IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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 ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 3rd April 2011, 12:41 PM   #281
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131


Nice to see the 12th floor is no longer burning. The other 46 floors? Eh...still going.
NoahFence 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 3rd April 2011, 01:12 PM   #282
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
 
BasqueArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
I have read the report and according to NIST, it all happened at once. But that is impossible because the fire had gone out over one half hour earlier.

The seven hour fires damage to the steel was continuous and cumulative.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse." - wiki

You don’t know no engineering. The fire and its damage continued until the building collapsed.
It did not “all happened at once”.
“It all happened” gradually and then suddenly.
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius
A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum
BasqueArch 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 3rd April 2011, 03:03 PM   #283
Justin39640
Illuminator
 
Justin39640's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,202
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
The seven hour fires damage to the steel was continuous and cumulative.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse." - wiki

You don’t know no engineering. The fire and its damage continued until the building collapsed.
It did not “all happened at once”.
“It all happened” gradually and then suddenly.
Layman?: The straw that broke the camel's back.
__________________
"I joined this forum to learn about the people who think that 9/11 was an inside job. I've learned that they believe nutty things and are not very good at explaining them." - FineWine
"The agencies involved with studying the WTC collapse no more needed to consider explosives than the police need to consider brain cancer in a shooting death." - ElMondoHummus
Justin39640 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 3rd April 2011, 04:14 PM   #284
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by BasqueArch View Post
The seven hour fires damage to the steel was continuous and cumulative.

"At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse." - wiki

You don’t know no engineering. The fire and its damage continued until the building collapsed.
It did not “all happened at once”.
“It all happened” gradually and then suddenly.
"It all happened at once" refers to the collapse, that is, floor 13 collapsed and that led to a cascade of floor failures that left column 79 unbraced laterally and it buckled which led to the total collapse.

NoahFence,
Read the report. there were fires on 7,8,9,11,12,13,19,22,29,and 30. The fires on floors 19,22,29 and 30 had gone out by about 1:PM. The fire on floor 12 had burned at least one half hour before the collapse.
NIST L pg 26 [pdf pg 30]
Around 4:45 p.m., a photograph showed fires Floors 7, 8, 9, and 11 near the middle of the north face; Floor 12 was burned out by this time.
Part IIC also contains the statement about the fire on floor 12 being burned out by about 4:45. [pg 22]
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_.../appendixl.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 04:25 PM   #285
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Justin39640 View Post
Layman?: The straw that broke the camel's back.
Actually a "cascade" or "runaway" failure.

Almost always such a mechanism has a rapidly escalating logarithmic characteristic. So it can look like nothing happening>>>nothing happening>>>sudden rush.

Close observation of all three WTC collapses shows "little happening" then a brief observable period of "it is starting" then a more or less uniform speed of collapse.
ozeco41 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 3rd April 2011, 05:57 PM   #286
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Actually a "cascade" or "runaway" failure.

Almost always such a mechanism has a rapidly escalating logarithmic characteristic. So it can look like nothing happening>>>nothing happening>>>sudden rush.

Close observation of all three WTC collapses shows "little happening" then a brief observable period of "it is starting" then a more or less uniform speed of collapse.

And not surprising in WTC considering the number of transfer girders that supported the building. Not surprising in the towers either considering the long spans and "perimeter/core support structure.
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 3rd April 2011, 08:03 PM   #287
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
He said the extreme heat they created released benzene and other toxins from plastic and polystyrene in the dust.
Benzene is common in ANY hydrocarbon fire. Hell, it is even produced when a piece of wood burns.

It is MOST common with plastics, as their incomplete combustion produces this. It does NOT need extreme temperatures at all.

In fact, Benzene is the principal componet of the smoke produced when you burn polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. Which, BTW, would have been found in ABUNDANCE in the WTC towers.

Conclusion: Waterboy is wrong.

See here http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerC...kplace/benzene

here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene

here

http://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp

And a study done on the dangers that benzene and other chemicals pose to firefighters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12018402

Now, next time you want to go and repeat something that someone else claims, please feel free to make sure it's factual.

Because, as you have seen here, it's a boldfaced lie.
triforcharity 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 3rd April 2011, 08:10 PM   #288
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Provide another way of removing all the supporting structure on 8 floors in a synchronistic manner that results in free fall acceleration or stop claiming that there is.


