Two of them also had big holes in them, and the fireproofing stripped from the beams, it was not not just fire.
WTC 7 WAS apparently just from fire though. Can you accept one building?
N.F.P.A. 921 - Did NIST disregard it in investigating 9/11?
- Thread starter Mick West
- Start date
Two of them also had big holes in them, and the fireproofing stripped from the beams, it was not not just fire.
WTC 7 WAS apparently just from fire though. Can you accept one building?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Which should have been done by NIST. . . .
Last edited by a moderator:
Arguable. But now it has been done. So... no thermite.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Come on George! Asked and answered many times don't you agree?
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Does it really matter what entity did the test so long as the entity was credible and the results verifiable?
Jazzy
Closed Account
There is a site (agh, somewhere!) I have seen which lists ALL the climate change denial points (hopefully by the frequency they are raised), as links to either a simple or complex page of explanation. I thought it worked very well, except for crap graphics. Couldn't the same be done for 911 and chemtrails?
Hiper, thanks. I'm a member of Randi but don't go there, so I had no idea.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
That's somewhat like I was trying to do with ContrailScience.com, and in some ways here. I've been thinking of ways of making debunking more accessible by making the content more easily discoverable.
There's so much quality debunking out there that just gets lost.
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let me take some time to review it . . . I wasn't on the thermite bandwaggon anyway . . .
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Can we put controlled demolition into some perspective?
The largest building brought down in that manner was the J. L. Hudson building and annex. The following is a ummary of the seven months of preparation it took, and I believe the building was empty at the time. Can you imagine how, only three years later, not one but three taller buildings could have been imploded and the setup done while they were occupied?
"Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."
The largest building brought down in that manner was the J. L. Hudson building and annex. The following is a ummary of the seven months of preparation it took, and I believe the building was empty at the time. Can you imagine how, only three years later, not one but three taller buildings could have been imploded and the setup done while they were occupied?
"Mark Loizeaux, President of CDI, called Hudson’s the greatest dynamic structural control challenge the company had ever faced. CDI had to sever the steel in the columns and create a delay system which could simultaneously control the failure of the building’s 12 different structural configurations, while trying to keep the hundreds of thousands of tons of debris within the 420 ft by 220 ft footprint of the structure. CDI needed structural data to complete its design. Under CDI direction, Homrich/NASDI’s 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI’s implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson’s internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI’s 12 person loading crew took twenty four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition."
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Let me look at it first . . .
Jazzy
Closed Account
They were all exceptional buildings, built right up against the limits of known, formerly thought as reasonable, civil engineering. These limits are no longer what they used to be, I believe.
Had the buildings stored sufficient deadfall sprinkler water they wouldn't have fallen. Although you could argue that to cope with the burning of twelve tons of kerosene would need a lot of water. Maybe towers need swimming pools on top.
In such light structures the floor slab must never be capable of detaching from the walls, or of pulling the walls inward, under fire stress, so as to prevent buckling instability occurring in their supporting columns. That is incredibly difficult to ensure.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
hiper
Active Member
To recap these are the points that continue to make me seriously doubt the official story...
1) To not test the WTC dust after years and years of investigation is not normal, because a test would probably only take a few weeks and would be the only scientific method
to rule out accelerant & explosive residue for all the WTC dust.
2) To not release the parameters for the WTC 7 3D model in their (NIST) final report is another thing that feeds suspicion... why not release it let people look at it and be done with it.
3) There are numerous witnesses hearing explosions... why were these people ignored?
4) There are 85 pentagon camera's... why don't they release a video of a boeing slamming into the building and so instantly destroying all possible speculation... why the misty secrecy.
5) Why was not a single fighter jet scrambled.. this damages the official explanation.
6) What's with the government operations & exercises that very same day... this further damages the official explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001
This is just to much.
1) To not test the WTC dust after years and years of investigation is not normal, because a test would probably only take a few weeks and would be the only scientific method
to rule out accelerant & explosive residue for all the WTC dust.
2) To not release the parameters for the WTC 7 3D model in their (NIST) final report is another thing that feeds suspicion... why not release it let people look at it and be done with it.
3) There are numerous witnesses hearing explosions... why were these people ignored?
4) There are 85 pentagon camera's... why don't they release a video of a boeing slamming into the building and so instantly destroying all possible speculation... why the misty secrecy.
5) Why was not a single fighter jet scrambled.. this damages the official explanation.
6) What's with the government operations & exercises that very same day... this further damages the official explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001
This is just to much.
F4Jock
Senior Member.
".....In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass......"
F4Jock
Senior Member.
I'll speak to 3) and 5)
5) Fighters were scrambled but lacked specific information as to the whereabouts of their targets. Some were vectored according to a threat plan that assumed aircraft approaching from the East.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks
3) What were reported as explosions were heard as the buildings fell. The sound of structural failure under load. There were also 22 or so oil-filled, large electrical transformers in the building Ever hear a transformer explosion?
George B
Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Quick review seems to indicate a credible study . . . interesting the source of the red/gray material was not IDed . . . What did the prior studies do wrong?
F4Jock
Senior Member.
