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 conspiracy theories , Niels Harrit

Reply
Old 19th June 2009, 09:49 PM   #81
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Look Tony, you must've dealt with bureaucratic organizations before. What I'm suggesting is contacting some of the investigators directly, not contacting the organization they might've worked for 7 years ago.

And contacting NIST about something like the handling of steel is a little strange, it seems to me, since NIST wasn't in charge of the initial cleanup. How are they responsible for that?

Finally, considering the constant hostility shown towards NIST by truthers (perhaps including yourself) can you really blame individuals for avoiding contact with you? Especially if they're being badgered about things that were not their responsibility.

There must be individuals you could contact privately. That's what I would do if I wanted to get around the bureaucracy. But that's just me.
I think what you are saying would be the responsibility of statutory investigators. How can you imply that the NIST shouldn't have questioned why they got so little steel? I know I would have been asking where the physical pieces were if I were asked to do this type of investigation.
Tony Szamboti 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 19th June 2009, 10:12 PM   #82
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... Computer modeling is a good tool but it cannot take the place of actual physical evidence if it is available. I use solid modeling and finite element software in my work everyday, but I wouldn't dream of just modeling something based on exterior photos for a failure analysis, without examining the physical evidence and determining a sequence of failure from it. Once that is done a computer model is a good tool to replicate the failure.

....
Funny as heck when Robertson comments on your failed ideas. I guess this is why not a single Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice member is a high-rise structural engineer. Not a single members able to model the WTC correctly. A perfect record.

Many studies have been done by people on the WTC collapse. You joined a paranoid group of failed engineers can't model anything more than failed conclusions. If you need a pathetic idea just go to any of your fellow Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice members and you find a full dose of stupid ideas about controlled demolition, thousands and thousands of ceiling tiles remotely set off in the WTC to cause the collapse. What crackpot ideas will be the next smoking or loaded, or misfired gun from Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice the club of moronic conclusions only those who lack knowledge and the ability to think for themselves fall for.

You wave your hands real hard and spew crap and state without evidnece
Quote:
The controlled demolition hypothesis appears to be the only realistic and sustainable explanation for the evidence observed in the very rapid complete collapses of the three buildings in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001.
A virtual comedy show for engineers put on by you and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. You guys can't figure out 911 in 7 years. When will you produce the
Quote:
evidence of pools of molten metal in the rubble
Never.
Your problem is you don't have a conspiracy theory you don't like; JFK and 911 without even trying to use your engineering skills to save you from the woo.

The poor thread is about the nut case ideas of Niels Harrit and I can see how he has suspended rational thought and spews lies, hearsay, and delusions like the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice do.

Niels Harrit lies and your Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice are short on evidence. Unless there is a Pulitzer for nut case ideas on 911 you guys are short a Pulitzer Prize and your "loaded gun" theory (isn't a loaded gun going back-wards?) is just your Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice next delusion to keep your failed movement alive to join other fantasy movements like UFOs, and Bigfoot. At least there are plenty of dirt-dumb neoNAZIs to keep your failed ideas alive in paranoid biased and bigoted minds all over the world. It seems like weak apologies for the 19 terrorist as you and Harrit try to manufacture evidence that is really hearsay, lies and delusions to fool people who refuse to think for themselves.

Last edited by beachnut; 19th June 2009 at 10:16 PM. Reason: at least bigfooters are not making up lies to apologize for terrorists
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 20th June 2009, 04:55 AM   #83
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Certainly the steel from the fire affected areas in the towers should have been saved to at least determine how the collapses initiated and propagated for at least the first several floors.

It would be about 4000 to 5000 tons of steel per tower and could be stored in the space of a football field.

The steel could have been removed immediately for search and rescue and saved at a remote site.
Try stopping and thinking about that one for a second. You have a big pile of smouldering rubble containing God-knows how much twisted and broken metal from both towers. The thing took months to clean up after the fact and you're expecting to be able to find the original bits of steel that were damaged by the aircraft impacts and/or weakened by the fires? How would one go about doing that? To borrow a phrase from Saving Private Ryan, "it's like trying to find a needle in a big pile of needles".

It is just not feasible. But given the fact that the structural properties of the steel used are already well known (including its response to heating), as is the design of the construction itself, it would also be very pointless. Even if you had the exact pieces, you'd still have to employ some sort of computer model to get at the failure sequence anyway and we'd be back to you lot using the 'model schmodel' argument.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k 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 20th June 2009, 05:10 AM   #84
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think what you are saying would be the responsibility of statutory investigators. How can you imply that the NIST shouldn't have questioned why they got so little steel? I know I would have been asking where the physical pieces were if I were asked to do this type of investigation.
.
Tony,

You bring up a good point: how many investigations like this have you done?

FEMA & the engineers that they contracted have done hundreds. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that, as a result of their experience, they knew what they were doing.

Perhaps you ought to read what they wrote, where they explained the how & why, & try to understand their logic.

Just a thought...

tom
tfk 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 20th June 2009, 07:23 AM   #85
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
.
Tony,

You bring up a good point: how many investigations like this have you done?

FEMA & the engineers that they contracted have done hundreds. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that, as a result of their experience, they knew what they were doing.

Perhaps you ought to read what they wrote, where they explained the how & why, & try to understand their logic.

Just a thought...

tom
I have been involved in a large number of structural failure investigations of mechanical items. In every case the physical evidence was preserved.

