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 wtc , william rice , controlled demolition , 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 1st March 2007, 03:37 PM   #1
Arus808
Philosopher
 
Arus808's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,204
Structural Engineer Says Inside Job

http://www.vermontguardian.com/comme...inTowers.shtml

Quote:
Why the towers fell: Two theories

By William Rice, March 1, 2007

William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Of course, he was not there during the investigations
__________________
Back home with a new sunburn...I look like a tomato.

“Life may begin at 30, but it doesn’t get real interesting until about 150.”
“Most motorcycle problems are caused by the nut that connects the handlebars to the saddle.”
Arus808 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 1st March 2007, 03:40 PM   #2
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,275
Originally Posted by Arus808 View Post
http://www.vermontguardian.com/comme...inTowers.shtml



Of course, he was not there during the investigations
Ah Vermont, home of the trustifundian.

ETA: No new information just "Near freefall/freefall, concrete pulverized, molten metal (byproduct of explosives donchakno?) violation of Newton's Law of Conservation of Momentum. (At least he could name it.)
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail

Last edited by 332nd; 1st March 2007 at 03:48 PM.
332nd 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 1st March 2007, 03:44 PM   #3
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
The article is 100% rehashed, long since debunked rubbish.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman 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 1st March 2007, 03:49 PM   #4
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,543
Is this the same William Rice who is Professor Emeritus at Villanova University college of engineering?

Is anyone else thinking about Steven Jones' "retirement" right about now?

__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay 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 1st March 2007, 03:50 PM   #5
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
His academic qualifications are irrelevant if he can't correctly describe the conclusions of the NIST report. His version requires the columns that weren't damaged by the impact to fail due to fire. He fails to make mention of fireproofing being dislodged or of the floor trusses sagging and causing the exterior columns to bow inwards. Also his assumption is that as the collapse progresed the columns of the top block would still line up with those on the bottom - ridiculous.

Last edited by maccy; 1st March 2007 at 03:57 PM.
maccy 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 1st March 2007, 03:54 PM   #6
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Quote:
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse.....If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength.
So why did the exterior columns bend inward prior to collapse?

Oh right - they were gradually relinquishing their structural strength.

Quote:
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
So according to this guy, controlled demolitions violate Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum. Brilliant.

Seems like he's just parroting all the usual twoofer talking points without asking the logical questions, such as: why were the demolition charges so quiet?
CHF 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 1st March 2007, 04:08 PM   #7
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
There are 129,000 registered civil engineers in the US, so there are bound to be a few kooks among them. If 15% of the general population believes the inside job theories and that percentage holds up for the population of qualified experts(actually, if the CD theories held any water, that percentage would likely go way up) - there should be around 19,000 twoofer civil engineers. There are now 3....nuff said
apathoid 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 1st March 2007, 04:11 PM   #8
sleahead
Critical Thinker
 
sleahead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 406
Yes, all old recycled stuff apart from this:

Originally Posted by Engineer Rice
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives)
Molten metal a byproduct of explosives? I've never seen that before.
sleahead 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 1st March 2007, 04:17 PM   #9
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,068
And it's not even true!

There is a report of molten metal under WTC 6.
(Courtesy of 911Myths.)
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan
Firestone 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 1st March 2007, 04:19 PM   #10
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Seems that 911 Conspiracy Smasher may have already noticed this guy back in September:

Quote:
In his letter published Sept. 22 ("Just looking for the facts"), William Rice, P.E. claims that WTC Building #7 had fires on less than 10 percent of two floors and says that the NIST investigation is "not yet complete." That's an odd claim, because NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder, when interviewed by Popular Mechanics, had this to say: "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom – approximately 10 stories – about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."
http://911conspiracysmasher.blogspot...1_archive.html

I can't find the original article, though.
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader 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 1st March 2007, 04:27 PM   #11
TheGrunion
Critical Thinker
 
TheGrunion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 267
I'm a registered civil P.E in three states.

A professional engineering license for civil engineering is not an appropriate credential to demonstrate expertise in structural engineering.

