Official 9/11 foiler thread
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 175 Next
hwacker @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:13 am
It was gravity and lack of support. That’s it. Thread closed.
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:14 am
$1:
Im sure there was explosions,that kind of thing happens in a fire,they just werent man made.
I did work on the blasting crew for awhile also,no way that was a controlled demo.
I did work on the blasting crew for awhile also,no way that was a controlled demo.
Ok so you are telling me that the fire in TT travelled down about 20 then 30, then 40 floors and then the basement? Or, are you saying that all explosions took place on the floors that the plane hit? Or, are you saying that in 90 minutes the fire was causing explosions all over the place in TT?
Please give me one concrete answer.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:14 am
OPP OPP:
Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!
All the reports are HERE
There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:16 am
$1:
Did I miss something. I said Al Qaeda did it, but Humas "may" have help finance it.
OPP are you saying you believe that Bush did it??
Honestly, I've had a headache for 5 days straight. If you are one of those who believe in a conspiracy, then bully for you. I don't have the time to waist debating such nonsense.
OPP are you saying you believe that Bush did it??
Honestly, I've had a headache for 5 days straight. If you are one of those who believe in a conspiracy, then bully for you. I don't have the time to waist debating such nonsense.
Well, you have never debated me friend so lets get started so maybe I can help some of you look at things alil differently then they show you on the News or CT videos or whatever. I am talking about concrete questions, that can be answer just using your common sense and a physics 10 class.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:17 am
Abbas Abbas:
$1:
Im sure there was explosions,that kind of thing happens in a fire,they just werent man made.
I did work on the blasting crew for awhile also,no way that was a controlled demo.
I did work on the blasting crew for awhile also,no way that was a controlled demo.
Ok so you are telling me that the fire in TT travelled down about 20 then 30, then 40 floors and then the basement? Or, are you saying that all explosions took place on the floors that the plane hit? Or, are you saying that in 90 minutes the fire was causing explosions all over the place in TT?
Please give me one concrete answer.
Try reading it this time.
$1:
The editor of Fire Engineering wrote an editorial called "Selling out the investigation" where he said "The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers". This quote has been used in a variety of places: here’s one.
Although the recent 9/11 Commission report adopted the official story that burning jet fuel caused the ultimate demise of the WTC, Manning said respected members of the fire protection community have drawn other conclusions.
"Red flags have been raised and a theory has emerged that the damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough to bring down the towers," said Manning. "Based on the incident's magnitude alone, s full throttle, fully researched forensic investigation is imperative, but that is impossible now since the government conveniently discarded the evidence."
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/29-Jan-2005.html
Our take...
This article was scathing about the investigation, it’s true, but you might want to bear in mind when it was written. The context of the above quote might suggest it was after the 9/11 Commission Report, but in reality it appeared in January 2002, so Manning was talking about FEMA (and months before their report appeared). A readers letter a few issues later took issue with Mannings comments. And Manning subsequently wrote an editorial welcoming the news of the NIST investigation, which reads a little differently.
Also the quote alone can be misleading. It might seem Manning is saying fire could not bring down the towers at all, but that isn’t the case. Here’s the full paragraph, and please follow the link to read the complete article before you continue
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... _ID=131225
Cached
Subsequent Fire Engineering articles shed some light on the magazines position. They ran a detailed report later supporting the “fire-induced” claim (http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf), for instance. And In 2003 they produced an article suggesting that the collapse was in part due to overly-relaxed building codes.
The Towers, Fire-Induced Collapse and the Building Codes
Scheurman explains that the buildings' failures were in part due to fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968. " The city is presently in the process of upgrading the Building Codes in the wake or the World Trade Center disaster, and this essay is my perspective, as a retired NYC Fire Chief, in furtherance of that process," writes Scheurman.
His report concludes with, " The World Trade Center's vulnerability to fire, as confirmed by the fire spread and mode of collapse, is partially the result of the building industry's competition for, real estate dominance and financial reward, affecting the building codes over the years. The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey using corporate and public bond financing and the governmental power of the two-state agency to sidestep the already weakened, city building code requirements effectively reduced the fire resistance and suppression capabilities and collapse resistance, in the Towers. The Government should disqualify itself from competing in the real estate industry and concentrate on regulating the competition between developers to assure fire safe building construction standards and the life safety of the people. The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_ ... _ID=184582
And a later editorial shows the true focus point for Mannings anger, post the release of the 9/11 Commission Report (again, please follow the link to read the full article).