I have read the FEMA report. In Appendix C they urged fruther investigation due to finding eutectic melting that they felt could have occurred prior to collapse. The NIST did not further that investigation. One reason would have been that they were not given the steel.
Tony Szamboti 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 20th June 2009, 07:26 AM   #86
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Try stopping and thinking about that one for a second. You have a big pile of smouldering rubble containing God-knows how much twisted and broken metal from both towers. The thing took months to clean up after the fact and you're expecting to be able to find the original bits of steel that were damaged by the aircraft impacts and/or weakened by the fires? How would one go about doing that? To borrow a phrase from Saving Private Ryan, "it's like trying to find a needle in a big pile of needles".

It is just not feasible. But given the fact that the structural properties of the steel used are already well known (including its response to heating), as is the design of the construction itself, it would also be very pointless. Even if you had the exact pieces, you'd still have to employ some sort of computer model to get at the failure sequence anyway and we'd be back to you lot using the 'model schmodel' argument.
Most engineers would disagree and say it was feasible to save the structural steel, at the very least from the fire affected areas, and that each structural element's location in the building was determinable due to markings on the steel and the fact that wall thickness was greater as the towers descended.

Are you an engineer? If so, what discipline?

If you aren't an engineer, you might be surprised what a knowledgeable person could ascertain from a physical examination of a failed item.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 20th June 2009 at 08:21 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 20th June 2009, 08:23 AM   #87
J. Wellington Wimpy
Critical Thinker
 
J. Wellington Wimpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
A team of scientists found nano-thermite in the WTC dust.
Incorrect. A claim -- as yet unsupported, sans independent verification -- of having "found nano-thermite" has been advanced. The mere existence of said claim, however, does not elevate it, instantaneously and miraculously, to the status of demonstrable fact, even if proffered by "scientists." (SEE: Velikovsky, Lysenko.)

You're welcome.
__________________
"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science."
-- Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh

"I have a doctorate and I can KICK YOUR ASS!!!"
-- Harley Quinn, Batman #663
J. Wellington Wimpy 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 20th June 2009, 09:14 AM   #88
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
This is getting quite OT, while the subjects are perfectly valid.

Here are a few links to documents you can buy or view regarding steel analysis done by NIST and others:

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...re%20Modes.pdf

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCST...3C%20Appxs.pdf

Assessment of structural steel from the World Trade Center towers, part IV: Experimental techniques to assess possible exposure to high-temperature excursions

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...2/fulltext.pdf


http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_cart.as...1765&DID=51417

You also already appear to have the answer to the question - 'The NIST did not further that investigation. One reason would have been that they were not given the steel.'

It seems there were other more direct explanations for the collapses, and the small examples of sulphidation were not particularly relevant to improving building safety.
It seems a tad mean-spirited to dismiss the colossal efforts which went into the NIST reports and act as though some marginalia are the key to the whole story.

This seems to be a form of grasping at straws, rather than serious inquiry, IMHO.

It's also off-topic to this thread.
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'

Last edited by alienentity; 20th June 2009 at 09:19 AM.
alienentity 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 20th June 2009, 10:04 AM   #89
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have been involved in a large number of structural failure investigations of mechanical items. In every case the physical evidence was preserved.

I have read the FEMA report. In Appendix C they urged fruther investigation due to finding eutectic melting that they felt could have occurred prior to collapse. The NIST did not further that investigation. One reason would have been that they were not given the steel.
But like Harrit you make up lies about 911 and have zero expertise in large highrise buildings. You love concpraicy theories from JFK to 911 and make up dumb ideas based on nothing but your failed opinions.

You just post bs and make up things like this
Quote:
An ignition system for the thermite used in the collapse initiation could have used a small fireproof box, with the ignitor in it and a lead of thermite coming out of it to ignite the remainder.
You make up junk ideas to explain your delusion. This is anohter stupid idea which matches the idiotic claims of Harrit. If you were an engineer with skills you would not be makign up lies about 911.

You wave your hands spew dumb statements use the title of engineer and then write down BS.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the perpetrators of 911 weren't completely incompetent and it would appear from the aircraft impacts being used that they built in a level of plausibility to keep down the scrutiny. So there isn't any one glaring thing to point at and show it was completely impossible to occur naturally. although one could argue that the collapse of WTC 7 fits this bill.

The cumulative argument does show that natural collapse scenarios for both the towers and WTC 7 are completely impossible, although there are some points in it that are stronger than others.
You make it up exactly like Harrit does. If you did not make it up you would have hundreds and thousands of pages of calculations to support your ideas on 911. But you repeat the same old opinions, hearsay, and delusions based on zero evidence, no calculations and failed opinions. Read you own papers they are nonsense. Harrit does the same he talks and makes up claims about 911, produces zero evidence and no logical support.
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 20th June 2009, 12:59 PM   #90
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have been involved in a large number of structural failure investigations of mechanical items. In every case the physical evidence was preserved.
What were those mechanical items? How big were they?

Originally Posted by TS
I have read the FEMA report. In Appendix C they urged fruther investigation due to finding eutectic melting that they felt could have occurred prior to collapse. The NIST did not further that investigation. One reason would have been that they were not given the steel.
Do NIST mention the pieces in question? Do you know they did not have these pieces?

One piece FEMA categorically state was attacked while in the pile.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 20th June 2009, 01:18 PM   #91
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Funny as heck when Robertson comments on your failed ideas. I guess this is why not a single Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice member is a high-rise structural engineer. Not a single members able to model the WTC correctly. A perfect record.

