AE911Truth Watch

[slyjoe]

Yes, I know what the acceleration of gravity is. Gage does not.

[DGM]

Are you sure you know it?
LC:
Gage screwed up the calculation on his presentation and didn't catch it. It's a no brainer.

[LastChild]

No it isn't. It's a falsehood. There are several engineers, architects, and physicists, for example, who are regular posters here.

Again, you kids out there ... Don't do what LC does, in real life! It's fine (kind of) to post silly, obnoxious, and unproductive things on the internet -- because no one knows who you are (for most of us). But in real life, dealing with family, loved ones, school, work, the customs agents, traffic cops, doctors... Well, just don't do it. You will end up lonely and despised, and probably sick and broke.

Yes it was a good point.

And you don't know me. In fact it's obvious you're very unsure of what you pretend to know to be fact about a lot of things. It's sad to see that fear and doubt because someone is messing with your indoctrinated beliefs.

Get a grip.

[SDC]

LC said: "In fact it's obvious you're very unsure of what you pretend to know to be fact about a lot of things. It's sad to see that fear and doubt because someone is messing with your indoctrinated beliefs."

As I believe Architect said on the previous page, Right back at youse, sport. Your postings are a model for how not to express oneself in society -- that is, in social situations where there are consequences. (As opposed to internet postings, where there are none.)

[Christopher7]

are you the owner of the website? Why should I tell you those names? If the owners of the website were doing their jobs, they would have removed the names when they were told, and bothered to verify those names.That's just a lame excuse to cover the fact that
YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAMES BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS A LIE!

[LastChild]

LC said: "In fact it's obvious you're very unsure of what you pretend to know to be fact about a lot of things. It's sad to see that fear and doubt because someone is messing with your indoctrinated beliefs."

As I believe Architect said on the previous page, Right back at youse, sport. Your postings are a model for how not to express oneself in society -- that is, in social situations where there are consequences. (As opposed to internet postings, where there are none.)

Don't worry about me I do fine and always have. Christopher7 is doing fine from what I can tell also and did make a good point. In fact the correct response to his post would be to agree like I did or post some expert quotes from your so-called vast consensus on the official conspiracy theory.

You also have a third choice...

shhhhhhhhhh

[SDC]

You are asking others to do your research, Pdoh... Whoops! I mean, LC. (Sorry, jeez, but you keep slipping with those Britishisms...) The extra quotes are in published books, in posts by many Jrefers, and in NIST and other reports. You simply choose to ignore them. If you cannot find them it only reflects your own incompetence. Sorry, guy.

[LastChild]

You are asking others to do your research, Pdoh... Whoops! I mean, LC. (Sorry, jeez, but you keep slipping with those Britishisms...) The extra quotes are in published books, in posts by many Jrefers, and in NIST and other reports. You simply choose to ignore them. If you cannot find them it only reflects your own incompetence. Sorry, guy.

Oh what's the matter are you getting shamed in yet another thread? You gonna start calling names now and try to get it moved to AAH to hide your failure yet again? So sad and pathetic. I'll leave you alone now I feel bad.

[Par]

Don't worry about me I do fine and always have.


What a thing to say! You should change your name to Snake and buy yourself a Chopper. No woman could tame him!

[Christopher7]

As I believe Architect said on the previous page, Right back at youse, sport. Your postings are a model for how not to express oneself in society -- that is, in social situations where there are consequences. (As opposed to internet postings, where there are none.)Architect dodged the question, as you have.

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.

[Par]

You also have a third choice...


If anything he’d have a third option. Many options, one choice.

[SDC]

Par, you need to explain the apparent quote in #259. Sounds like a B-Movie blurb.

ETA: didn't C7 help set a record for longest non-productive thread, or something? Or is that a different Chris-related-poster?

[AZCat]

Architect dodged the question, as you have.

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.


This has to be one of the more stupid things I've seen here. You're suggesting that the authors of the NIST report (who are, by the way, qualified) do not count as supporters of the conclusions of said document until they satisfy some arbitrary standard you've set? Pathetic.

[SDC]

I don't know the technical term, but it's the Fallacy of "If only someone would listen to me."

[Christopher7]

There are several engineers, architects, and physicists, for example, who are regular posters here.There are several anonymous persons who claim to be engineers, architects and physicists but none will post their real names and proof of their qualifications.

