptical version. So far you offered no major evidence to support the skepticism, and have not offered engineering arguments against NIST, FEMA, and the dozens of other studies which agree it was fire, but differ on details. You don't need to settle for NIST and FEMA, there are other studies, some cost money, which have fire as the cause. Not one report outside of 9/11 truth claims it was thermite, CD, or some fantasy inside job.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 10:16 AM   #31
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,785
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
In order for CD to be considered, there needs to be valid reason to believe it was involved.
They view the cosmetic appearance of a controlled demolition and simplistic one-dimensional interpretation of eye witness testimony as reason enough. Even if 3 dimensional interpretation of evidence reduces the merit to a near-zero value.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 10:58 AM   #32
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,978
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
... . Also, other agencies were not allowed to examine the debris for no valid reason. ...
Did you make up this lie, or what? Why post unsourced lies?



Debunked, WTC steel was examined by other agencies, like this guy. Did you make up the lie, or plagiarized it from 9/11 truth cult followers who blindly go where lies are called truth, and evidence is ignored.

Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
For a rational person, an investigation of a crime of this magnitude would involve careful analysis of physical evidence. And it doesn't involve examining "every single member of steel" but storing them, which ironically they were able to do before the debris was sold off as scrap. Analysis could be done readily across many years (which is ironically what happened for this investigation) involving thousands of experts on the matter. Finally, the claim that such a process is not necessary because any findings would still be rejected is nonsense.
What test on steel do we do to know it was 19 terrorists? Makes no sense, the "crime of this magnitude" was solved using passengers manifest, crew and passengers final words, DNA, who had motive, and remembering UBL promised to kill Americans when and where he could as stated in the 90s. Evidence has to be ignored to claim you're a skeptic of the conclusions from all the studies and investigations.

Quote:
ralfyman - BTW, I'm not a truther. My argument is actually based on being a skeptic.
Sounds like Nixon, "I am not a..."
This is not skepticism it is willfully ignoring evidence, or is it a lack of knowledge in criminal investigation, aircraft crashes, fire science, engineering, properties of steel, WTC structure, and more.

Studying how fire started the collapse of the WTC is not evidence to solve the "crime of this magnitude", it is related to the Goals of FEMA and NIST, not who did 9/11, not the FBI investigation. You have confused crime procedures and techniques with engineering studies to meet the goals of NIST/FEMA.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 16th September 2017 at 11:32 AM.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 01:07 PM   #33
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
The purpose of storing and analyzing physical evidence is not to put back together planes but to find out why the towers pancaked, and why a third building that was not hit by the planes fell

The third building, WTC 7, had suffered massive impact damage from debris from WTC 1. Witnesses described the massive impact hole on the south wall of WTC 7 that gutted several stories of WTC 7, which helps explains why WTC 7 tilted toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse and that tilt to the south was captured on video.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 01:40 PM   #34
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Any comment you make about yourself is meaningless because this is a forum that operates on anonymity. You should know that by now.
Well, my expertise is how I have provided details on why 9/11 truthers were knocking on the wrong door when it comes to facts. Case in point, there were truthers who've claimed that the 9/11 aircraft were switched but anyone with knowledge on the way we do things in the world of aviation would have known there is no way an aircraft can be switched in secret. As I have said in the past, only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 were building and I would take me just 30 minutes or less to determine that an aircraft was switched because I know what to look for. Other truthers claimed that the 9/11 aircraft were drones, but I knew that would have been impossible for those types of aircraft to have been modified since they were no FBW aircraft and modifying such aircraft to fly as drones would have generated paper trails from Washington State to Washington D.C. and across the Atlantic Ocean.

Modifying aircraft was another area of my expertise and as a pilot of 48 years had fit me in another area that allowed me to expose false claims of 9/11 truthers as pertaining to the 9/11 aircraft.


Quote:
The physical evidence to be collected comes from both the planes and the buildings, including the third one.
Physical evidence collected in conjunction with video, audio and seismic evidence has proven that fire and impact damage were responsible for the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

Quote:
Black boxes are retrieved, together with the steel debris.

Arguing what is worth analyzing or not is determined given physical evidence that is stored, not after most of it is sold off as scrap.
Any real investigator would have known that it would have been senseless and a waste of time and money to examine every piece of steel of the WTC buildings in order to make a determination as to what happened.