Many studies have been done by people on the WTC collapse. You joined a paranoid group of failed engineers can't model anything more than failed conclusions. If you need a pathetic idea just go to any of your fellow Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice members and you find a full dose of stupid ideas about controlled demolition, thousands and thousands of ceiling tiles remotely set off in the WTC to cause the collapse. What crackpot ideas will be the next smoking or loaded, or misfired gun from Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice the club of moronic conclusions only those who lack knowledge and the ability to think for themselves fall for.

You wave your hands real hard and spew crap and state without evidneceA virtual comedy show for engineers put on by you and Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice. You guys can't figure out 911 in 7 years. When will you produce the Never.
Your problem is you don't have a conspiracy theory you don't like; JFK and 911 without even trying to use your engineering skills to save you from the woo.

The poor thread is about the nut case ideas of Niels Harrit and I can see how he has suspended rational thought and spews lies, hearsay, and delusions like the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice do.

Niels Harrit lies and your Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice are short on evidence. Unless there is a Pulitzer for nut case ideas on 911 you guys are short a Pulitzer Prize and your "loaded gun" theory (isn't a loaded gun going back-wards?) is just your Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice next delusion to keep your failed movement alive to join other fantasy movements like UFOs, and Bigfoot. At least there are plenty of dirt-dumb neoNAZIs to keep your failed ideas alive in paranoid biased and bigoted minds all over the world. It seems like weak apologies for the 19 terrorist as you and Harrit try to manufacture evidence that is really hearsay, lies and delusions to fool people who refuse to think for themselves.
Edited by Lisa Simpson:  Edited to remove personal remarks.


Mod WarningPlease keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use personal attacks to argue your point.
Posted By:Lisa Simpson

Last edited by Lisa Simpson; 20th June 2009 at 07:36 PM.
Galileo 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 20th June 2009, 02:02 PM   #92
FineWine
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Do you ever take a break, or is defending mass murder a daily ritual for you?


He doesn't defend the Islamist terrorists. YOU DO. Have you forgotten?
FineWine 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 20th June 2009, 02:09 PM   #93
Galileo
Illuminator
 
Galileo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,368
Originally Posted by FineWine View Post
He doesn't defend the Islamist terrorists. YOU DO. Have you forgotten?
No, I oppose mass murder, as does Dr. Niels Harrit.

If you are wondering how people in the 9/11 conspiracy can keep a secret, look no farther than this forum, where we have hundreds of people willing to defend mass murder.

Galileo 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 20th June 2009, 02:18 PM   #94
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
Do you ever take a break, or is defending mass murder a daily ritual for you?
You are defending murderers from OJ to 19 terrorists you love to ignore evidence and repeat the lies and idiotic statements on 911.

Have you read reflections on the WTC by Robertson? If Harrit understood structural engineering or any engineering principles he would not be an idiot on 911 issues. You sure can pick the dolts to support on 911; is that a special skill?
http://www.nae.edu/cms/Publications/...ives/7344.aspx

You lie about 911 and apologize for murderers and failed to figure out 911. Do you ever take a break from posting dirt dumb ideas on 911?

You and the dolt Harrit support terrorists by making up lies and spreading them. Your claim to be the Galileo dovetails with your delusions on 911. You left out your evidence to defend the moronic ideas of Harrit; why? Because you are 100 percent evidence free.
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 20th June 2009, 05:42 PM   #95
FineWine
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,070
Originally Posted by Galileo View Post
No, I oppose mass murder, as does Dr. Niels Harrit.

If you are wondering how people in the 9/11 conspiracy can keep a secret, look no farther than this forum, where we have hundreds of people willing to defend mass murder.



Your lack of intelligence does not excuse your inability to tell right from wrong. Your insane movement has failed to produce anything at all that supports its stupid myths. Your attempt to lynch innocent people, while absolving murderous barbarians of all wrongdoing, stamps you as far worse than a mere fool. You believe your nonsense because it makes you happy, for sick reasons. That is not a good way to conduct a human life, which should follow the dictates of reason. The real Galileo would not be proud.
FineWine 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 20th June 2009, 08:11 PM   #96
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
What were those mechanical items? How big were they?
The largest item I was ever involved in an analysis of was a forty ton broadcast antenna. Failure analysis of structural items is not dependent on size. What makes you think it is?

Quote:
Do NIST mention the pieces in question? Do you know they did not have these pieces?
NIST does not mention these pieces in their report. I want to know why they did not do the further research recommended by FEMA.

Quote:
One piece FEMA categorically state was attacked while in the pile.
You need to reread FEMA's Appendix C where they say the eutectic melting found in that piece could have occurred prior to collapse and recommended further research, which was never done.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 20th June 2009 at 08:31 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 21st June 2009, 07:36 AM   #97
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
This is exactly the sort of discussion I didn't originally want to get drawn into; arguing the toss about what would constitute a 'real' forensic examination of the WTC collapses.

Bottom line is that, to repeat my earlier point, the investigation took place and Harrit was lying when he said it didn't. All the efforts of truthers to pick holes in it doesn't change the fact that it happened. The crux of the truther argument is as follows:

1) A 'real' investigation would have revealed that the combination of impact and fire damaged shouldn't have caused a global collapse.
2) A 'real' investigation would have revealed the use of explosives.

And I'm sorry, but neither of which I am anywhere close to being convinced by, for all the reasons I've already stated.