[twinstead]

Come on Chris. You can't be serious. Do you think the NIST report was written by Hollywood script writers?

[SDC]

No use in my posting mine because I make no such claims. But you are clearly making such claims. Should I ask?

[Arus808]

That's just a lame excuse to cover the fact that
YOU DON'T KNOW THE NAMES BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS A LIE!

Absolutely pathetic, C7. Since you are so fond of defending that fraud site you cant see how its the RESPONSIBILITY of Gage's group to make sure that what he "claims' there is reflective of those who are "members" there. The fact that WE proved how pathetic his website is, and that HE continues to list fake people, only proves that HE isn't interested in making sure his "members" are legit; only that he has the #### so he can use his "appeal to authority" excuse.

I know the names, BECAUSE I was told what names were fake, and those FAKE names have been revealed over the two threads dedicated to exposing that fraud site

IF you have a problem with the fake names, maybe you should TELL GAGE and Plumb to do something about it?



Again, if you;re not the owner of the website, its none of your business as to what names are fake. The only thing you should be concerned about is WHY hasn't gage and plumb removed those names, or why they haven't bothered in checking the credentials of those in his list.

[twinstead]

This has to be one of the more stupid things I've seen here. You're suggesting that the authors of the NIST report (who are, by the way, qualified) do not count as supporters of the conclusions of said document until they satisfy some arbitrary standard you've set? Pathetic.

This needs to be drilled into Chris's head.

[Christopher7]

This has to be one of the more stupid things I've seen here. You're suggesting that the authors of the NIST report (who are, by the way, qualified) do not count as supporters of the conclusions of said document until they satisfy some arbitrary standard you've set? You think asking for an actual quote instead of just inferring something is an 'arbitrary standard'.
Please

[DGM]

Don't worry about me I do fine and always have. Christopher7 is doing fine from what I can tell also and did make a good point. In fact the correct response to his post would be to agree like I did or post some expert quotes from your so-called vast consensus on the official conspiracy theory.

You also have a third choice...

shhhhhhhhhh
How many on the AE list are still active? Give me current quotes or admit they are fake.

[twinstead]

You think asking for an actual quote instead of just inferring something is an 'arbitrary standard'.
Please

It's THEIR REPORT. The NIST IS Their quote. You are using such a quintessential bogus debate tactic. It's beneath you.

Oh, and by the way. What are your qualifications to claim the NIST is a lie?

[Christopher7]

No use in my posting mine because I make no such claims. But you are clearly making such claims. Should I ask?I backed up my claim with a long list of quotes from qualified individuals.

You have not.

[LastChild]

This has to be one of the more stupid things I've seen here. You're suggesting that the authors of the NIST report (who are, by the way, qualified) do not count as supporters of the conclusions of said document until they satisfy some arbitrary standard you've set? Pathetic.

I guess that means you don't have any. Now why did Kean and Hamilton write a book and give interviews about the 9/11 commission? Wasn’t everything said that needed to be said in the report? A report they further commented on when they washed their hands of it with their open letter declaring the investigation was obstructed. I wonder if they regret their earlier praise of it.

Now with so many thousands of experts declared to be part of this so-called consensus I always hear about you must be able to find some of them who have backed up the official version somewhere? No? Maybe they don’t want to risk having anymore regrets then they need to in light of what happen to Kean and Hamilton.

Pathetic is a good word for your lame excuses.

[Arus808]

actually you haven't.

[SDC]

Well, another thread shot to heck. I'm not going to participate in a potential 10,000-poster. Good luck and to all, a good night.

[Minadin]

There are several anonymous persons who claim to be engineers, architects and physicists but none will post their real names and proof of their qualifications.

In Architect's case, he's provided the moderators / administrators with documentation of his credentials. I'm prepared to do the same if need be, but I certainly don't see any reason why any of us should be beholden to provide personal information to you.

On a skeptic's forum, I would prefer to be judged by the content of my posts in either case.

[DGM]

I backed up my claim with a long list of quotes from qualified individuals.

You have not.
You have personally verified these quotes and their credentials?

[AZCat]

You think asking for an actual quote instead of just inferring something is an 'arbitrary standard'.
Please

Inferring?! It's their report!