Please show me that the entire structure fell at FFA. From what I read, it was a portion of the north face, above the buckled columns region, that fell at FFA, which would be stage 2, when minimal interior support existed.
triforcharity 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 3rd April 2011, 08:45 PM   #289
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by triforcharity View Post
Please show me that the entire structure fell at FFA. From what I read, it was a portion of the north face, above the buckled columns region, that fell at FFA, which would be stage 2, when minimal interior support existed.
NCSTAR 1A pg 55 [pdf pg 97]
The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed

ETA: As to your other post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7021324&postcount=170

Last edited by Christopher7; 3rd April 2011 at 08:52 PM.
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 09:09 PM   #290
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Only if you ignore the fact that the irregular buckling of the exterior moment frame provides resistance and Sunders acknowledgment that "a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it."

The core columns pulling down on the floor beams pulled the exterior columns down but could not pull them at free fall acceleration because they provided resistance.
ETA: As can be seen in the collapse video captures and Figure 12-63
http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/7...video14s16.jpg
http://img851.imageshack.us/img851/1...ngvnothing.jpg

The fact that you thought of 100 reasons not to believe something clearly demonstrates a deep seated desire not to believe the obvious. The videos of WTC 7 collapse look like a CD and were it not for the ramifications no one would dispute that it was a CD.

* * * * *
The fire that supposedly started the collapse had gone out over one half hour before the collapse. In other words, the NIST hypothesis of a progressive collapse never started.
Hey, just yesterday you thanked me for my honesty! I'm one of those anti-war guys who detested Bush for starting the Iraq war using reverse scientific method to collect evidence for WMDs. Our government has done terrible things, and sometimes I was leaning towards CD, but every time I did, the evidence fell apart...over 100 times. This whole long process I'm going through now re free-fall of Building 7? I've been through this kind of process dozens and dozens of times now, for five years. I tried to be openminded and honest all along. It's been a long, slow slog for an honesty, enquiring mind. You, Chris, in the meantime, never once let up on your assertion that CD is the ONLY possible explanation for the things we are talking about.

Still, Chris thanks for the reminder about this:

That is what Shyam Sunder said and we agree on this part:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ."

Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63.
"there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

You know, those NIST guys know and like me. I think I'll ask Sunder about this one more time. Who knows, I might actually get a clarification... or not. Worth an ask.

And BTW, I used to agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance below, but it seems logical to refine that by saying "net zero" resistance, where a small amount of resistance can be canceled out or overwhelmed by other forces.

I'll let you know if NIST gives me an answer.
chrismohr 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 3rd April 2011, 09:35 PM   #291
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
... I'm one of those anti-war guys who detested Bush for starting the Iraq war using reverse scientific method to collect evidence for WMDs. Our government has done terrible things, and sometimes ...
A lot of us think similarly. Which is why I can never fathom why genuine truthers - those with real political concerns about the US Government management of 9/11 - why they insist on pursuing dead set loser technical issues like claims for demolition at WTC.

Pursuit of technical losers must be detrimental to the possible genuine political goal.

Or is it just use anything truthful or lies to gather a momentum for political action? I cannot see that as viable either. Wouldn't work here in Aust. but the whole size of population/critical mass thing is different and we would not be the target for anything as big as 9/11. Then it isn't working in the US either, is it?

So this hanging on to technical false claims brings the whole sector of truth movement supporting demolition into disrepute. (throw in Pentagon not that planers and the missile shoot down at Shanksville mob - same reasoning)
ozeco41 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 3rd April 2011, 09:41 PM   #292
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...That is what Shyam Sunder said and we agree on this part:
"a free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it . . ."

Here he is saying that their model provided resistance as can be seen in the video captures and Figure 12-63.
"there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."

...
Sunder is on a loser to nothing bet. He is explaining a complex topic with an audience that ranges from untechnical lay persons up to top professionals. that puts them across at least five broad bands of understanding. No matter what level he answers four out of five could find something wrong. And, if there is a committed truther in those levels they will be determined to find something wrong.

Ryan Mackey and my explanations in recent posts were at least level 4 on the scale of 5 - possibly level 5. The quotes you give from Sunder are addressing level 2 or 3. They look as if they conflict. They don't if you ask "Who is he talking to? Is it good enough for them? would it be a worse answer for them if he made it more sophisticated?"