It's worth mentioning that while most truthers will try to argue both points, some I've heard try to argue one and not the other and then you get into all kinds of daftness ("the explosives were there just in case the fire didn't work" or "if the fire couldn't have done it, it must have been the government, I don't care how").
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k 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 21st June 2009, 10:15 AM   #98
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The largest item I was ever involved in an analysis of was a forty ton broadcast antenna. Failure analysis of structural items is not dependent on size. What makes you think it is?
So, no skyscrapers then?

Originally Posted by TS
NIST does not mention these pieces in their report. I want to know why they did not do the further research recommended by FEMA.
Oh yes they do. Try again.

Originally Posted by TS
You need to reread FEMA's Appendix C where they say the eutectic melting found in that piece could have occurred prior to collapse and recommended further research, which was never done.
You need to read it again. One piece was definitely in the pile. The other they could not be sure. You do know there were two pieces?

Epic fail again.

Do you know what eutectic is Tony?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.

Last edited by funk de fino; 21st June 2009 at 10:16 AM.
funk de fino 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 21st June 2009, 10:39 AM   #99
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by funk de fino View Post
So, no skyscrapers then?



Oh yes they do. Try again.



You need to read it again. One piece was definitely in the pile. The other they could not be sure. You do know there were two pieces?

Epic fail again.

Do you know what eutectic is Tony?
I didn't have to do failure analysis on skyscrapers specifically to understand material science, mechanics, stress analysis, dynamics, and heat transfer. All of which would be used in any failure analysis of the structures of these buildings. This type of analysis is not dependent on the exact item involved.

A eutectic is the lowest melting point of an alloy and depends on a specific percentage of an alloying element. For example tin lead solder is a eutectic at 63% tin and 37% lead. If the amount of lead is increased or decreased from 37% the melting temperature will increase.

Both pieces were found in the piles. What is the issue there? What is of interest is the comment that the eutectic melting could have occurred prior to collapse. While you claim that the NIST discusses these two pieces in their report you do not provide a link or reference. I haven't seen it mentioned in the NIST reports on either the towers or WTC 7.

Oh, I also want to tell you Mr. Funk that I don't appreciate your nastiness and saying things like I am clueless and the like, which I have seen you say about me on other threads here while providing no basis. I have seen you do nothing more than make automatic contrary comments to any suggestion that the twin towers and WTC 7 were controlled demolitions and you generally provide no basis for your comments, showing you to be generally unworthy of replies to your simple minded denial. I was reluctant to respond to you here and will not do so again.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 21st June 2009 at 10:46 AM.
Tony Szamboti 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 21st June 2009, 11:11 AM   #100
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The largest item I was ever involved in an analysis of was a forty ton broadcast antenna. Failure analysis of structural items is not dependent on size. What makes you think it is?



NIST does not mention these pieces in their report. I want to know why they did not do the further research recommended by FEMA.



You need to reread FEMA's Appendix C where they say the eutectic melting found in that piece could have occurred prior to collapse and recommended further research, which was never done.
Tony, very quickly (this is still OT to the thread), the topic of the eutectic erosion is very interesting, no question. I've done a fair amount of reading on it myself. But presuming you are attempting to argue that a new *improved* investigation is called for, you still have not established, nor do I think you will be able to, that these two or three pieces invalidate the rest of the FEMA and NIST investigations.

Since there is already a well-established, scientifically supported mechanism that explains all the collapses, you would have to first:

1) successfully argue that this model is sufficient or is incorrect (not just argue on the internet, but to the engineering establishment, for example)
2) demonstrate how your alternative model is superior.

I'm not an engineer, but based on my reading, I think the chances of you establishing the explosive demolition case are virtually zero - if made to truly knowledgeable audiences.

Even worse, IMHO, the CD conspiracy community isn't even close, after some 7 years, to identifying the perpetrators of the alleged crime, let alone a plausible scenario for how such a crime would have been accomplished. Again, the chances of succeeding in this quest diminish with every passing year for a number of reasons.

Harrit et al. are arguing for thermite, which does not require sulphur, yet the eutectics clearly involved FeS. So even if the chip argument is under discussion, it actually argues AGAINST thermate.

You can't have it both ways. No one can and expect to stand up to scientific scrutiny for long.

must go
bye
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 21st June 2009, 01:17 PM   #101
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I didn't have to do failure analysis on skyscrapers specifically to understand material science, mechanics, stress analysis, dynamics, and heat transfer. All of which would be used in any failure analysis of the structures of these buildings. This type of analysis is not dependent on the exact item involved.
Yet your papers and postings show you do not undertsand.

Originally Posted by TS
A eutectic is the lowest melting point of an alloy and depends on a specific percentage of an alloying element. For example tin lead solder is a eutectic at 63% tin and 37% lead. If the amount of lead is increased or decreased from 37% the melting temperature will increase.
Good. Internet is great eh? And how does the alloy melting point line up with the two elements that make up the alloy? Raise or lower?


Originally Posted by TS
Both pieces were found in the piles. What is the issue there? What is of interest is the comment that the eutectic melting could have occurred prior to collapse. While you claim that the NIST discusses these two pieces in their report you do not provide a link or reference. I haven't seen it mentioned in the NIST reports on either the towers or WTC 7.
One from WTC7 and one from WTC1/2. One was attacked in the pile according to the report. FEMA were unable to ascertain where the other piece was attacked but said it could have happened prior to collapse. You have quite dishonestly tried to portray another scenario.

NIST discuss at least one of the pieces in the report. You fail. If you cannot find it it is not my fault.