Maybe I shouldn't accept any of your posts as legitimate because the following doesn't appear at the bottom of every one:
My username is Christopher7 and I approve of this message. (with some sort of digital signature attached, of course)

[Christopher7]

It's THEIR REPORT. The NIST IS Their quote. Who's report.

List the names of the people who actually signed off on the report, not the people who contributed to it.

List one qualified person who is not controlled by the Bush administration.

Oh, and by the way. What are your qualifications to claim the NIST is a lie?You and i are not qualified to say one way or another.
That's why i listed people who are.

[AZCat]

List one qualified person who is not controlled by the Bush administration.

Now this has become truly pathetic. Please stop making a mockery of logic.

[Christopher7]

In Architect's case, he's provided the moderators / administrators with documentation of his credentials. I'm prepared to do the same if need be, but I certainly don't see any reason why any of us should be beholden to provide personal information to you.

On a skeptic's forum, I would prefer to be judged by the content of my posts in either case.Talk is cheap.
Put up or .....................

[Christopher7]

Now this has become truly pathetic. Please stop making a mockery of logic.Post the names.

[Arus808]

Who's report.

seriously, stop playing stupid. Its getting annoying and its beneath you.

List the names of the people who actually signed off on the report, not the people who contributed to it.
HELLO. BUELLER. Seriously, this is getting way beyond dumb.

[Arus808]

Post the names.

read the report.

[Confuseling]

LastChild

(and any other interested parties)

This debate about the consensus or lack thereof seems to pollute many threads. I have made a thread to discuss it. I would appreciate it if we could meet there, and remain civil, and wrangle this out once and for all.

I can't link cos my post count was condemned to AAH, but it's called "the doubt about the consensus"

If you would indulge me?

[CHF]

Christopher7,

You didn't answer my question.

I asked you when I can expect to see some of your "experts" publish their findings somewhere other than a kook website.

In response you posted some names of people who are either completely unqualified, or have posted their research only on kook websites. :boggled:

Good God, man - Torif Wolf, the nurse? Danny Jowenko - who agrees with us more than he does with you? Charles Pegelow, the oil rig worker? Richard "pyroclastic flow" gage? Haiwa?

Try again.

[Christopher7]

actually you haven't.Actually, i have.

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider Professors emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH.

Anders Börkman, M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer

Jeff King, MIT engineer

Torin Wolf demolitions expert

Danny Jowenko

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer (http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257), of Houston, Texas (and see this (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/9))

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php), of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (http://stj911.org/members/index.html)(retired)

Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php) and architect (ret.)

Joseph M. Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (http://67.15.255.19/%7Ec911sch1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=35)(ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer (http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG)

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer (http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml), former professor of Vermont Technical College

Patriots question WTC7
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret)Col. James R. Uhl, MD, MC, U.S. Army (ret)
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret)
Lt. Col. Paul F. Getty, DDS (ret)
Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S. ArmyDavid L. Griscom, PhD
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS EngLon J. Waters, PhD Mathematics
Robert David Steele
Enver Masud, BS EE, MS OR (Operations Research), PE
Joel S. Hirschhorn, BS Metallurgical Engineering, MS Metallurgical Engineering, PhD Materials Engineering

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/gen...or_republi.htm (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald ReaganMary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.

Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst.

Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

Tuesday February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn PE,"Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"


The list is long and growing.

Despite claims like:
Architect
The fact is - and you can like it or lump it - that the NIST findings are almost universally supported across the very construction industry professionals who are qualified to understand them.

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.

[AZCat]

Post the names.

I'm not going to play games with your arbitrary standard. If you can't understand the point we're making here then I'm not sure if you're really qualified to discuss this at all. There are, after all, some minimum requirements. You managed to find your way to this forum and complete the sign-in process so you evidently have some cognitive abilities, but any hopes I had of anything beyond that are quickly fading. Perhaps you should spend more time with those who are of a similar cognitive level rather than posting where you just don't fit in. I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happy to guide you to those places.

[Arus808]

thanks proving again, that nothing backs up your claims.

Please provide a link to anyone of those "people" on that list, of a peer reviewed paper, that they have submitted to a RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety.

Otherwise, all you have is pure conjecture and are appealing to authority.