Quote:
Again, anything you say about yourself is meaningless. What you want to consult is the FEMA report because that can be verified by anyone.

Just to let you know, 9/11 investigative reports have already determined why the WTC buildings collapsed and came to their logical and common sense conclusions without examining every piece of WTC steel.

Quote:
WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

"The NYPD aviation unit reported critical information about the impending collapse of the buildings." They could see that the exterior steel beams of the buildings were bowing. You can see the inward bowing of the steel columns in pictures of both WTC 2, (the first building to collapse) and WTC 1 (the second building to collapse.)

Buckling Steel

Dr. Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST's building and fire safety investigation into the WTC disaster, said, "While the buildings were able to withstand the initial impact of the aircraft, the resulting fires that spread through the towers weakened support columns and floors that had fireproofing dislodged by the impacts. This eventually led to collapse as the perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging floors and buckled." "The reason the towers collapsed is because the fireproofing was dislodged," according to Sunder. If the fireproofing had remained in place, Sunder said, the fires would have burned out and moved on without weakening key elements to the point of structural collapse." - Latest Findings From NIST World Trade Center Investigation Released

"According to Shyam Sunder, the concave bowing of the steel was seen on the sides of the towersopposite where the planes hit them. At 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam Sunder said."

"Engineers believe the bowing of the exterior steel beams near the flame-engulfed floors was the critical "triggering point" because that's the direction each tower tiltedas it came crashing down."

"The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."

Key findings include:

Floor sagging and exposure to high temperatures caused the perimeter columns to bow inward and buckle—a process that spread across the faces of the buildings.

Even though the jet fuel on the planes burned off in the first few minutes after impact, there was enough office furniture to sustain intense fires for at least an hour.

The original builders of the twin towers and those who later renovated the structures did not have a clear technical standard for deciding on how much insulation to use around the structural beams, many of which gave way in the intense heat.

http://www.representativepress.org/B...plosives2.html


Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed

A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

After the 767 jet liner crashed into the world trade center building creating the worst terror attack in history, a fire burned for 56 minutes inside the World Trade Center building number two. The top 20 floors of the building collapsed on the 90 floors below. The entire one hundred and ten-story building collapsed in8 seconds... After a fire burned inside WTC tower number one for 102 minutes, the top 30 floors collapsed on the lower 80 floors. And the entire one hundred and ten stories of this building collapsed in 10 seconds. You can say the reason they collapsed was they were struck with a 185 ton jet airliner and the 24,000 gallons of jet fuel caused a fire of 1500 to 2000 degrees F which weakened the steel and cause the collapse. Or you can take a closer look at the buildings construction of the WTC buildings. And ask yourself why did these structures collapse so fast and so completely. The answer can be found by examining high-rise construction in New York City over the past 50 years.

The performance building code

How did lightweight high-rise construction evolve since WWII? It evolved with the help of the so-called performance code. After WWII the builders complained about building codes. They said they were too restrictive and specified every detail of construction. They called the old building codes “specification codes”. They complained the codes specified the size and type and some times even the make of a product used in construction. They decried the specification code as old fashion.

They wanted the building codes changed to what they called “performance codes.” They wanted the building codes to specify the performance requirements only; and, not specify the size and type of building material to use. For example, with fire resistive requirements they wanted the code to state just the hours of fire resistance (one, two, three or four hours) required by law; and not to state the specific type and material used to protect structural steel and enclosures for stairways and elevators shafts. For example, a performance building code states: the steel has to be protected against heat of flames for one, two, three or four hours during a fire. It does not state what to use as a fire resisting material. This performance code signaled the end to concrete encasement fire protection and allowed a spray on fire protection for steel and plasterboard enclosed stairs and elevator shafts.

Builders hailed the New York City building code of 1968 as a good performance code. However, some fire chiefs decried it as a law that substituted frills for real construction safety. The asbestos spray on coating of steel trusses used in the WTC towers was considered by Chief of the New York City Fire Department, at the time, John T. O’ Hagan to be inferior to concrete encasement of steel. Writing in his book, High Rise Fire and Life Safety. l976, he listed the following problems of spray-on fire protection of steel:

Failure to prepare the steel for spray-on coating adhesion. Rust and dirt allowed spray-on fire retarding coating to scale and fall away from steel during construction

Poor or uneven application of the spray-on fire retarding was discovered during post fire investigations

Variation of spray-on material during manufacture makes it ineffective
Lack of thoroughness in covering the steel during application is a problem
Failure to replace spray-on material dislodged by other trades people performing work around the steel during the construction of the building.