Originally Posted by TS
Oh, I also want to tell you Mr. Funk that I don't appreciate your nastiness and saying things like I am clueless and the like, which I have seen you say about me on other threads here while providing no basis. I have seen you do nothing more than make automatic contrary comments to any suggestion that the twin towers and WTC 7 were controlled demolitions and you generally provide no basis for your comments, showing you to be generally unworthy of replies to your simple minded denial. I was reluctant to respond to you here and will not do so again.
I do not care what you think of my posts. If you provided one reasonable piece of evidence and proved you knew what you were talking about people would take you seriously. Unfortunately you are no different to no planers or fly over numpties. I guess you are running away now you have made a fool of yourself about these pieces of steel?
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 21st June 2009, 01:45 PM   #102
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post

Harrit et al. are arguing for thermite, which does not require sulphur, yet the eutectics clearly involved FeS. So even if the chip argument is under discussion, it actually argues AGAINST thermate.
Is it possible to put this in laymens terms?
Edx 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 21st June 2009, 02:05 PM   #103
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Is it possible to put this in laymens terms?
My take on the whole thing goes like this: (people feel free to correct me if I've got something wrong here)

Crackpot scientist (Jones) gets some WTC dust and looks at it under an electron microscope. Finds some iron particles. Claims it's total proof that thermite was used to demolish the towers, in spite of the fact that thermite isn't used in demolition.

Someone points out the iron particles could have come from anywhwere.

Crackpot scientist finds sulphur as well. Claims it is incontrovertible smoking-gun proof that it was thermate, a variant of thermite that has sulphur in it to promote the melting of iron.

Someone points out that drywall contains lots of sulphur as well.

Crackpot scientist focuses his attention to some red chips in the samples, finding all kind of weird and wonderful results that are consistent with super-nano-thermite, a largely hypothetical substance (i.e. insert properties as appropriate) that is completely consistent with everything he's seeing. Mainly because he making most of it up as he goes along.

Someone points out that he is looking at paint.

And so on and so forth. Who knows what he'll see next and what mysterious version of thermite he'll need to explain it? The completely comical thing is if you try doing the sums on exactly how much thermite of any flavour you'd need to cut through the steel beams in question things get silly, never mind the fact that they would only cut vertically downwards.

ETA: Just before a truther thinks of jumping down my throat for not using the correct terminology, I'm well aware of it, thankyou. It's called sarcasm.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Spud1k; 21st June 2009 at 02:07 PM.
Spud1k 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 21st June 2009, 04:19 PM   #104
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by alienentity View Post
Tony, very quickly (this is still OT to the thread), the topic of the eutectic erosion is very interesting, no question. I've done a fair amount of reading on it myself. But presuming you are attempting to argue that a new *improved* investigation is called for, you still have not established, nor do I think you will be able to, that these two or three pieces invalidate the rest of the FEMA and NIST investigations.

Since there is already a well-established, scientifically supported mechanism that explains all the collapses, you would have to first:

1) successfully argue that this model is sufficient or is incorrect (not just argue on the internet, but to the engineering establishment, for example)
2) demonstrate how your alternative model is superior.

I'm not an engineer, but based on my reading, I think the chances of you establishing the explosive demolition case are virtually zero - if made to truly knowledgeable audiences.
The Missing Jolt shows the NIST/Bazant hypothesis doesn't work and the proven 100 foot or eight story freefall of WTC 7 is not possible without controlled demolition. So in all three cases there is no well-established scientifically supported mechanism for natural collapse, no matter how many times you want to simply say there is.

It seems that the only reason 911 is not being re-investigated is political, not because of a lack of scientific evidence showing it could not have occurred the way the present official story claims it did.

Quote:
Even worse, IMHO, the CD conspiracy community isn't even close, after some 7 years, to identifying the perpetrators of the alleged crime, let alone a plausible scenario for how such a crime would have been accomplished. Again, the chances of succeeding in this quest diminish with every passing year for a number of reasons.
This isn't true at all. There are a number of people who have been identified as person's of interest. However, only an official investigation can subpoena witnesses, compel honest testimony under penalty of perjury, and grant indictments.

Quote:
Harrit et al. are arguing for thermite, which does not require sulphur, yet the eutectics clearly involved FeS. So even if the chip argument is under discussion, it actually argues AGAINST thermate.

You can't have it both ways. No one can and expect to stand up to scientific scrutiny for long.
This isn't true either. Why couldn't thermate have been used to weaken joints in the initiations to eliminate noise from explosives and with a lower melting temperature which possibly could be explained by fire, and then nano-thermite as a tailorable low noise explosive used to continue the propagation reliably afterward?

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 21st June 2009 at 04:42 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 21st June 2009, 06:14 PM   #105
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
Harrit doesn't exactly help the thermite case, and I'm hard pressed to see why thermite/nano-thermite/bombasticthermite/atomic thermite/Hannitythermite/idontcarewhatnameitisthermite. The entire case -- regardless of where that argument comes seems to rest solely on either sheer ignorance of collapse dynamics, or a distorted premise that throws conventional considerations for why structural failure happens in the first place out the window...

Also TS, there is -- actually a well established mechanism for collapse; structural failure. The challenge for CD advocates it seems, deals with the absence of any considerations in asking how the design affects all of the dynamics involved. The CD scenario is little more than a distraction from legitimate building safety concerns, and it'll remain that way.
__________________
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 21st June 2009, 06:20 PM   #106
Tony Szamboti
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,965
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post
Harrit doesn't exactly help the thermite case, and I'm hard pressed to see why thermite/nano-thermite/bombasticthermite/atomic thermite/Hannitythermite/idontcarewhatnameitisthermite. The entire case -- regardless of where that argument comes seems to rest solely on either sheer ignorance of collapse dynamics, or a distorted premise that throws conventional considerations for why structural failure happens in the first place out the window...