Last edited by ozeco41; 3rd April 2011 at 09:43 PM.
ozeco41 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 3rd April 2011, 10:13 PM   #293
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
BTW this whole 12th floor no longer burning question... when a floor is burning with these long beams, they expand, then sag, then pull the columns in. Then, if the steel beams cool off, they shrink even more while retaining their sag, thus adding even more inward stress to the columns (I've learned a thing or two from Ryan and Ozeco). I don't know if the fire was out on the 12th floor, but if it was, that could create still more structural stress!
chrismohr 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 3rd April 2011, 10:18 PM   #294
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Hey, just yesterday you thanked me for my honesty!
No offense intended. Like you, I bought the OCT but then I saw the implosion of WTC 7. By the time it went out of sight I knew it was CD. My first reaction was denial so I can understand the denial of others. I did not want to believe it but when I saw it again on the History Channel "America Rebuilds" I had to face the ugly reality. Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance. Fire could not make a modern steel frame skyscraper collaps the way WTC 7 did - IMnsHO. The thermal expansion hypothesis is a bunch of crap. Beams always expand in high rise fires and it has never been a problem before.
Here is an extreme example:
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2...ridian6si9.png

The NIST hypothesis is impossible and the final report is a fraud and a farce. I found several fatal misrepresentations.

1) The fire that supposedly initiated the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse.

2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

4) They applied 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds which does not allow for heat dissipation or sagging.

5) They have the girder failing twice. First it was pushed off its seat to the east and then it was rolled off its seat to the east.

To save column space I'll just give the URL where my research is posted:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Chris, We can debate the points I have made there if you like.
Note to all: I will be moderating all comments and only thoughtful, intelligent comments will be posted.

Quote:
And BTW, I used to agree with you that free-fall means no structural resistance below, but it seems logical to refine that by saying "net zero" resistance, where a small amount of resistance can be canceled out or overwhelmed by other forces.
Nada ;-)

Last edited by Christopher7; 3rd April 2011 at 10:39 PM.
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 10:36 PM   #295
Christopher7
Philosopher
 
Christopher7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,538
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
BTW this whole 12th floor no longer burning question... when a floor is burning with these long beams, they expand, then sag, then pull the columns in. Then, if the steel beams cool off, they shrink even more while retaining their sag, thus adding even more inward stress to the columns (I've learned a thing or two from Ryan and Ozeco). I don't know if the fire was out on the 12th floor, but if it was, that could create still more structural stress!
The NIST hypothesis is "thermal expansion", not "thermal contraction".

Last edited by Christopher7; 3rd April 2011 at 10:59 PM.
Christopher7 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 3rd April 2011, 10:50 PM   #296
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
... By the time it went out of sight I knew it was CD. ... Nada ;-)
The first time I saw WTC 7 collapse, I knew it was due to gravity. Most people ignore the fact the primary source of energy in CD is gravity.

I cheated, I went to engineering school, became an engineer, earn a masters in engineering, I can hear, I can see, took physics in high school, flew high performance jets, flew large heavy jets, etc. The second I saw 7 collapse, I knew it was a gravity collapse. The only reason to study the collapse is to improve building codes and increase safety.

I also understand building can fail, when fires are not fought; something every fireman should respect and understand.

Quote:
World Trade Center building 7 was a controlled demolition.
It is the mother of all smoking guns.
Sure Chris.

If I suspected it was CD, I would work on the differential equations and study the structure to understand why I am wrong, or right. WTC7 was not CD, to say it was CD without presenting the evidence first is reckless. To say it is CD with the evidence we have, is failure.

Ironic, I have learned about WTC 7 structure due to the moronic CD claims of 911 truth. WTC 7 was a unique building. I have learned 911 truth can't comprehend the difference between CD and gravity collapse, and 911 truth is proud to remain in ignorance. I learned 911 truth believes in silent, no blast effect bombs, or that thermite was used. I learned 911 truth has no idea how to calculate the heat energy of an office fire.

Gravity, E=mgh; I knew math would come in handy one day. Thermo, anyone?

What 911 truth needs is some engineering skills displayed, in use, real work completed, so the crazy claims of CD can evaporate. Chris, what does your engineering school say about your claims? And your fellow engineers, what do they say about your claims? Got anyone in engineering to support your claims besides 911 truth disciples?

Gage attracted strap hangers, those who fail to understand 911, those who have crazy claims, those who can't think for themselves, as Gage makes money selling delusions.