Also, "working on" structural steel buildings could mean a lot of things. He could have been performing subprofessional work (CADD, materials testing, construction inspection, etc.) or he could have been performing site/civil tasks (such as handling the storm run-off coming from the building, or the grading plan of the site where the bulding was constructed).
TheGrunion 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 1st March 2007, 04:30 PM   #12
Orphia Nay
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger
 
Orphia Nay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 36,543
Never mind the fact that his sources are TV programs, how wrong can you get?:

Originally Posted by William Rice
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
The final WTC7 report has not been released yet (it shouldn't be far off, though, AFAIK), but to say there has been no investigation is stupid.
__________________
Challenge your thoughts.
Don't believe everything you think.
Orphia Nay 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 1st March 2007, 04:36 PM   #13
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by maccy View Post
His academic qualifications are irrelevant if he can't correctly describe the conclusions of the NIST report. His version requires the columns that weren't damaged by the impact to fail due to fire. He fails to make mention of fireproofing being dislodged or of the floor trusses sagging and causing the exterior columns to bow inwards. Also his assumption is that as the collapse progresed the columns of the top block would still line up with those on the bottom - ridiculous.
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.

MM
Miragememories 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 1st March 2007, 04:42 PM   #14
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.

MM
please indicate how their assumption that when a Jet Airliner crashed through the WTC it removed a substantial amount of the "spray on" fireproofing is "speculative fantasy" versus a WELL EDUCATED GUESS.

Seems it is much less "Speculative Fantasy" than lets say (1) a never tried before demolition with a never tried before demolition medium (thermite) or (2) Star Wars Beam Weapons.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 1st March 2007, 04:45 PM   #15
maccy
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,094
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.

MM
Given that William Rice doesn't talk about the fireproofing at all, I think it would derail this thread to discuss NIST's assumptions here. There's already a thread that discusses the fireproofing removal here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ad.php?t=73160

I suggest you read that thread and make a post in it, if you still have an argument to make or a question to ask.
maccy 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 1st March 2007, 04:51 PM   #16
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
There are 129,000 registered civil engineers in the US, so there are bound to be a few kooks among them. If 15% of the general population believes the inside job theories and that percentage holds up for the population of qualified experts(actually, if the CD theories held any water, that percentage would likely go way up) - there should be around 19,000 twoofer civil engineers. There are now 3....nuff said
Get off your high horses.

Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.

I can see you folks would take it to a Supreme Court decision if the numbers ever got too close.

Let's face it, your in bed with your beliefs and all the crap you spew about "sho me the proof" is meaningless because when "push comes to shove" you retreat to some lame ass excuse to believe what your commited to believe.

You lose too much face if you validate anything.

The only people worth a little respect here are the rare few who occasionally stray and begrudgingly acknowlege yes that "i" has been dotted.

Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.

MM
Miragememories 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 1st March 2007, 04:58 PM   #17
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.
You make it sound as if you have tons and that we keep raising the bar.

How many experts do you have, MM?

Is it now 2? 3-4 perhaps?

And name one loonie who became an expert.
CHF 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 1st March 2007, 05:00 PM   #18
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
NIST's Puzzling Silence

Quote:
[=Miragememories;2390843]Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.

MM
What a shame that NIST never got around to publishing anything. If they had, you could have read it to learn how the researchers determined how much fireproofing was removed by the impact of the planes (assuming they existed) and how that factor contributed to the collapses.
I'd guess that NIST's refusal to commit any conclusions to print is based on the agency's embarrassment over their reliance on speculation and their avoidance of actual calculations. If it had been up to me, NIST would have published ten thousand pages of analysis, graphs, illustrations, photos, and commentary. I would have made available to the public a list of FAQ and offered, for starters, a 298-page pdf file called NIST NCSTAR 1. But, then, that's just me.
pomeroo 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 1st March 2007, 05:02 PM   #19
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Get off your high horses.

Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.

I can see you folks would take it to a Supreme Court decision if the numbers ever got too close.

Let's face it, your in bed with your beliefs and all the crap you spew about "sho me the proof" is meaningless because when "push comes to shove" you retreat to some lame ass excuse to believe what your commited to believe.

You lose too much face if you validate anything.

The only people worth a little respect here are the rare few who occasionally stray and begrudgingly acknowlege yes that "i" has been dotted.

Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.

MM

Well shut up whining, and get your amazing expert engineer to do a paper refuting the NIST findings and I AM SURE that people here will read it...oh wait, he hasnt written anything on it...oh wait he doesnt even acknowledge it...oh wait, he simply parrots the same 100 or so myths that we have seen 100 times.

William of the 100 myths...that is what we should call him.

TAM
T.A.M. 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 1st March 2007, 05:07 PM   #20
sleahead
Critical Thinker
 
sleahead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 406
Originally Posted by miragememories
Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.
No seismic spikes for explosions at WTC7 = No CD = Debunked.

Next.
sleahead 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 1st March 2007, 05:08 PM   #21
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Royal Failure

Quote:
[=Miragememories;2390876]Get off your high horses.


Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.

MM

I'll admit that the conspiracy liars debunked the conclusions of EVERY demolition expert in the country by ignoring them.