The WTC started construction in the 1970s. And the WTC towers built by the Port Authority of New York did not have to comply with the minimum requirements of the new1968 performance building code.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 02:24 PM   #35
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
In order to prove or disprove a CD, the physical evidence must be examined.
That is false! It has already been determined that CD had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings. Explosives make a lot of noise when detonated and there was no way that explosions alone could bring down a steel-framed building. That was evident during nuclear test when steel-framed buildings remained standing despite the blast effects and the fact that a huge vehicle bomb detonated in WTC 1 in 1993 had failed to bring down the building.

When it comes to demolishing steel-framed buildings with explosives, the steel structures must first be pre-weakened, which is a very noisy and dirty operation that would have taken many months for each of the WTC buildings, which would have been senseless to say the least. I could have planted a thousand pounds of explosives on each floor of the WTC Towers and detonate them all at once and the WTC Towers would have remained standing minus walls and windows. The Chinese embassy in Belgrade received multiple JDAM bomb strikes and yet the building remained standing and I have posted in the past of other structures that have remained standing despite repeated bomb strikes. Even if cutter charges are used, dynamite or other explosives are needed to bring down a steel-framed structure only after the steel structure has been pre-weakened.

People get the wrong idea that explosives alone can bring down a steel structure. The fact that it took hundreds of bombs just to drop a single steel bridge in North Vietnam is one good example other than the failure of explosives to bring down WTC 1 in 1993.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 03:29 PM   #36
Stamuel
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 553
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
That is false! It has already been determined that CD had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC buildings. Explosives make a lot of noise when detonated and there was no way that explosions alone could bring down a steel-framed building. That was evident during nuclear test when steel-framed buildings remained standing despite the blast effects and the fact that a huge vehicle bomb detonated in WTC 1 in 1993 had failed to bring down the building.

When it comes to demolishing steel-framed buildings with explosives, the steel structures must first be pre-weakened, which is a very noisy and dirty operation that would have taken many months for each of the WTC buildings, which would have been senseless to say the least. I could have planted a thousand pounds of explosives on each floor of the WTC Towers and detonate them all at once and the WTC Towers would have remained standing minus walls and windows. The Chinese embassy in Belgrade received multiple JDAM bomb strikes and yet the building remained standing and I have posted in the past of other structures that have remained standing despite repeated bomb strikes. Even if cutter charges are used, dynamite or other explosives are needed to bring down a steel-framed structure only after the steel structure has been pre-weakened.

People get the wrong idea that explosives alone can bring down a steel structure. The fact that it took hundreds of bombs just to drop a single steel bridge in North Vietnam is one good example other than the failure of explosives to bring down WTC 1 in 1993.
It sounds like you are saying that bombs can't take down buildings without pre-weakening and that we know this because some buildings have survived bombings in the past.

Is that actually what you are saying? If so, why would you say that? Are you trying to use the truthers' logic against them? Because as far as I can tell, your logic here is 100% identical to the logic truthers use to argue that fire can't take down buildings. That logic does not seem to be any better in this case.

It is obvious that bombs did not bring down any of the WTC buildings. It's obvious because of the evidence, not because the WTC buildings were completely immune to bombs.
__________________
A+
Stamuel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 04:41 PM   #37
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,518
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
According to the FEMA report, the steel debris was not examined carefully.
Is that what the FEMA report actually said, or is that your interpretation based on the facts as you know them?

It is not a quote, certainly. Can you provide the quote?

Ah, I see you wrote this:
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
According to the FEMA report, much of it was sold as scrap, and given a description of the selection process, not likely involved careful examination.
So it appears it is only your *interpretation* of what FEMA said. What did FEMA actually say?


Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
It was not evident because most of it was not examined carefully and sold off as scrap for no reason at all.
Stating your *interpretation* as a fact isn't exactly a solid argument.


Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Read the FEMA report. Only a hundred or so pieces out of more than 100,000 tons of steel debris were collected, marked, and examined.
Based on your experience as a structural engineer, how many pieces should have been retained to assure a supportable conclusion? Is "all of them" the only acceptable answer?

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 16th September 2017 at 04:51 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 05:23 PM   #38
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by ralfyman View Post
Read the FEMA report. Only a hundred or so pieces out of more than 100,000 tons of steel debris were collected, marked, and examined. Most of it was sold off as scrap for no valid reason.
I've read the FEMA report and I didn't find that. Could you be more specific about where in the FEMA report does it say that?
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 05:24 PM   #39
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
The collapse of the buildings were a consequence of a crime. The crime was flying planes into the buildings.

What part of the collapse do you consider to be a crime? Please explain.
This.^ I'd like to see ralfyman's answer.
__________________
Ask questions. Demand answers. But be prepared to accept the answers, or don't ask questions in the first place.
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2017, 06:26 PM   #40
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by Stamuel View Post
It sounds like you are saying that bombs can't take down buildings without pre-weakening and that we know this because some buildings have survived bombings in the past.

If you don't believe what I say, then you can ask any demolition company involved in explosive implosion demolition and they can tell you why it takes months of structural pre-weakening preparation before explosives are even placed on the steel structure. Simply placing explosives on steel structures is not going to do the job because steel structures are intelligent enough to distribute structural loads around any damage caused by explosives. Such structural load redistribution was evident when WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7 suffered massive impact damage and despite such damage, the buildings remained standing, but it took fire to weaken load-bearing steel structures in the damage area to facilitate the collapse. Had fire protection done their jobs, the WTC buildings would have remained standing.


Quote:
Are you trying to use the truthers' logic against them? Because as far as I can tell, your logic here is 100% identical to the logic truthers use to argue that fire can't take down buildings. That logic does not seem to be any better in this case.

Logic of 9/11 truthers is based on ignorance, which was evident to me when they claimed that United 93, a B-757, landed at Cleveland Airport and I told them that was not the case because United 93 crashed near Shanksville. As it was, they were incorrect since the aircraft they claimed was United 93 was in fact, Delta 1989, a B-767. Truthers didn't bother to check the fact that United 93 was tracked on radar to its crash site and was nowhere near Cleveland when it crashed.

I have also pointed out the ignorance of truthers when they claimed that tampering with an aircraft's transponder will render an aircraft invisible to radar and I knew that was incorrect during my flights under radar following. I also like to bring out the hint that the B-767 and the B-757 are not stealth aircraft and that even stealth aircraft was not totally invisible to radar.

Another case of truther ignorance is where they claimed the WTC buildings collapsed at free all or near free fall speed yet all it took was a simple look at videos of debris and smoke plumes that are clearly outpacing the collapse of those buildings which was another hint that the WTC buildings were not collapsing at free fall speed. In fact, debris from those buildings were not only outpacing collapse, but striking the ground while the collapse of those buildings was still in progress many stories above ground level and that was a hint that the WTC did not collapse at free fall speed. The 9/11 truthers are not interested in doing their homework or doing it correctly when they do.

In addition, I have caught truthers posting false information on many occasions, especially in regard to the Pentagon because my Wing Commander was inside the Pentagon when American 11 struck. I also knew that the Hani turning maneuver of American 77 did not take a super-human strength to conduct because I have conducted similar maneuvers as a student pilot. The Hani maneuver was actually boring and from the time he initiated his maneuver, I could have made a sandwich in the kitchen and headed back into the living room before he rolled out of that maneuver and he didn't even complete a full 360 degree circle. At Travis AFB, our C-5's, KC-10's and C-17's conduct similar maneuvers from even higher altitudes in a shorter period of time it took Hani to conduct his maneuver and they complete full 360 degree maneuvers in the process unlike Hani.


Quote:
It is obvious that bombs did not bring down any of the WTC buildings. It's obvious because of the evidence, not because the WTC buildings were completely immune to bombs.

Bombs did not bring down any of the WTC buildings because no one saw nor heard explosions from explosives as the WTC buildings collapsed and there were no secondary explosions from explosives as the two aircraft struck the buildings and there was no seismic data of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed and furthermore, no demolition hardware was ever found within the rubble at ground zero.

Last edited by skyeagle409; 16th September 2017 at 06:28 PM.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.