Last edited by beachnut; 4th April 2011 at 12:32 AM. Reason: before making fun of NIST, one should take Thermodynamics, and try to pass
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 4th April 2011, 01:57 AM   #297
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
...To save column space I'll just give the URL where my research is posted:
http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/

Chris, We can debate the points I have made there if you like.
Note to all: I will be moderating all comments and only thoughtful, intelligent comments will be posted.

Nada ;-)
Chris do I translate that to mean that all dissenting comment will be censored?
ozeco41 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 4th April 2011, 04:56 AM   #298
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Building implosion is a fine art and it cannot happen by chance.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=199290

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Fire could not make a modern steel frame skyscraper collaps the way WTC 7 did

Well... WTC7 was constructed on 80's.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The thermal expansion hypothesis is a bunch of crap.

No, it's Physics.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Beams always expand in high rise fires and it has never been a problem before.

How many long-span-steel-framed-building was already engulfed on an unfought fire?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
1) The fire that supposedly initiated the collapse had gone out over an hour before the collapse.

But the damage was already done.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

Out of context.


Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

Again out of context.

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
4) They applied 4 hours of heat in 1.5 seconds which does not allow for heat dissipation or sagging.

Out of context again?

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
5) They have the girder failing twice. First it was pushed off its seat to the east and then it was rolled off its seat to the east.

Out of context again, I guess.
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 4th April 2011 at 04:59 AM.
Carlos 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 4th April 2011, 05:42 AM   #299
Carlos
Critical Thinker
 
Carlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 285
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
2) They lied about there being no shear studs on the girders.

3) To get the shear studs on the beams to fail, they heated the beams but not the slab.

The right context.

Chapter 8 - Initiating evente Hypotheses (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 323)

8.1 Introduction


This chapter addresses the initiating event and collapse propagation hypotheses that formed the basis of the technical approach to determine why and how the 47 story WTC 7 building collapsed on September 11, 2001.

(...)

The leading collapse hypothesis will be presented first, followed by supporting evidence and calculations that led to the hypotesis. Prediction of the growth and spread of fires from fire simulation models, analysis of heating of the structural elements due thes fires, and structural analysis of the initiating events hypothesis and global response are presented in subsequent chapters

_______________________________


8.7.4 - Absence of Shear Studs on Girders (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 346)

(...)

"Consider a simple floor beam-to-girder arrangement as found" in the northeast corner of WTC7

In-plane restraint of the floor slab restrained expansion. This boundary condition is assumed for illustrative purposes and to produce a maximum force in the shear studs. This simple analysis helped to determine whether or not the failure of shear studs needs to be accounted for in the detailed ANSYS analysis of the lower 16 stories of WTC 7 (Chapter 11). In the detailed finite element analysis, the floor slabs were not restrained and the heating of the concrete slab and steel beams was determined by thermal analysis (Chapter 10).


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1459
__________________
In most cases debating with a 9/11 truther is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

The customer with the knife is always right - Quohog, the bartender

Last edited by Carlos; 4th April 2011 at 05:57 AM.
Carlos 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 4th April 2011, 06:25 AM   #300
Animal
Master Poster
 
Animal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 2,097
Originally Posted by Carlos View Post
The right context.

Chapter 8 - Initiating evente Hypotheses (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 323)

8.1 Introduction


This chapter addresses the initiating event and collapse propagation hypotheses that formed the basis of the technical approach to determine why and how the 47 story WTC 7 building collapsed on September 11, 2001.

(...)

The leading collapse hypothesis will be presented first, followed by supporting evidence and calculations that led to the hypotesis. Prediction of the growth and spread of fires from fire simulation models, analysis of heating of the structural elements due thes fires, and structural analysis of the initiating events hypothesis and global response are presented in subsequent chapters

_______________________________


8.7.4 - Absence of Shear Studs on Girders (NCSTAR 1-9 - pg. 346)

(...)

"Consider a simple floor beam-to-girder arrangement as found" in the northeast corner of WTC7

In-plane restraint of the floor slab restrained expansion. This boundary condition is assumed for illustrative purposes and to produce a maximum force in the shear studs. This simple analysis helped to determine whether or not the failure of shear studs needs to be accounted for in the detailed ANSYS analysis of the lower 16 stories of WTC 7 (Chapter 11). In the detailed finite element analysis, the floor slabs were not restrained and the heating of the concrete slab and steel beams was determined by thermal analysis (Chapter 10).


http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1459
So typical of trooferism, proof by omission (or he has no clue what he is reading), and then their failed conclusion that the study is fatally flawed.
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 4th April 2011, 06:50 AM   #301
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
4 vs 5

Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post

Ryan Mackey and my explanations in recent posts were at least level 4 on the scale of 5 - possibly level 5. The quotes you give from Sunder are addressing level 2 or 3. They look as if they conflict. They don't if you ask "Who is he talking to? Is it good enough for them? would it be a worse answer for them if he made it more sophisticated?"
Well thanks, but honestly, anything I can understand can't be higher than a 4 because I am not a scientist. Two trained scientists or engineers can talk the language of mathematics together.... that's level 5. You and Ryan and others have the ability to explain things to me by translating the true language of physics into English: level 4 at best.