Also TS, there is -- actually a well established mechanism for collapse; structural failure. The challenge for CD advocates it seems, deals with the absence of any considerations in asking how the design affects all of the dynamics involved. The CD scenario is little more than a distraction from legitimate building safety concerns, and it'll remain that way.
Griz, maybe you can explain the collapse dynamics for how a natural collapse of WTC 1 could ensue without any deceleration being involved. I don't know of a way it could happen, certainly with the massive and self braced central core.

Maybe you can also explain how WTC 7 could have had a 2.25 second freefall through 100 feet or eight stories just after it starts falling, without being a controlled demolition.

Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 21st June 2009 at 06:25 PM.
Tony Szamboti 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 21st June 2009, 07:15 PM   #107
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,769
I'd be at a loss too if I had to explain something which ultimately didn't happen. Whether or not that cataclysmic jolt you're looking for was ever supposed to happen you're implication that the entire collapse involved the total absence of any form deceleration leaves me rather speechless. Curiously since I've seen you remark on that before; the collapse times are a dead ringer that renders such an assertion incorrect. On the matter of 7; probably for much the same reason as 7 initiated at the bottom as the twins initiated near the top. The collapse was already well underway internally before the exterior showed visible signs of distress.

Nothing I've seen in any of the collapses requires controlled demolition of any sort to explain. If progressive failures have led to partial collapses then there's plenty of reason to determine that under certain circumstances it could lead to a complete loss of integrity.
__________________

Last edited by Grizzly Bear; 21st June 2009 at 07:19 PM.
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 21st June 2009, 10:01 PM   #108
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The Missing Jolt shows the NIST/Bazant hypothesis doesn't work and the proven 100 foot or eight story freefall of WTC 7 is not possible without controlled demolition. So in all three cases there is no well-established scientifically supported mechanism for natural collapse, no matter how many times you want to simply say there is.
Tony, I'm not going to get into the missing jolt red herring again. Tell you what - if your alternative hypothesis gains no traction with the community of structural engineers, you've failed. It's not in my hands, nor is it meaningful to convince me of anything - you MUST convince enough qualified structural engineers, because that's who you need on your side.
Get onto engineering forums, hash it out with those who possess greater experience and knowledge than yourself, and accept their opinions.
That's the smart thing to do.

Quote:
It seems that the only reason 911 is not being re-investigated is political, not because of a lack of scientific evidence showing it could not have occurred the way the present official story claims it did.
That is just whining because your ideas are simply too weak and foolish to gain traction in the world outside your 9/11 truth cult.

Tony, in the year 2019, you will still be twisting in the wind on this fool's quest, should you not abandon it thru common sense. I will have moved onto something more productive than discussing this nonsense, which ultimately aims to absolve the actual terrorists who attacked your country.
If you ultimately lack the wisdom to abandon your current efforts, don't blame it on people like me. We've tried to warn you, to advise you and to temper your delusions.



Quote:
This isn't true at all. There are a number of people who have been identified as person's of interest. However, only an official investigation can subpoena witnesses, compel honest testimony under penalty of perjury, and grant indictments.
Just in case you actually believe what you just wrote, need I point out that any 'official' investigation must come from the government, which you believe is 'in' on the crime. If it were true that there was a vast conspiracy to the highest levels of your executive branch and military, then no such investigation would ever be permitted.
If it is NOT true, then no such investigation SHOULD be permitted, as there are clearly no grounds to do so.

Either way, you're screwed. Your efforts are utterly futile.



Quote:
This isn't true either. Why couldn't thermate have been used to weaken joints in the initiations to eliminate noise from explosives and with a lower melting temperature which possibly could be explained by fire, and then nano-thermite as a tailorable low noise explosive used to continue the propagation reliably afterward?
I can't believe you actually write things like this in seriousness. You excuse every weakness in your own arguments, to what avail? To show that a weak-minded approach somehow prevails over solid science and investigation?
This is simply grasping at straws to salvage your belief system; if anyone WERE to take it seriously, I would really be worried.

If you need to trash every major piece of the NIST investigation in order to justify your thesis, maybe your idea is just really, really bad. Please consider this possibility seriously. People are laughing at you, and for good reason.

Just one small example of the foolish ideas I'm seeing tonight is your phrase 'nano-thermite as a tailorable low noise explosive'. I challenge you to find an example of such material - beyond speculation and rumor. And I would require, as proof, what the precise chemical composition of this material was, not just a hypothetical list, but an actual list which could be tested for in detail.
You then would need to find or create this nano-thermite, demonstrate thru direct testing that it can in fact act as proposed against structural steel.

You would then need to go back to the documentation of the steel from WTC7 and show the direct evidence of its use on that steel.

That's a minimum of proof you would need, IMHO, to be serious about this. Until then, these ideas are merely hypothetical, unproven and not real. You can't just make things up and expect to be taken seriously - you do realize this I hope?
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!'
000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.'
mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon'
alienentity 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 22nd June 2009, 12:19 AM   #109
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
This isn't true at all. There are a number of people who have been identified as person's of interest. However, only an official investigation can subpoena witnesses, compel honest testimony under penalty of perjury, and grant indictments.
Its posts like this that show you are clueless.

People who were involved in the deaths of 3000 whether directly or in a cover up will suddenly spill the beans becuase they are under oath?