[twinstead]

Ah, I see. Even if we were to post the list of contributers to NIST (which has been done numerous times on this forum) or ANY other expert, all Chris has to do is qualify it with "I meant the ones not controlled by Bush" and there ya go. Instant woo woo circuit breaker. Like others have said--PATHETIC

BS. I'm not going to waste my time on a puerile debate tactic. This is right up there with claiming any evidence presented that supports the official story as not allowed because it could have been faked.

This is tantamount to Chris putting his fingers in his hears and saying LA LA LA.

[Christopher7]

thanks proving again, that nothing backs up your claims.

Please provide a link to anyone of those "people" on that list, of a peer reviewed paper, that they have submitted to a RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety.Conjecture?

Now you are denying the statements of all these people because of your arbitrary and ridiculous requirement that their statements are not valid until they are listed in a 'RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety'.
Please

[Brainache]

...
No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.

What about R. Mackey or RW Guinn?

Real names. Real experts.

There are others here who use their real names, but that's just two off the top of my head.

[CHF]

Now you are denying the statements of all these people because of your arbitrary and ridiculous requirement that their statements are not valid until they are listed in a 'RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety'.

Yes. Doesn't respectability matter to you?

[Brainache]

Conjecture?

Now you are denying the statements of all these people because of your arbitrary and ridiculous requirement that their statements are not valid until they are listed in a 'RESPECTABLE journal of engineering, or fire safety'.
Please

I think what we're after is more than just a statement. I think what Arus was asking for is a reasoned, detailed scientific or engineering paper that contains maths and stuff which supports these assertions that this list of so called experts have made.

[DGM]

No one has posted the name of a qualified person who has studied the evidence and the NIST report, and stated publicly that they support the NIST conclusion.

Why would the engineering community go out of their way to make statements when no one is asking for them? The "truth" movement has no credibility to ask for anything and no one else finds any reason to.

[Christopher7]

Ah, I see. Even if we were to post the list of contributers to NIST (which has been done numerous times on this forum) or ANY other expert, all Chris has to do is qualify it with "I meant the ones not controlled by Bush" and there ya go. You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

Dr Quintere: "“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations ....... by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

[DGM]

You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

Dr Quintere: "“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations ....... by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."
What does Dr Quintiere say brought done the towers. You can say it.

[X]

You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

Actually, you can say the contributors support it.
Their credibility and professional reputations are on the line.
They would make it very well known if they did not support NIST's findings.

[CHF]

You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

Chris, are you - like LastChild - dumb enough to think that the contributors don't back up the official story?

Yes, apparently you are judging by the fact that you cite Quintere - who argues against your demolition nonsense even more than NIST does.

You're pretty desperate, huh?

[nicepants]

You can justifiably say that the NIST staff endorses the report but not the people who contributed to the report. Their contributions were made before the report was published and they have no say in the final product.

If said contributors, for any reason, disagreed with the findings of the report, would it not be up to them to publicly state such?

And conversely, if they agreed with the findings of the report to which they contributed, would there be any need to affirm that by stating that they agreed with the report?

[Christopher7]

Why would the engineering community go out of their way to make statements when no one is asking for them?No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.


The "truth" movement has no credibility to ask for anything and no one else finds any reason to.You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please

[Minadin]

There are several anonymous persons who claim to be engineers, architects and physicists but none will post their real names and proof of their qualifications.

In Architect's case, he's provided the moderators / administrators with documentation of his credentials. I'm prepared to do the same if need be, but I certainly don't see any reason why any of us should be beholden to provide personal information to you.

On a skeptic's forum, I would prefer to be judged by the content of my posts in either case.

Talk is cheap.
Put up or .....................

Are you actually accusing members of this forum of lying about their credentials, without any evidence of such, or merely insinuating it? I'm not really sure which is worse, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that seems to be the conspiracy theorist modus operandi.

[DGM]

No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.


You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please
Can you give me current statements from these people? Where are they speaking out?

ETA Quintiere is not a supporter of your cause and you know it. Saying so is a lie on your part.

[beachnut]

No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.


You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please
Correct, on 9/11 all you listed have zero evidence you can list to support any of your ideas on 9/11 or 9/11 truth ideas. A big zip on the evidence, like perfectly wrong on all aspects of 9/11; and you can not post a single pieced of evidence; just hearsay and rant.