I'm taking the slow, stubborn route. NIST didn't explain the freefall of Building 7 to my satisfaction so I asked Ryan. I almost understood but chose to ask again. This tried the patience of some people on this thread but now I GET it. And BTW, I didn't just come up with those 100 reasons against CD. I researched real slow and careful for three years, and have not used things that I couldn't verify to my satisfaction... for example, iron microspheres may have come from printer toner. Well, maybe, but I never found solid confirmation of this so it's not on my list of answers to the CD advocates.
chrismohr 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 4th April 2011, 07:01 AM   #302
chrismohr
Master Poster
 
chrismohr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
12th floor cooling PS

Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The NIST hypothesis is "thermal expansion", not "thermal contraction".
I think Chris is right here. My understanding is that NIST didn't look carefully at thermal contraction after the sagged steel beams cooled off a bit when the fire burned out in some regions of the building.

So?

NIST is not good daddy or bad daddy. I don't think they got everything 100% right and when I'm not satisfied with what they say, I look to other sources. The underemphasis on thermal contraction in NIST is something several good scientists have pointed it out. That's what scientists do. NIST scientists are neither omniscient nor are they vicious liars.

Same with Shyam Sunder's remarks. Maybe he misspoke, or spoke down to the level of his audience. His comments are less important than what REALLY happened that day.
chrismohr 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 4th April 2011, 07:01 AM   #303
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
It would appear that Christopher believes that if a fire goes out on floor 12, the damage caused by the fire is fixed automatically.
NoahFence 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 4th April 2011, 07:14 AM   #304
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed
I've hilited the important part you seem to have missed.

Do you understand what that means?

Last edited by triforcharity; 4th April 2011 at 07:23 AM.
triforcharity 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 4th April 2011, 07:23 AM   #305
triforcharity
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 13,961
Originally Posted by Christopher7 View Post
Oops.

Feel free to ignore it over there too
triforcharity 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 4th April 2011, 08:19 AM   #306
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Well thanks, but honestly, anything I can understand can't be higher than a 4 because I am not a scientist. Two trained scientists or engineers can talk the language of mathematics together.... that's level 5. You and Ryan and others have the ability to explain things to me by translating the true language of physics into English: level 4 at best....
Thanks. My primary interest when I started discussing 9/11 and on another forum was explaining for lay persons.

Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
...I'm taking the slow, stubborn route. NIST didn't explain the freefall of Building 7 to my satisfaction so I asked Ryan. I almost understood but chose to ask again. This tried the patience of some people on this thread but now I GET it. And BTW, I didn't just come up with those 100 reasons against CD. I researched real slow and careful for three years, and have not used things that I couldn't verify to my satisfaction... for example, iron microspheres may have come from printer toner. Well, maybe, but I never found solid confirmation of this so it's not on my list of answers to the CD advocates.
I'm starting to appreciate your method rather than try to persuade you of mine.
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I think Chris is right here. My understanding is that NIST didn't look carefully at thermal contraction after the sagged steel beams cooled off a bit when the fire burned out in some regions of the building.

So?

NIST is not good daddy or bad daddy. I don't think they got everything 100% right and when I'm not satisfied with what they say, I look to other sources. The underemphasis on thermal contraction in NIST is something several good scientists have pointed it out. That's what scientists do. NIST scientists are neither omniscient nor are they vicious liars.

Same with Shyam Sunder's remarks. Maybe he misspoke, or spoke down to the level of his audience. His comments are less important than what REALLY happened that day.
The higher objective is "Was it demolition or not?" Lower objectives are "Did NIST get it perfect?" AND "Did Sunder explain it perfect?" Those lower objectives are more often than not distractions from the higher objective - whether deliberately employed as diversions or merely lack of clear direction of argument.
ozeco41 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 4th April 2011, 09:35 AM   #307
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
I think Chris is right here. My understanding is that NIST didn't look carefully at thermal contraction after the sagged steel beams cooled off a bit when the fire burned out in some regions of the building.