Similarly, the liars debunked the data provided by seismologists, first, by distorting it, and when that ploy was exposed, by ignoring it.

The liars debunked authoritative reports produced by real scientists by distorting them and refusing to address the specific points they made.

Yeah, the forthcoming NIST report on WTC 7 had better be able convince people who won't read it and couldn't understand it if they tried.
pomeroo 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 1st March 2007, 05:11 PM   #22
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
This guy isn't a structural engineer, he's a civil engineer.

-Gumboot
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot 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 1st March 2007, 05:14 PM   #23
CHF
Illuminator
 
CHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,871
He sounds about as reliable an engineering source as Judy Wood.
CHF 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 1st March 2007, 06:16 PM   #24
332nd
Penultimate Amazing
 
332nd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,275
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.
So it's the number of experts that count? Cool, case closed then.
__________________
The poster formerly known as Redtail
332nd 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 1st March 2007, 07:23 PM   #25
JimBenArm
Based on a true story!
 
JimBenArm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 13,092
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Get off your high horses.

Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.

I can see you folks would take it to a Supreme Court decision if the numbers ever got too close.

Let's face it, your in bed with your beliefs and all the crap you spew about "sho me the proof" is meaningless because when "push comes to shove" you retreat to some lame ass excuse to believe what your commited to believe.

You lose too much face if you validate anything.

The only people worth a little respect here are the rare few who occasionally stray and begrudgingly acknowlege yes that "i" has been dotted.

Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.

MM
Here's an idea for you. Why don't you get off your fat behind and actually start answering some of the questions I asked, instead of pontificating endlessly? You haven't shown any ability to actually apply any reasoning, logic, math, physics or common sense to anything. You have thrown rhetoric, insults, and absurd ideas without any proof to back them, and when asked to, run away like a screaming schoolgirl.
Grow a pair, dude, and answer my questions, or go away, you pompous ass!
__________________
"JimBenArm is right" Hokulele Mom
JimBenArm 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 1st March 2007, 10:06 PM   #26
Regnad Kcin
Philosopher
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 9,282
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Get off your high horses.

Any expert who disagrees with you loonies becomes a loonie.

Any loonie who agrees with you loonies becomes an expert.

No matter how many experts come forth it will never be enough.

I can see you folks would take it to a Supreme Court decision if the numbers ever got too close.

Let's face it, your in bed with your beliefs and all the crap you spew about "sho me the proof" is meaningless because when "push comes to shove" you retreat to some lame ass excuse to believe what your commited to believe.

You lose too much face if you validate anything.

The only people worth a little respect here are the rare few who occasionally stray and begrudgingly acknowlege yes that "i" has been dotted.

Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.
Bolding mine.

Perhaps I missed the proof you've posted. Have you done so?

Evidence counts for something, y'know. Wishful thinking simply doesn't.
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 1st March 2007, 10:39 PM   #27
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,156
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.
(bolding mine)

Ah Hah. Yes well that makes perfect sense.

Hey I just thought of something. If the fireproofing was removed by the collapse, then I suppose all the detonators and wiring and timers and whatever the hell one uses for a controlled demolition were ALSO removed, right? 'splains why none were ever found.

Amazing. Ya think about this stuff, have another pull on the cognac, and the answers just kinda float, hazy-like, right in front of yer eyes...
ConspiRaider 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 2nd March 2007, 02:43 AM   #28
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by TheGrunion View Post
I'm a registered civil P.E in three states.

A professional engineering license for civil engineering is not an appropriate credential to demonstrate expertise in structural engineering.

Also, "working on" structural steel buildings could mean a lot of things. He could have been performing subprofessional work (CADD, materials testing, construction inspection, etc.) or he could have been performing site/civil tasks (such as handling the storm run-off coming from the building, or the grading plan of the site where the bulding was constructed).
grunion, i was going to respond with the same point, but i'm glad you beat me to it, as you are an engineer. i'm just a perpetual student/slacker.
OMGturt1es 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 2nd March 2007, 03:19 AM   #29
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Now take that fireproofing. There's a big and critical assumption on the part of NIST.

They assume it was mostly removed by the aircraft impact because it's critical to making their model work. They make other assumptions as well but the dislodged fireproofing one is particularly questionable.

I've yet to see or read of anything that can move this 'best guess' out of the realm of speculative fantasy. They can't provide any physical proof. Once the buildings collapsed, I suspect a fair bit of fireproofing was removed.