THE TAINTED BRUSH OF 9/11 POLITICS
BY BILL MANNING
In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city—and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response—radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, "integrated" incident management system—Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.
City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... NUM=1&p=25
Yes, he thinks there was a cover-up, but not of the type suggested on most 9/11 sites. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on. A point worth bearing in mind, especially with sites that use the “damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough” quote without any context.
NOTE: a previous version of this page addressed specific Manning quotes used by Professor Jones in his paper, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?”. Subsequently the paper was edited, addressing our comments, therefore we’ve now removed them. As there are links pointing to this page then the relevant parts will be archived here, for the moment at least, but are no longer valid for the current paper.
Although the recent 9/11 Commission report adopted the official story that burning jet fuel caused the ultimate demise of the WTC, Manning said respected members of the fire protection community have drawn other conclusions.
"Red flags have been raised and a theory has emerged that the damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough to bring down the towers," said Manning. "Based on the incident's magnitude alone, s full throttle, fully researched forensic investigation is imperative, but that is impossible now since the government conveniently discarded the evidence."
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/29-Jan-2005.html
Our take...
This article was scathing about the investigation, it’s true, but you might want to bear in mind when it was written. The context of the above quote might suggest it was after the 9/11 Commission Report, but in reality it appeared in January 2002, so Manning was talking about FEMA (and months before their report appeared). A readers letter a few issues later took issue with Mannings comments. And Manning subsequently wrote an editorial welcoming the news of the NIST investigation, which reads a little differently.
Also the quote alone can be misleading. It might seem Manning is saying fire could not bring down the towers at all, but that isn’t the case. Here’s the full paragraph, and please follow the link to read the complete article before you continue
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... _ID=131225
Cached
Subsequent Fire Engineering articles shed some light on the magazines position. They ran a detailed report later supporting the “fire-induced” claim (http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf), for instance. And In 2003 they produced an article suggesting that the collapse was in part due to overly-relaxed building codes.
The Towers, Fire-Induced Collapse and the Building Codes
Scheurman explains that the buildings' failures were in part due to fire codes that had been too far relaxed when the city of New York revised them in 1968. " The city is presently in the process of upgrading the Building Codes in the wake or the World Trade Center disaster, and this essay is my perspective, as a retired NYC Fire Chief, in furtherance of that process," writes Scheurman.
His report concludes with, " The World Trade Center's vulnerability to fire, as confirmed by the fire spread and mode of collapse, is partially the result of the building industry's competition for, real estate dominance and financial reward, affecting the building codes over the years. The Port Authority of New York, New Jersey using corporate and public bond financing and the governmental power of the two-state agency to sidestep the already weakened, city building code requirements effectively reduced the fire resistance and suppression capabilities and collapse resistance, in the Towers. The Government should disqualify itself from competing in the real estate industry and concentrate on regulating the competition between developers to assure fire safe building construction standards and the life safety of the people. The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."
http://fe.pennnet.com/articles/article_ ... _ID=184582
And a later editorial shows the true focus point for Mannings anger, post the release of the 9/11 Commission Report (again, please follow the link to read the full article).
THE TAINTED BRUSH OF 9/11 POLITICS
BY BILL MANNING
In early August it was revealed by New York Newsday that New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a month before the final 9/11 Commission Report, dispatched a strong memo lobbying the Commission for language that would cast a more favorable light on the city—and, by extension, on city management, past and present. With respect to the hottest hot-button issues surrounding the 9/11 response—radio inoperability, lack of police-fire cooperation and coordination, and the city's poor excuse for a new, "integrated" incident management system—Bloomberg's wish was granted. The Commission's final report coats the three issues with a layer of political honey.
City management had almost three years to circle the wagons to deflect obvious ineptitude and irresponsibility for which it could and should have been held accountable. Capitalizing on an accommodating and docile press, they've controlled critical information, dismissed many concerns of 9/11 families/survivors groups as grief-driven hysteria, and, with great cunning, used the firefighters who perished in the Towers for political cover...
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_ ... NUM=1&p=25
Yes, he thinks there was a cover-up, but not of the type suggested on most 9/11 sites. Manning’s saying it’s down to politicians covering up their responsibility in terms of the emergency services response to the events, the failure of firefighters radios to carry the vital evacuate order, and so on. A point worth bearing in mind, especially with sites that use the “damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel was not enough” quote without any context.