So?

NIST is not good daddy or bad daddy. I don't think they got everything 100% right and when I'm not satisfied with what they say, I look to other sources. The underemphasis on thermal contraction in NIST is something several good scientists have pointed it out. That's what scientists do. NIST scientists are neither omniscient nor are they vicious liars.

Same with Shyam Sunder's remarks. Maybe he misspoke, or spoke down to the level of his audience. His comments are less important than what REALLY happened that day.
You are correct, you don't need NIST or Sunder to comprehend fire destroys buildings. On 911 the WTC 7 fire was not fought at all, and it was clear the building was compromised by fire as the day wore on. Chris7 says WTC 7 was CD because it looks like CD and that is due to the reality gravity is the primary energy source used to destroy buildings. Gravity collapses do not look like CD, CD look like gravity collapses induced by explosives which make big bangs, WTC 7 was a gravity collapse induced by fire, no big bangs. Thermite is out, it would be fused to the steel, and leave... yes, evidence, like piles of iron, fused to steel...

If 911 had taken place at night, would the fires look big enough for 911 truth? I hate it when 911 truth say the fires were small, not hot.

Good job debating Gage, it is equal to debating kids on Santa Claus, or a three year old on any topic they pick contrary to reality. I would not be able to debate Gage, his nonsense is dumbed down, there is no need. CD of WTC 7 is stupid, stupid at a level that defies definition. No pusher of CD has offered anything other than opinion. They could fake the differential equations, or thermodynamic BS, but they can't do it, they are not qualified structural engineers or fire science experts. 911 truth makes up fire models for WTC 7, without engineering or fire science experience, a fraud attacking NIST when they should be presenting their own models, with some math and numbers. 911 truth fails to understand models.

Paranoid conspiracy theory manufacturers make up delusions about things, and WTC 7 is the red flag of woo. WTC 7 not even a target of terrorists, burned and collapsed. Zero fire fighting measures were taken, and the building had massive damage, that is, the windows were broken helping the fires obtain air to burn freely, out of control.

The collapse of WTC7 begins many seconds before the building begins to fall; the entire collapse sequence of major structural components failing takes over 15 seconds, very slow collapse, too slow for CD. Because fire took all day to start the collapse.

The other red flag of woo for 911 truth, the attack on NIST. No need to make up nonsense about NIST to do their own work on the issues. 911 truth has no qualified people doing anything on WTC 7. CD is a delusion based on ignorance. Like a witch-hunt.

Fires not fought destroy buildings. Fires fought destroy buildings. Some of 911 truth's favorite, "look this building burned and did not fall", were totaled by fire and were too weak to remain, and were dismantled. WTC 7 would have been dismantled if it had stood. Other buildings were dismantled due to damage from the WTC complex collapse.

The Deutsche Bank Building, was dismantled. Another smoking gun for future conspiracy minded want to be engineers in 911 truth.

What is suppose to happen to a building on fire, out of control fires, fires not being fought, no water for the sprinklers?

Chris7 is not an engineer, you are debating engineering things with a layperson who makes it up as he goes, like Gage. Their proof for what they say is based on them saying it is so. It is a never-ending circular logic, goal post moving marathon BS contest, not a debate. Why can't 911 truth get structural engineers to join them? The best they can do is get people to sign up at a percentage of all engineers below the rate of insanity. If 911 truth had substance they would have 20 to 90 percent of all engineers in agreement. But 911 truth has 0.01 percent or less of all engineers who want a new investigation because they don't understand the hundreds of independent investigations already out there. How pathetic, their lack of comprehension leads them to demand a new investigation on 911.

The reason to study WTC 7 is to improve building safety in many areas, including engineering and fire sciences. Chris7 needs to publish his findings. On the Internet when you find stuff about this, all the truthers act as if Chris7 and others have actual work which amounts to a paper on this subject. Why is it not published in major engineering journals!?

Gage making a living spreading his BS position on 911. Gage has created an industry for himself, Gage has a job, Gage is successful at "begging" for money, taking in hundreds of thousands of dollars. Would I be surprised if Gage believes his delusions? Does not matter if he knows his claims are false or not, to fool others; it works. Debating him has no effect on his followers, they are too dumb to figure out 911 in the first place and will not take the effort to improve their lot.