You are not in the real world Tony.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 22nd June 2009, 12:30 AM   #110
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
 
funk de fino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UAE
Posts: 11,938
Tony

NISTNCSTAR1-3CChaps, page 229 to 233

Admit your false claims.
__________________

Stundie - Avoided like the plaque, its a scottish turn of phrase.
funk de fino 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 22nd June 2009, 12:38 AM   #111
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,814
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Griz, maybe you can explain the collapse dynamics for how a natural collapse of WTC 1 could ensue without any deceleration being involved. I don't know of a way it could happen, certainly with the massive and self braced central core.

Maybe you can also explain how WTC 7 could have had a 2.25 second freefall through 100 feet or eight stories just after it starts falling, without being a controlled demolition.
You left out the fact the penthouse fell seconds before inside the building. Free-fall; the entire building took more than 15 seconds to fall. You have to take the time the Penthouse fell in. You are a conspiracy minded person who ignores reality and makes up lies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6GM...om=PL&index=34

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


What was the entire collapse time. You have no clue. Where did the Penthouse go? When? You lie to try and spread your delusions. You don't use engineering skills to form your failed 911 delusions.

Last edited by beachnut; 22nd June 2009 at 12:40 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 22nd June 2009, 05:18 AM   #112
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Certainly the steel from the fire affected areas in the towers should have been saved to at least determine how the collapses initiated and propagated for at least the first several floors.

It would be about 4000 to 5000 tons of steel per tower and could be stored in the space of a football field.

The steel could have been removed immediately for search and rescue and saved at a remote site.

Computer modeling is a good tool but it cannot take the place of actual physical evidence if it is available. I use solid modeling and finite element software in my work everyday, but I wouldn't dream of just modeling something based on exterior photos for a failure analysis, without examining the physical evidence and determining a sequence of failure from it. Once that is done a computer model is a good tool to replicate the failure.

What is problematic here is that there was no good reason the physical evidence from at least the fire affected areas couldn't have been provided to the NIST investigators.
It's a real shame that you weren't in charge and got the job done right.
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 22nd June 2009, 05:23 AM   #113
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I have been involved in a large number of structural failure investigations of mechanical items. In every case the physical evidence was preserved.

I have read the FEMA report. In Appendix C they urged fruther investigation due to finding eutectic melting that they felt could have occurred prior to collapse. The NIST did not further that investigation. One reason would have been that they were not given the steel.
You still have the broken crankshaft?
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 22nd June 2009, 05:33 AM   #114
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
I think what you are saying would be the responsibility of statutory investigators. How can you imply that the NIST shouldn't have questioned why they got so little steel? I know I would have been asking where the physical pieces were if I were asked to do this type of investigation.
But you were not asked. Is that what's burning your bloomers?
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 22nd June 2009, 05:42 AM   #115
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Most engineers would disagree and say it was feasible to save the structural steel, at the very least from the fire affected areas, and that each structural element's location in the building was determinable due to markings on the steel and the fact that wall thickness was greater as the towers descended.

Are you an engineer? If so, what discipline?

If you aren't an engineer, you might be surprised what a knowledgeable person could ascertain from a physical examination of a failed item.
yyy

Last edited by tsig; 22nd June 2009 at 05:49 AM. Reason: commom sense
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 22nd June 2009, 11:47 AM   #116
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Tony,

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Are you an engineer? If so, what discipline?
.
Yeah Tony, I am.
BS, Mechanical, Cornell '74.
30+ years. Project engineer. New Product design engineer.
Dozens of my designs have made it to the marketplace.
They've also made it to the bottom of the Marianas Trench & to Jupiter. And into a couple hundred thousand human hearts & bodies.
5 years now, a CTO.
So, I've been around the block.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
If you aren't an engineer, you might be surprised what a knowledgeable person could ascertain from a physical examination of a failed item.
.
I've personally performed several failure analyses. Usually in-house reports. Occasionally formal external reports to groups like Boeing & NASA (for parts on the Space Shuttle) & the FDA (for medical devices).

Now, how about a quick bio of yours.

Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
Most engineers would disagree and say it was feasible to save the structural steel, at the very least from the fire affected areas ...
The total amount of steel from the collapsed buildings was certainly greater than that in any existing building in the world. It was clearly NOT feasible to save "the" steel. It was clearly feasible to save "samples of the steel". That's exactly what they did.

The first, absolutely correct thing that they did was to LIST THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS that they wanted to answer. One of those questions was NOT "what was the 'primary cause' of the collapse?" Everyone saw what was the primary cause. A friggin' jetliner flew into the side of the building. Every competent engineer in the world understood immediately that the buildings collapsed due to damage & fire.

They did not understand what were the exact mechanism(s) of the collapse. So they wanted to find that out. Note that this was NOT, per se, a particularly important question with respect to either the events of 9/11 or subsequent US political history. For two reasons:

1. It is NOT possible to make office buildings sturdy enough to withstand jet impacts.**
2. It is NOT feasible to retrofit existing office buildings in any way to PREVENT collapse from jet impacts.

[** As a sidebar, this fact puts a giant question mark behind the claim that the towers were built to withstand jet impacts.]

As proof that it is not particularly important question, tell me what difference it would make if the specific failure modes had been something different, such as the original "pancaking floors" theory. Would that have saved lives on 9/11? Nope. Would it have changed subsequent US history? Nope.

That question BECOMES important only when the correct answer is required to make future buildings safer with respect to fires, occupant evacuation, etc. And Twoofers, demonstrating their true gravitas, could not care less about that issue.