MM
i'd suspect it would be difficult to gauge exactly how much fire proofing was removed upon initial impact, but i'd think it nearly impossible to argue that the impact did not have a significant affect on the survival of fire proofing within and near the impact zone.

i've read that during the construction of the WTC buildings, amosite asbestos was disgarded after concerns for workers' health arose. as i recall reading, chrysotile asbestos was used instead, as it is known to be safer than amosite. from what i recall reading, the amphibole asbestoses (the two most common being amosite, or "brown asbestos" and crocidolite, or "blue asbestos") are far better for fire proofing than the serpentine asbestoses, which include chrysotile. i've tried to find the prior source in which i read it argued that the inferior asbestos used in the upper floors of the WTC buildings may have played a significant role in the collapses, but i cannot seem to find it. so maybe i'm just mistaken.

i did find an interesting article, though, which seems to contradict my memory on the types of fireproofing used, but does, indeed, suggest that inferior fireproofing, and improper upkeep and/or application of fireproofing may have had serious implications on the fate of the towers. the cached version is available here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...lnk&cd=5&gl=us

i'd find it hard to believe that the professionals involved with the NIST report and investigation, along with the entire scientific community to which the NIST report has been offered for scrutiny, would collectively fail to criticize such an important "assumption"-- it seems to me that it's likely not an assumption, and i would suspect that there's a wealth of knowledge on the topic in the NIST report.
OMGturt1es 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 2nd March 2007, 03:39 AM   #30
OMGturt1es
Graduate Poster
 
OMGturt1es's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Elk Grove, California.
Posts: 1,028
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Yes the ever imminent FINAL NIST Report on WTC7 better be good because you folks failed royally in debunking the CT claims of CD.
it has been demonstrated repeatedly that:

1. there was significant structural damage to WTC building 7 due to debris from collapsing WTC buildings 1 and 2,
2. there was significant fire within WTC 7,
3. WTC building 7 showed signs of imminent structural failure prior to collapse, that
4. firefighters and other professionals on scene observed.

if you need any of the above to be demonstrated, please let me know, and i'll be happy to provide you with evidence, but only if you agree to actually take the time to examine the evidence, and to respond honestly.

furthermore, the CD arguments on wtc building 7 just don't make any sense. consider:

1. as it's been demonstrated that WTC 7 sustained major structural damage, and it is known to have indured massive fires that burned unchecked for hours, it seems very reasonable to assume that WTC 7 would have to have been brought down manually anyways, as it was damaged beyond repair and it was in the way... so, IF we assume that WTC 7 was a CD, why would the government bother trying to cover it up? i can recall, in fact, watching WTC 7 come down on television-- prior to my knowledge about the time and effort involved to rig a building for CD!-- and assuming that it had been demolished intentionally, with no nefarious intentions required or infered, simply because it was damaged beyond repair. hence, a cover up of any CD of WTC 7 would be utterly pointless.

2. given that it is known that fires ravaged the interior of WTC building 7, and that a fuel source existed to keep them burning (fuel for the generators), a CD of WTC 7 seems contradictory to the assumed goals of the government in the WTC 7 CD theory; if the government wanted to destroy data, surely unchecked fires would provide a much better tool of destruction than the demolition of the building. things that break apart can be put back together, but things that burn up or melt away are lost.

to summarize, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that the available evidence does not support the WTC 7 CD theories. observable failures in the building prior to collapse reject the WTC CD theories. moreover, the WTC 7 theories just don't make sense, even if their lack of evidence and verification is ignored.

Last edited by OMGturt1es; 2nd March 2007 at 03:44 AM.
OMGturt1es 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 2nd March 2007, 11:08 AM   #31
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Professor?

I talked to someone at the Vermont Guardian who promised to pass along my message to Da Professa. Apparently, Rice is not the Professor Emeritus at Villanova. I commented that he seems to be someone who has just awakened from a five-year coma. The idea that an engineer would display no awareness of the existence of the NIST Report, or the Popular Mechanics book, or...well, you can finish the sentence.

The article conjures up an argument with a self-proclaimed baseball expert. You say that ERA is an unreliable guide to a closer's effectiveness; he responds, What's ERA? My fraud sensors are blinking red. Here is the phone number for the Guardian:

802.861.4880
pomeroo 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 2nd March 2007, 11:43 AM   #32
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,154
There is a basic thing that I think has been missed; yes, he is an engineer, and that's fine, but what do we have from him not is not his opinion but rather a criticism or analysis that rests on his engineering abilities and knowledge. If all he has done is voiced his opinion that such-and-such was such-and-such without supporting it with analysis or other work which can be critiqued by others with appropriate knowledge, then what is being done is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to authority.

So, what work/analysis/critique has he produced that can be reviewed?