If they had some evidence they would also have a Pulitzer Prize. That is what the guys got for evidence of Nixon covering up Watergate. Simple stuff, and usually done in two years or less not 6 years of lies and hearsay like you believe in.

[CHF]

C'mon Chris, stop being a wimp.

I asked you when I can expect to see some of your "experts" publish their findings somewhere other than a kook website.

So....when will it be?

[Brainache]

No one is asking the professionals at AE 911 Truth and all the other patriots who are calling for a real investigation to 'go out of their way'. They are speaking out because the NIST report is fatally flawed.

No they are speaking out because they are kooks and it makes them feel important. Or because they are charlatans out to rip off gullible people who will buy their nonsense.


You are arrogantly claiming that all the people i listed have no credibility.
Please

If they had any credibility, they would be able to back their assertions with well reasoned scientific papers, accurate mathematical analysis and logic. What they actually do is make wild unfounded assertions which they refuse to back up with any kind of evidence.

[Christopher7]

If said contributors, for any reason, disagreed with the findings of the report, would it not be up to them to publicly state such?

And conversely, if they agreed with the findings of the report to which they contributed, would there be any need to affirm that by stating that they agreed with the report?Good points.
However:
The NIST report has been challenged and labeled a fraud by many qualified individuals, yet none of the contributing experts have come to the defense of the report or their contributions.

[Confuseling]

I'm not trying to talk past you guys or anything.

I would just like to extend a warm welcome to you all to

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108311

this thread, wherein I would like to discuss in a focused way this exact topic, and only this topic.

The only reason I've started a thread is because I've seen several go this way, and I think it sensible to give it its own space.

[Brainache]

Good points.
However:
The NIST report has been challenged and labeled a fraud by many qualified individuals, yet none of the contributing experts have come to the defense of the report or their contributions.

Until these "many qualified individuals" actually publish something scientific which comes close to challenging the conclusions of the NIST report, the authors have nothing to respond to.

How can an engineer counter political rhetoric with equations? Why should they even try?

[Christopher7]

C'mon Chris, stop being a wimp.

I asked you when I can expect to see some of your "experts" publish their findings somewhere other than a kook website.

So....when will it be?It is not necessary to publish ones beliefs in a journal.
A clear written statement is sufficient for anyone not desperately looking for a reason to deny the opinion of qualified individuals.

Your adolescent name calling demonstrates your lack of intellect.

[AZCat]

How can an engineer counter political rhetoric with equations? Why should they even try?

There's a reason only two American presidents have been engineers.

[rwguinn]

I'm not trying to talk past you guys or anything.

I would just like to extend a warm welcome to you all to

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108311

this thread, wherein I would like to discuss in a focused way this exact topic, and only this topic.

The only reason I've started a thread is because I've seen several go this way, and I think it sensible to give it its own space.

Good luck.
Derails by troothers are nearly always unpunished.

[CHF]

It is not necessary to publish ones beliefs in a journal.

Yes - if someone doesn't care about being taken seriously then it isn't necessary to publish their work. Indeed, their friend's website will do just fine.

But I was under the impression that the TM does care about being taken seriously.

Was I wrong to think so, Chris?

[Christopher7]

Until these "many qualified individuals" actually publish something scientific which comes close to challenging the conclusions of the NIST report, the authors have nothing to respond to.They have. Read what they have to say.

Furthermore:

NIST only explained the collapse initiation of the Towers,
they did not explain the collapse.

http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf

pg 3
NIST has stated that it did not analyze the collapse of the towers.

PG 4
We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.
NIST’s analysis was carried to the point of collapse initiation.

NIST did not offer an explanation of how the the north and south core column rows in WTC 7 collapsed,
nor can they confirm any part of their hypothesis.

Six and a half years later, NIST cannot explain the collapse of the Trade Towers or WTC 7.

[CHF]

NIST only explained the collapse initiation of the Towers,
they did not explain the collapse.

Well you're in luck, Chris!

Some experts have looked into the collapses themselves and have had their work published after peer-review.

None of them agree with you.