Speaking to 4) Per MSNBC http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12818225/...plane-hitting-pentagon-released/#.UXWa5cu9KK0
lotek
Active Member
dude, just look at the floor support layout of wtc 7 vs regular buildings. while technically sound, i guess, its no wonder it failed when others did not as per the other thread on this subject. the load was very irregularly distributed and lacked the redundancy of grid construction.
even if no tests were done, the huge investigation into the cell groups behind the attacks would have turned up something on property, supplies, production, delivery, placement, other members of this workforce, or some part of the much much large required network to form the type or attack. In fact one could argue the whole point of using captured airplanes as they did is because it has the smallest network foot print, the smallest chance for ppl to talk and things to go wrong while in the staging phase, and any combination of this type plan with another more traditional demolition would only threaten it. why all 3 at one place? more fear would result from wider spread attacks..
its just very illogical.
im not sure why they have to work to your standard, and what makes it so explicitly high given your lack of first hand experience or qualification. there was no foreseeable reason to pursue the issue, so it was not. if they pursued an infinite number of vectors every time, no investigation would finish. and since you have drawn your conspiracy out of baseless suspicion and perceived opportunity, not data or logic, it is not unique, and theories like it will always persist. therefore it is a waste of time to investigate them in their infinite permutations.
this is why, under the scientific method, things and investigated using deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. this actually a pretty good example of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
the difference in those two links is the basis of our argument here, no facts needed, no tests required.
even if no tests were done, the huge investigation into the cell groups behind the attacks would have turned up something on property, supplies, production, delivery, placement, other members of this workforce, or some part of the much much large required network to form the type or attack. In fact one could argue the whole point of using captured airplanes as they did is because it has the smallest network foot print, the smallest chance for ppl to talk and things to go wrong while in the staging phase, and any combination of this type plan with another more traditional demolition would only threaten it. why all 3 at one place? more fear would result from wider spread attacks..
its just very illogical.
im not sure why they have to work to your standard, and what makes it so explicitly high given your lack of first hand experience or qualification. there was no foreseeable reason to pursue the issue, so it was not. if they pursued an infinite number of vectors every time, no investigation would finish. and since you have drawn your conspiracy out of baseless suspicion and perceived opportunity, not data or logic, it is not unique, and theories like it will always persist. therefore it is a waste of time to investigate them in their infinite permutations.
this is why, under the scientific method, things and investigated using deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. this actually a pretty good example of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
the difference in those two links is the basis of our argument here, no facts needed, no tests required.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
In the on line war/strategy game I play, an alliance is often working with a large group of players, sometimes as many as 200. Leaders have learned that when you want to run an op on an enemy alliance, you DO NOT tell most players the real targets. If you want to send 5 'hammers' (armies meant to damage another player's village), The ONLY folks that will know those targets are those players, and folks on the Offensive team. Others will be asked to send 'fakes' (a tiny attack) to the targets and to multiple other players.
Not only there are there spies, there are those that 'leak' information. The fewest folks that KNOW the full plan, the more likely the plan is to succeed. That was the 'beauty' of the 9/11 plot, it only took 4 fully informed conspirators in the US for it to work. Even the muscle on the hi jack teams did not seem to know that they were going to fly planes into buildings, until they were assembled and most likely on the planes.
To have complicated the plot with including controlled demolitions would have risked the primary plot's failure. A better use of another 20 conspirators would have been to have built truck bombs and to have parked them in other major skyscrapers around the US. Can you imagine the terror if truck bombs had gone off in Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Atlanta sky scrapers shortly after the planes hit?
To have installed controlled charges would have taken more than that, and it would have increased the chances of the plot being discovered.
Not only there are there spies, there are those that 'leak' information. The fewest folks that KNOW the full plan, the more likely the plan is to succeed. That was the 'beauty' of the 9/11 plot, it only took 4 fully informed conspirators in the US for it to work. Even the muscle on the hi jack teams did not seem to know that they were going to fly planes into buildings, until they were assembled and most likely on the planes.
To have complicated the plot with including controlled demolitions would have risked the primary plot's failure. A better use of another 20 conspirators would have been to have built truck bombs and to have parked them in other major skyscrapers around the US. Can you imagine the terror if truck bombs had gone off in Chicago, San Francisco, Dallas and Atlanta sky scrapers shortly after the planes hit?
To have installed controlled charges would have taken more than that, and it would have increased the chances of the plot being discovered.
Jazzy
Closed Account
That was a lot of fun. Had I read any of it previously I could have just quoted it. I prefer to think such things out for myself because I need the exercise. But it was fairly comprehensive, including stuff I'm not allowed to use here. I'm glad for the company, aren't you?
hiper
Active Member
I don't understand why you split this into another thread because the matter was already settled.
It is quite obvious that NIST by not testing the dust ignored acquiring scientific evidence supporting
the existence of a blast event and by extention ignored NFPA 921.
NIST also knows this.
It is quite obvious that NIST by not testing the dust ignored acquiring scientific evidence supporting
the existence of a blast event and by extention ignored NFPA 921.
NIST also knows this.
Similar threads