Good job debating Gage, anyone who has the patience and tenacity to do so the way you did is great; I owe you beer for being orders of magnitude better than I. Gage has enough people and money to publish real work in real journals, but they can't, they have no rational work and their claims are delusional claptrap, fictional junk.

Gage has attracted less than 0.01 percent of all engineers; a rate lower than mental illness. He has the fringe few too lazy or not capable of figuring out 911. When 911 truth attacks NIST, it is the smoking gun they are incapable of doing independent work, don't understand if NIST is wrong, WTC 7 still failed due to fire. A double failure for 911 truth.

Did you get paid for debating Gage? Gage should pay you. What a scam; why can't I mislead people, travel for free, and earn 70k/yr? Selling paranoid conspiracy theories to the gullible. Gage runs a religion, preaching to the loyal supporters of woo. Gage, the NWO/Internet snake-oil salesman, a scam, a fraud, intellectual fraud.
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 4th April 2011, 09:43 AM   #308
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by chrismohr View Post
Well thanks, but honestly, anything I can understand can't be higher than a 4 because I am not a scientist. Two trained scientists or engineers can talk the language of mathematics together.... that's level 5. You and Ryan and others have the ability to explain things to me by translating the true language of physics into English: level 4 at best.

I'm taking the slow, stubborn route. NIST didn't explain the freefall of Building 7 to my satisfaction so I asked Ryan. I almost understood but chose to ask again. This tried the patience of some people on this thread but now I GET it. And BTW, I didn't just come up with those 100 reasons against CD. I researched real slow and careful for three years, and have not used things that I couldn't verify to my satisfaction... for example, iron microspheres may have come from printer toner. Well, maybe, but I never found solid confirmation of this so it's not on my list of answers to the CD advocates.
Please take into account what an engineer and a "fire wise" professor saw following the collapse of wtc 7.
Professor Astaneh - Asl saw this only 8 days after wtc 7 came down. 15.9mm of A36 steel gone in only 8 days!!!! Did it start before the building collapsed? An engineer that actually saw forensic evidence thinks it did!

"One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was 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.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63

it burned/vaporized (lost 15.9mm of a36 steel) then collapsed! it buckled while attached to the building, not as it lay in the pile!

He also stated "valuable information could come from analysis of the blackened steel from the floors engulfed in flame after the airplane collisions. Steel flanges had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin, Astaneh said."
wow, did he just say one inch to paper thin. This happened in 8 - 18 days after the event according to the article. This was wtc 1 or 2 steel.
http://berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/...0/03_grou.html

That was not the only pieces of steel that caught peoples attention. Professor Barnett of WPI also stated this about wtc 7 steel:
"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

notice he stated steel members. plural. more than one! So we have the one Professor Astaneh - Asl saw and the FEMA sample plus all those "steel members" that the professor Barnett saw.

Professor Sisson has stated that he could get "little metal" to dissolve with his experiments with placing powders on steel. ive tried to find out how little that "little" exactly was but there was NO answer!

Remember what the FEMA BPAT report stated about those steel samples:

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

what makes the wtc 7 office/debris fire so unlike other office/debris fires?
The "fire wise" professors "expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

then on 911, after yrs and yrs of fire experience , something they have never seen before when investigating a fire....a "novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
Senenmut 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 4th April 2011, 10:09 AM   #309
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
... Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized.

...
the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
LOL, it is called corrosion. This is cool, like Zombies rising from the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth, a movement based on ignorance and delusions, we have a repeat of the melted steel, which was really corrosion of steel. People pushing crazy ideas because they never took a chemical engineering class and don't have a clue what eutectic means.

You are posting evidence of erosion of steel, called corrosion, something engineers like to study. So? It means there was fire, fire which caused WTC 7 to collapse.

Quote mine much? Please publish this in a real journal. What is your conclusion, maybe Gage can quote mine you if you make it to a real news source with your claims.

Quote:
then on 911, after yrs and yrs of fire experience , something they have never seen before when investigating a fire....a "novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
Please take a chemical engineering course and stop making up moronic nonsense.

Last edited by beachnut; 4th April 2011 at 10:32 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 4th April 2011, 10:39 AM   #310
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
LOL, it is called corrosion. This is cool, like Zombies rising from the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth, a movement based on ignorance and delusions, we have a repeat of the melted steel, which was really corrosion of steel. People pushing crazy ideas because they never took a chemical engineering class and don't have a clue what eutectic means.