NOTE: a previous version of this page addressed specific Manning quotes used by Professor Jones in his paper, “Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?”. Subsequently the paper was edited, addressing our comments, therefore we’ve now removed them. As there are links pointing to this page then the relevant parts will be archived here, for the moment at least, but are no longer valid for the current paper.
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:20 am
$1:
Try reading it this time.
Guy, I am debating you, not the guy who made the website. I want answers from you, not something you read up on the internet. You are defending that Bush did not do it so answer the questions because you seem so sure that you will bet your life on that question. So, lets explore it on our own, right now we are discussing explosions in the buildings so do you think explosions took place or no?
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:26 am
Abbas Abbas:
$1:
Try reading it this time.
Guy, I am debating you, not the guy who made the website. I want answers from you, not something you read up on the internet. You are defending that Bush did not do it so answer the questions because you seem so sure that you will bet your life on that question. So, lets explore it on our own, right now we are discussing explosions in the buildings so do you think explosions took place or no?
Anything you or I type here is going to reference something else as both of us werent there when it happened. Guess you dont want the truth,all the official reports are there,if you choose to ignore them then you are like most foilers Ive "chatted" with,eventually it will come down to "the Joos did it" happens allmost all the time.
You say there were explosives yet offer no proof,I post facts that prove you wrong and you still ignore it.
Typical CT
OPP @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:27 am
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!
All the reports are HERE
There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.
I found this:
$1:
2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?
PluggyRug @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:27 am
Abbas...
Stop with "the steel did not melt" bullshit.
I have worked with steel for most of my life.
How do you think I bend steel bar, well I HEAT IT until it's plasticising point, then it bends easily. It will even bend under it's own weight.
The heat required to BEND steel is a lot lower than the heat required to MELT steel.
Hence any structure that relies on steel for exoskeleton support will collapse if the steel is heated to it's plasticising point.
The load bearing steel members having give way throws their load onto the members below, hence cascade collapse
The explanation leaves out details on grades of steel, load bearing angles, stress points, etc as I am trying to keep this simple.
Oh.... an explosion is rapidly expanding air, whether caused by an explosive material, or, whether caused by the rapid compression and hence the rapid expansion of air, such as in a building collapse.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:31 am
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Abbas...
Stop with "the steel did not melt" bullshit.
I have worked with steel for most of my life.
How do you think I bend steel bar, well I HEAT IT until it's plasticising point, then it bends easily. It will even bend under it's own weight.
The heat required to BEND steel is a lot lower than the heat required to MELT steel.
Hence any structure that relies on steel for exoskeleton support will collapse if the steel is heated to it's plasticising point.
The load bearing steel members having give way throws their load onto the members below, hence cascade collapse
The explanation leaves out details on grades of steel, load bearing angles, stress points, etc as I am trying to keep this simple.
Oh.... an explosion is rapidly expanding air, whether caused by an explosive material, or, whether caused by the rapid compression and hence the rapid expansion of air, such as in a building collapse.
Stop with "the steel did not melt" bullshit.
I have worked with steel for most of my life.
How do you think I bend steel bar, well I HEAT IT until it's plasticising point, then it bends easily. It will even bend under it's own weight.
The heat required to BEND steel is a lot lower than the heat required to MELT steel.
Hence any structure that relies on steel for exoskeleton support will collapse if the steel is heated to it's plasticising point.
The load bearing steel members having give way throws their load onto the members below, hence cascade collapse
The explanation leaves out details on grades of steel, load bearing angles, stress points, etc as I am trying to keep this simple.
Oh.... an explosion is rapidly expanding air, whether caused by an explosive material, or, whether caused by the rapid compression and hence the rapid expansion of air, such as in a building collapse.
How true,in the mine where I worked we had to put two d10's side by side,blade to blade to push an oversized rock out of the way to be blasted,where the blades were rubbing together the steel was literally dripping off the blade like welding slag once the weight of the rock was on the machines. And thats very very hard steel.
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:32 am
$1:
Anything you or I type here is going to reference something else as both of us werent there when it happened. Guess you dont want the truth,all the official reports are there,if you choose to ignore them then you are like most foilers Ive "chatted" with,eventually it will come down to "the Joos did it" happens allmost all the time.