So SEoNY & FEMA put together a serious plan to answer their serious questions. And they tailored their sampling plan to answer those questions. Those specific questions are clearly identified in the NIST report.

Now, the Conspiracy Theorists (and perhaps you) LATER came up with a new question. A frivolous one that no competent engineer debates: "After the plane crash, were those buildings blown up? In the midst of tens of thousands of eye witnesses. And millions watching events live, on TV?"

I concede to you the possibility that they MIGHT HAVE changed their sampling plan if any brain-dead person had forced them to consider this lunacy. I do NOT concede to you the possibility that the sampling that they did was inadequate (when combined with all the other available evidence) to answer that question with a resounding "Hell, no".

You state:
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
... each structural element's location in the building was determinable due to markings on the steel and the fact that wall thickness was greater as the towers descended.
AFAIK, this applied to ONLY SOME of the peripheral & core columns. (All were marked. Not all were legible.) Not to any other components. Do you know differently?

Now, I'll go back and ask my original question again. With some elaboration.

Noting that the guys that did this analysis are amongst the world's experts in forensic analysis of large building failures...

1. Do you have expertise in THIS SPECIFIC area? (Please give me more details than your generic statement. Type of equipment and your personal role in a couple of those investigations.)

2. Do you feel that your expertise would allow you to point out factors & effects about which those who were asked to participate in the analyses were not aware?

And one last question. One that I had to learn the hard way a long time ago ...

3. Have you been around the block enough to understand the extreme risks in arrogantly second-guessing proven, veteran experts in their own field of expertise?

Those risks are usually just personal humiliation. Occasionally, they can be much, much worse.

Which clearly explains why Richard Gage & Steven Jones love to pitch their woo only to adoring college kids & CT conventioneers. I've heard both of their presentations, when they attempted to wax knowledgeable regarding mechanical engineering. It was a joke, Tony. Utterly painful. Neither Gage nor Jones knows squat about mechanical engineering. You apparently know one or both personally. You have my permission (actually, my encouragement) to relay that message.

That humiliation factor also explains why neither one (nor you, I suspect) will venture within a country mile of a failure review board made up of a bunch of old-fart, hard ass, take no prisoners, "I don't give a rat's ass about your self-esteem, junior", REAL engineers.

Of course, that's just my guess...

tom
tfk 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 22nd June 2009, 12:13 PM   #117
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post
The Missing Jolt shows the NIST/Bazant hypothesis doesn't work and the proven 100 foot or eight story freefall of WTC 7 is not possible without controlled demolition.
.
Well, here's an opportunity to give this premise a boost, Tony.

You claim that there ought to be a measurable jolt when each floor gets "dismantled".

There are numerous videos of CDs on the internet.

Here's one: the Landmark Towers in Dallas (IIRC), from two directions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4w_AG2f8Lw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqoqISrfR1E

In this case, the support columns were chopped at the base. But 99% of the supports (above that point) were still intact.

The energy required to dismantle each floor does not depend on whether that floor is above or below the support cuts.

From a conservation of momentum perspective, your "jolt" ought to be getting BIGGER, i.e., more measurable, in the Landmark Towers case, because the falling mass is getting smaller.

Why don't you take this video & apply your analysis & show us the jolts that you claim ought to be here.

Unless, of course, you intend on claiming that this building was CD'd using silent nano-thermite on each floor...

Tom
tfk 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 22nd June 2009, 08:38 PM   #118
Seymour Butz
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 869
Originally Posted by Tony Szamboti View Post

and then nano-thermite as a tailorable low noise explosive used to continue the propagation reliably afterward?

This is the stupidest statement yet. You really have no idea how linear shaped charges work, do you?

It ain't the "bang" that does the cutting, it's the hot jet of copper that does the job. This allows for less explosive, and hence, less noise than relying on a brute force explosion to do the cutting. Safer too, cuz crap wouldn't be flying in all directions. And thus less noticeable to onlookers and those with video cameras.

What you're saying is that rather than using something that's already engineered to do the job as quietly as possible, it's possible that the NWO used a brute force type of implosion of the structure.

This goes beyond stupid, it's pathological. And goes against the very reason of WHY any theory about using said nanoo nanoo thermxte would be used in the first place under the insane theories of the Bowel Movement that you are such a proud member of. A "brute force" controlled demo would be LOUDER than using lsc's.

Unless you're implying that rather than use an already in use and highly engineered product, that "they" used nanoo nanoo thermxte to replace the conventional explosive...... which incidentally, would be just as loud.

You are a perfect example of a non-thinker within the BM. Why replace conventional explosives with n-n-t, when the bang will end up being the same?

It can't be cuz it'll remain hidden. Troofers claim that they didn't look anyways, so don't retreat to that ridiculous position.

Try to make sense with your answer.
Seymour Butz 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 22nd June 2009, 10:51 PM   #119
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Laughing at the return of the "low noise explosive" nonsense.

Geez, guys, it didn't work the last 900 times. Think it'll work this time? Put your inquisitive minds to that question, as a warm-up perhaps, before tackling the big questions.
R.Mackey 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 23rd June 2009, 05:51 AM   #120
RedIbis
Philosopher
 
RedIbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,899
Originally Posted by tfk View Post

1. It is NOT possible to make office buildings sturdy enough to withstand jet impacts.**
It's not?
__________________
(RedIbis, on the other hand, exists to me only in quoted form). - Gravy (Mark Roberts)
RedIbis 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 03:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.