[WildCat]

So the latest tactic of the TM is to claim that the NIST scientists don't agree with the conclusions in the report? :jaw-dropp

[Christopher7]

Yes - if someone doesn't care about being taken seriously then it isn't necessary to publish their work. Indeed, their friend's website will do just fine.IYO

[Christopher7]

Well you're in luck, Chris!

Some experts have looked into the collapses themselves and have had their work published after peer-review.

None of them agree with you.Name them please.

[Christopher7]

So the latest tactic of the TM is to claim that the NIST scientists don't agree with the conclusions in the report?Wrong
As i have said before, it cannot be assumed one way or the other.

[ElMondoHummus]

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.


Why does Mary Schiavo's name keep popping up? She's never made any claims about the NIST investigation, and in fact has only voiced criticisms about the issues with airline security and individual elements of the investigation regarding the timeline analysis of the airplane hijackings, the last of which was eventually answered. T.A.M. wrote up an analysis of her entry on the PQ911 site here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3305226#post3305226.

I've never seen her call for any new investigation. To her, the whole problem with 9/11 is one of airline security (a legitimate criticism, I might add). Her stance is at most LIHOI, and given that her criticism involves lax security, it's pretty obvious she agrees with the narrative of radical Islamic hijackers committing 9/11. Yet, her name always comes up whenever a fantasist insists on listing people that supposedly agree with their stances. I don't get it.

[AZCat]

Wrong
As i have said before, it cannot be assumed one way or the other.

Nobody is assuming they do. They already said it - in the report.

[Christopher7]

Why does Mary Schiavo's name keep popping up? She's never made any claims about the NIST investigationI listed her name under the heading:

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)

[Christopher7]

Nobody is assuming they do. They already said it - in the report.Where?

[Arus808]

really chris, now you are playing dumb.

1) If I contributed to a report, and it published my findings as part of the report (ecompassing other items, to which my expertise would not help in the findings), and I found the report "bogus", I would be the FIRST person to ASK They take my name off the list of contributors, and to pull whatever work I contributed to that report

2) NO one to this date, on the contributor list to the NISt report has done so.

What does that SAY?

[twinstead]

really chris, now you are playing dumb.

1) If I contributed to a report, and it published my findings as part of the report (ecompassing other items, to which my expertise would not help in the findings), and I found the report "bogus", I would be the FIRST person to ASK They take my name off the list of contributors, and to pull whatever work I contributed to that report

2) NO one to this date, on the contributor list to the NISt report has done so.

What does that SAY?

Dude. Unless they have sent an email to Chris stating their support of the official story, they shall be considered to be against it.

What part of that don't you understand? ;)

[Christopher7]

You don't need to be inside the column to cut that face with the slag. All you need to do is cut from the preceding cuts reaching in with your lance on the left and right side.The bottom left corner has slag on the outside and it was NOT cut from the side.
That can only be Thermite Residue.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

[LashL]

really chris, now you are playing dumb.





Now?!?

Playing?!?


ETA: Why, any time now, he'll start responding to posts from 5 days ago or more and pretending that ... oh, wait.

[Arus808]

The bottom left corner has slag on the outside and it was NOT cut from the side.
That can only be Thermite Residue.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

false, that is from palsma torches cutting away pieces for easier haul off.

someone please post a picture of what slag looks like from a plasma torch.

[twinstead]

Oh for crying out loud Chris WHY are you posting a picture of a column cut subsequent to the collapses as if it proves ANYTHING?

Seriously. I'm SICK of this. I wash my hands. You have something, truthers? FIND SOMEBODY WHO CAN ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING AND TELL THEM!!!!!!!!!!

[A W Smith]

The bottom left corner has slag on the outside and it was NOT cut from the side.
That can only be Thermite Residue.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


Well now your just a liar.

heres more angle cuts

[beachnut]

The bottom left corner has slag on the outside and it was NOT cut from the side.
That can only be Thermite Residue.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg
Clean up cut, proves you are just a fact less truther! End of story. The 9/11 truth movement has reached the end, just lies, hearsay, and tall talk of fantasy stupid ideas.

You do not know thermite. Too bad, you have lost this one, try again in 6 or 7 years after you get an education, any education. I worked all day in special ed today, and your performance is well below that of the outstanding students I had the pleasure of working with today, and it was the 4th grade.