This entire debate is about blaming the "officials" of commiting this crime then how can I believe any stupid reports they put out. The truth is always in independent investigations and most independent investigations pointed figures at Bush so once again, we have to explore the event, one thing at a time. I don't care whether Jews did it or you did it, I am trying to have a debate so I get a better understanding of the situation, I don't want to believe CTs on either side, thats why I am debating.
$1:
You say there were explosives yet offer no proof,I post facts that prove you wrong and you still ignore it. Typical CT
Did you even bother watching the video I posted? First you said that fire caused the explosives noise that the fire men heard, then I asked the fire crack pattern in the noise that is usually heard before a demolition takes place. Then you said, it might have been transformers, then I asked you 3 simple questions. And you answered with someone elses article, you see how you are slowly loosing credibility. I really want a debate so step up to the plate with some answers of your own and common sense or we can stop now.
ziggy @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:33 am
OPP OPP:
ziggy ziggy:
OPP OPP:
Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!
All the reports are HERE
There PDF files so you'll have to d.load which one you want.Very technical.
I found this:
$1:
2.0 WTC COLLAPSE TIMES
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
The collapse times of each of the two WTC towers are very important parameters in the estimation of the energy transfer involved in these events. In this report we define the collapse time, tc, as the observed time interval for more than 95 % of the mass of the WTC tower (WTC 1 or 2) to fall to “ground zero”. This, of course, requires a definition of the start of the collapse. Because of uncertainties in the timing of the WTC collapse initiating and terminating events, many different values of tc have been reported; however, the published values (I have seen) all fall in the range 8 – 18 seconds. In addition, Newtonian mechanics dictates a minimum value for the collapse time, tc, which is calculated, (allowing for the thickness of each floor), as follows: tc = (2h/g) = {2(416 10)/9.81} = 9.1 seconds
The calculations included in this report are based on well-documented values for the WTC height, weight and other building specifications as listed in Appendix 1.
Could you sumarise this for me Ziggy?
There was no controlled demolition,hows that?
tritium @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:37 am
OPP OPP:
Ok! Sure! The planes made the towers collapse, not the fires. Or was it the fuel that melted the beams wich made the towers collapse? Or is it the combination that made them collapse? How was it? Could the "Defending side" please agree on what made the buildings collapse so that I can respond!
Here OPP this should get you wet.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
I hope you learn the term "root cause" soon.
Abbas @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:39 am
$1:
Abbas...
Stop with "the steel did not melt" bullshit.
I have worked with steel for most of my life.
How do you think I bend steel bar, well I HEAT IT until it's plasticising point, then it bends easily. It will even bend under it's own weight.
Stop with "the steel did not melt" bullshit.
I have worked with steel for most of my life.
How do you think I bend steel bar, well I HEAT IT until it's plasticising point, then it bends easily. It will even bend under it's own weight.
Well, tell me what temperature does your "equipment" have to be for steel to melt. Then tell me what type of equipment burns it to a melting point and then tell me whether this "equipment" produces a controlled fire or not?
$1:
The heat required to BEND steel is a lot lower than the heat required to MELT steel.
Hence any structure that relies on steel for exoskeleton support will collapse if the steel is heated to it's plasticising point.
Hence any structure that relies on steel for exoskeleton support will collapse if the steel is heated to it's plasticising point.
Digits please, what is the "melting" point of steel then?
$1:
The load bearing steel members having give way throws their load onto the members below, hence cascade collapse
Well, it seems that more then gravity was at work when the building was falling because it fell in 9 seconds... do you understand that if steal did melt, it did not melt on all floors. So it must have caused some obsticles in the fall but nope. The building fell straight down like every floor underneather had already been wiped out. So explain to me whether it was gravity that brought it down because it obviously wasnt or was it something else?
$1:
The explanation leaves out details on grades of steel, load bearing angles, stress points, etc as I am trying to keep this simple.
Well, simple doesn't do much for me. I need some details so I can verify your answers. According to the builder of TT, the building was build to take such impacts like 9/11. So all these buildings can go through hours and hours of tourcher, yet they still stand. But, twin towers just fell.
$1:
Oh.... an explosion is rapidly expanding air, whether caused by an explosive material, or, whether caused by the rapid compression and hence the rapid expansion of air, such as in a building collapse.
Once again, explosions took place before the collapse, not after or not while it was falling. Rapid expansion of air does not cause explosions because then demolitions would not be able to bring down a building into its basement.
BartSimpson @ Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:40 am
These guys did it:
Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 175 Next