You are posting evidence of erosion of steel, called corrosion, something engineers like to study. So? It means there was fire, fire which caused WTC 7 to collapse.

Quote mine much? Please publish this in a real journal. What is your conclusion, maybe Gage can quote mine you if you make it to a real news source with your claims.

Please take a chemical engineering course and stop making up moronic nonsense.
He's been shown several times why he is wrong yet continues to post this stock response. Just because a column failed during the fire doesn't mean to say that the level of corrosion observed, once the beam was removed from the pile, is the level of corrosion attributed to the fire in the building. It's painful to see this crap being pushed especially for thermite. You can lead a horse to water...
Sunstealer 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 4th April 2011, 11:02 AM   #311
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by Sunstealer View Post
He's been shown several times why he is wrong yet continues to post this stock response. Just because a column failed during the fire doesn't mean to say that the level of corrosion observed, once the beam was removed from the pile, is the level of corrosion attributed to the fire in the building. It's painful to see this crap being pushed especially for thermite. You can lead a horse to water...
15.9mm of A36 steel gone in 8 days.. wow.....one inch gone in 8-18 days!! lets get another WOW!
Senenmut 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 4th April 2011, 11:04 AM   #312
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Argument from incredulity noted.
carlitos 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 4th April 2011, 11:07 AM   #313
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
LOL, it is called corrosion. This is cool, like Zombies rising from the pit of ignorance known as 911 truth, a movement based on ignorance and delusions, we have a repeat of the melted steel, which was really corrosion of steel. People pushing crazy ideas because they never took a chemical engineering class and don't have a clue what eutectic means.

You are posting evidence of erosion of steel, called corrosion, something engineers like to study. So? It means there was fire, fire which caused WTC 7 to collapse.

Quote mine much? Please publish this in a real journal. What is your conclusion, maybe Gage can quote mine you if you make it to a real news source with your claims.

Please take a chemical engineering course and stop making up moronic nonsense.
a quote from Steven Jones:
"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel. OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject."

during the debate, Mohr ruled out gypsum as the source of sulfur.
Senenmut 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 4th April 2011, 11:11 AM   #314
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
Argument from incredulity noted.
no, it hasnt happened before. in all their yrs of experience, these "fire wise" professionals "expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

"Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
Senenmut 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 4th April 2011, 11:26 AM   #315
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
no, it hasnt happened before. in all their yrs of experience, these "fire wise" professionals "expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."

"Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."
Why do you think they said "novel" and not suspicious"?
__________________
"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 4th April 2011, 11:34 AM   #316
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
15.9mm of A36 steel gone in 8 days.. wow.....one inch gone in 8-18 days!! lets get another WOW!
Posting the same thing over and over and expecting a different response. Can i get a WOW!
tsig 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 4th April 2011, 11:35 AM   #317
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,372
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Why do you think they said "novel" and not suspicious"?
why do you think they "expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."
Senenmut 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 4th April 2011, 11:37 AM   #318
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
why do you think they "expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes."
Doesn't answer my question. You first and then me. (my kid plays this game)
__________________
"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 4th April 2011, 11:37 AM   #319
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
no, it hasnt happened before.
So? Things can't happen for a first time, or happen only once? That's an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. As I noted. I note that you still haven't removed your signature either, so I'm suspecting that you aren't here for honest debate.
carlitos 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 4th April 2011, 12:16 PM   #320
Sunstealer
Illuminator
 
Sunstealer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,128
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
a quote from Steven Jones:
"I (with colleagues) have done the experiment with thermite + sulfur (often called "thermate") acting on a piece of WTC steel. In fact, I did the experiment with BBC filming it! Then we looked at the steel, including use of electron microscopy, and found the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al. in WTC 7 steel. OTOH, I know of no expt done to test whether gypsum and heat would have this effect -- I would be VERY surprised, as the sulfur in gypsum is not elemental Sulfur, but is bound as a sulfate (very difficult to reduce to suflur.) We should do the latter experiment to rule out such nonsense. If you can provide direct quotes from the BBC program on this point, it may prove useful in a research note on the subject."

during the debate, Mohr ruled out gypsum as the source of sulfur.
I'd like to see the data on that please. Do you have a link to that data?

Could you also point out where the Sulphur is in these red layers in the Harrit et al paper?


Last edited by Sunstealer; 4th April 2011 at 12:20 PM.
Sunstealer 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

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 07:20 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.