Last edited by Arkan_Wolfshade; 2nd March 2007 at 11:47 AM. Reason: speeling
Arkan_Wolfshade 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 2nd March 2007, 11:48 AM   #33
The Almond
Graduate Poster
 
The Almond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,015
Originally Posted by pomeroo View Post
I talked to someone at the Vermont Guardian who promised to pass along my message to Da Professa. Apparently, Rice is not the Professor Emeritus at Villanova. I commented that he seems to be someone who has just awakened from a five-year coma. The idea that an engineer would display no awareness of the existence of the NIST Report, or the Popular Mechanics book, or...well, you can finish the sentence.

The article conjures up an argument with a self-proclaimed baseball expert. You say that ERA is an unreliable guide to a closer's effectiveness; he responds, What's ERA? My fraud sensors are blinking red. Here is the phone number for the Guardian:

802.861.4880
Not wishing to disparage any of my fellow civil engineers, I would comment that just because you pass a test and teach a few university classes, it does not mean your opinions are worth their weight in gold. To be sure, someone with relevant education and experience gives more weight to his opinions than your average truther, but that means nothing on the grand scheme of things.

I would suggest to Mr. Rice, however, that he carefully reviews the ASCE's ethical guidelines regarding commenting using your status as a licensed engineer. He should pay particular attention to Cannon 3, items 1 and 2.
  1. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.
  2. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.
I would argue that he has not included all relevant information, and his lack of mention or acknowledgment of the NCSTAR qualifies under a breach of article 2.
__________________
"Perfection, even in stupidity, is difficult to achieve without a conscious effort."--pomeroo, JREF Forum Member
The Almond 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 2nd March 2007, 11:59 AM   #34
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by The Almond View Post
Not wishing to disparage any of my fellow civil engineers, I would comment that just because you pass a test and teach a few university classes, it does not mean your opinions are worth their weight in gold. To be sure, someone with relevant education and experience gives more weight to his opinions than your average truther, but that means nothing on the grand scheme of things.

I would suggest to Mr. Rice, however, that he carefully reviews the ASCE's ethical guidelines regarding commenting using your status as a licensed engineer. He should pay particular attention to Cannon 3, items 1 and 2.
  1. Engineers should endeavor to extend the public knowledge of engineering and sustainable development, and shall not participate in the dissemination of untrue, unfair or exaggerated statements regarding engineering.
  2. Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.
I would argue that he has not included all relevant information, and his lack of mention or acknowledgment of the NCSTAR qualifies under a breach of article 2.
Interesting. What happens to a member if the ASCE determines that he or she breached the code of ethics?

Perhaps this is the reason that the only structural engineer to make extreme criticisms of the NIST report happens to be retired.
apathoid 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 2nd March 2007, 12:05 PM   #35
TheGrunion
Critical Thinker
 
TheGrunion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
Interesting. What happens to a member if the ASCE determines that he or she breached the code of ethics?

Perhaps this is the reason that the only structural engineer to make extreme criticisms of the NIST report happens to be retired.
Nothing.

However, his state licencing board should have the authority to suspend his license and issue a monetary fine for ethical violations.
TheGrunion 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 2nd March 2007, 12:10 PM   #36
Peephole
Master Poster
 
Peephole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,584
Originally Posted by apathoid View Post
There are 129,000 registered civil engineers in the US, so there are bound to be a few kooks among them. If 15% of the general population believes the inside job theories and that percentage holds up for the population of qualified experts(actually, if the CD theories held any water, that percentage would likely go way up) - there should be around 19,000 twoofer civil engineers. There are now 3....nuff said
William Rice
Charles N. Pegelow

Who is the third?
Peephole 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 2nd March 2007, 12:20 PM   #37
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by TheGrunion View Post
Nothing.

However, his state licencing board should have the authority to suspend his license and issue a monetary fine for ethical violations.
Thanks, pretty much what I thought.

Originally Posted by Peephole View Post
William Rice
Charles N. Pegelow

Who is the third?
I thought there were three, my mistake.

Last edited by apathoid; 2nd March 2007 at 12:22 PM.
apathoid 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 2nd March 2007, 12:22 PM   #38
Peephole
Master Poster
 
Peephole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,584
Also, this made me laugh out loud: "pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives)".
Peephole 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 2nd March 2007, 01:34 PM   #39
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 29,437
Are pools of molten metal near where giant fires raged for months, building up heat, a source of confusion?
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina 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 2nd March 2007, 01:48 PM   #40
apathoid
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,918
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
Are pools of molten metal near where giant fires raged for months, building up heat, a source of confusion?
Believe it or not, its one of the Twoofers hallmark smoking guns....yeah, we know.
apathoid 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 04:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.