[ElMondoHummus]

I listed her name under the heading:

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"


Let's take a look at what exactly Schiavo's dissent from the government investigation is:


In the past, in the aftermath of a terrorist attack on aviation, both the NTSB and victims on the plane and on the ground were able to seek discovery to determine how it was the terrorists were able to get access to the airlines, airports or other aviation facilities. The purpose is obvious: so that those gaps could be closed and that avenue to terror be forever obstructed...

In every other aviation disaster, including those precipitated by terrorism or aviation crimes or piracy, the National Transportation Safety Board examined the tragedy and issued technical, operational and policy recommendations to our government, the airlines, airports, and others. The NTSB does this to enable us to correct the lapses that permitted the tragedy to occur. Indeed, the party most cited as causing or contributing to airline crashes is none other than our own FAA.

No such NTSB investigation occurred nor is forthcoming to examine the 9/11 crashes. Both methods of accountability and correction were lost in the government’s haste to help the carriers’ finances. The failure to deploy the two systems of examination and correction in aviation tragedies, were deliberately thwarted by our government and airline lobbyists and lawyers have doomed our citizens to suffer future repeated terrorist attacks. Our government has sent the official message that it is willing to protect the carriers and others and their corporate leadership from, and at the expense of, dead Americans, devastated families and a destroyed aviation system.

(Source: Statement of Mary Schiavo to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/hearings/hearing2/witness_schiavo.pdf))

So, what did Schiavo think was the "Whitewash"? It was the failure to conduct an NTSB investigation to discover and close the security holes allowing terrorists to hijack US airliners. As well as the failure to assign the proper responsibility to the airlines and government for failing to properly address known security issues. And, what's "false" about the story? The part I just mentioned: The fact that the government narrative fails to properly include mention of the airlines and government's culpability in the security lapses. So, what was "Not Possible"? Well, that's not something that Schiavo has ever spoken to. The whole problem, in her eyes, is that for years, hijackings have been all too possible. She doesn't claim that the general narrative of terrorists hijacking planes did not happen; rather, she is angry that the government isn't sufficiently critical about it's performance vis-a-vis airport security. That's all she's spoken about.

At best, Schiavo is LIHOI. She has yet to say anything about needing a new investigation or questioning the consensus about Islamic terrorists hijacking airliners. What she's spoken about is prevention of hijackings. That pretty much demonstrates what she believes happened on September 11th. It's misleading to include her in a list of people, such as those in that OpEdNews article, who claim that events at the Pentagon couldn't have happened, or that demolitions were used at the World Trade Center. That's quite obviously not what she believes or is complaining about.

Let's be clear what she thinks about conspiracies:


... (N)ot all of us believe that everybody's coordinating, in the government is coordinating a big conspiracy. Quite frankly, from my days in the government it is difficult for the government to coordinate anything beyond a conspiracy of one. But from my position, what if then, indeed, you're dealing with colossal incompetence?...

You know, quite possibly lots of these things aren't connected at all and that various government agencies were so colossally incompetent and are covering up the fact that they're unable to do the jobs for which their tapped. And of course many people tapped into government are tapped into government without rudimentary abilities to do anything that they're assigned to do. And from my days in the government we would investigate colossal conspiracies, what we thought, and we would come up with colossal incompetence. And from my position, if the carriers, since I work in aviation, if the carriers and the aviation industry and the government is colossally incompetent I want them held accountable just as much as if they're engaged in some big conspiracy.

(Source: Unansweredquestions.org press conference (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0206/S00159.htm#mary))

She is strident in her position because she does indeed want to go after the government for its failures. But the failures she identifies do not include any question of the hijackings or the ramming of jets into the Twin Towers. Problem is, too many conspiracy fantasists get confused about what she actually does dispute, so they lump her in with other people making wilder claims. Which is a mistake. Now Chris here is probably very well aware that Schiavo doesn't make claims about the towers, or doesn't dispute the hijackings narrative; he's probably just using her dissent opportunistically to demonstrate that people dispute elements of the government's narrative. So let's not include him in that group of truthers. Besides, it is true: She does not approve of the "Official Story". But you must look closely at what exactly it is she disapproves of. When you see that, you'll see how she is misused by most of the fantasy peddlers trying to build lists of various "authorities" and "experts" disputing the "Official Story". Lurkers, new members, etc.: There's a lesson here in how to properly determine what people truly mean when they question the government, as well as a lesson to chase down original statements and determine the true stance a person has. Too many of these people, like Schiavo here, are conflated with people who claim outright falsehoods, such as demolitions use or missiles at the Pentagon. That is very unfair to Schiavo, and a complete misrepresentation of as well as a distraction from the true core of her dissent.

[Architect]

Once again Chris is found to be cherry picking quotes. No surprise there then.

[Christopher7]

Once again Chris is found to be cherry picking quotes. No surprise there then.Actually, ElMondoHummus cherrypicked Mary Schiavo from a list i posted.
She was not as critical as the others but she said the government "knew a lot", and it's failure to immediately launch a criminal investigation when there is an aviation disaster, is unprecedented.

Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm

Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan

Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush

Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald ReaganMary Schiavo, JD, Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Presidents George H.W. Bush and William Clinton

Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996.

Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst.

Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq

Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

[Christopher7]

Clean up cutYou are assuming that.

You do not know thermite.I know thermite melts steel.

A cutting torch leaves slag on the back side of a cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

Not the cutting side

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

This column has slag on the outside.
The lower left [arrow] could not have been cut from the back.
This cut is consistent with thermate, not an acetylene torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

[DGM]

You are assuming that.

I know thermite melts steel.

A cutting torch leaves slag on the back side of a cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

Not the cutting side

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

This column has slag on the outside.
The lower left [arrow] could not have been cut from the back.
This cut is consistent with thermate, not an acetylene torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg
When do you plan to demonstrate that cut for us?

I told you how it was done and can even demonstrate it. How about you?

[T.A.M.]

my brain hurts from the stupidity and ignorance.

TAM

[twinstead]

We have PICTURES of workmen making those exact same cuts during the clean up, Chris. A good investigator would know that and have talked to some workers who were there and asked their opinion about that 'thermite residue' cut your hero uses as evidence.

But then again, sometimes I think you folks shouldn't be allowed to even investigate where you left your car keys.

Ya ain't got the skills, Chris. Sorry.

[Par]

You are assuming that.

I know thermite melts steel.

A cutting torch leaves slag on the back side of a cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

Not the cutting side

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

This column has slag on the outside.
The lower left [arrow] could not have been cut from the back.
This cut is consistent with thermate, not an acetylene torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


I’m not particularly interested in debating the minutiae of slag and such with you. However, I find your method – to use an understatement – curious, and worthy of highlight.

Firstly, you have attempted to employ the principle of induction to infer a universal law (oxyacetylene cutting results in the formation of slag on the far surface of the object being cut but never on its near surface) from a single observation (a photograph of an instance of oxyacetylene cutting resulting in the formation of slag on the far surface of the object being cut but not on its near surface).

This is akin to pointing to a single photograph of a red apple and saying “There. So, all apples are red.”

Secondly, you claim that the cut is consistent with either thermite or thermate (I’m not entirely sure which as you switch between the two mid-post). This claim seems to be based solely on the fact that “thermite melts steel”.

So, as you would have it, when it comes to thermite, the fact that it melts steel is a sufficient condition for it to be considered consistent with the observed cutting effect. However, when it comes to oxyacetylene cutting, the same fact – that it melts steel – is an insufficient condition for it to be considered consistent with the observed cutting effect, and further factors (such as the precise ways in which it melts steel) need to be taken into account. Thus, there is an appreciable disparity when it comes to the standards being applied in each case. In short, you are falling foul of the fallacy of special pleading.

[A W Smith]

So you assume thermate would cut through a 3 inch cross section of steel Chris? How foolish. Stick with wood Chris because you suck at steel. You do not think the clean up crews would notice that column? Are the clean up crews in on this huge conspiracy too? Your Little fantasy is over.

[twinstead]

I’m not particularly interested in debating the minutiae of slag and such with you. However, I find your method – to use an understatement – curious, and worthy of highlight.

Firstly, you have attempted to employ the principle of induction to infer a universal law (oxyacetylene cutting results in the formation of slag on the far surface of the object being cut but never on its near surface) from a single observation (a photograph of an instance of oxyacetylene cutting resulting in the formation of slag on the far surface of the object being cut but not on its near surface).

This is akin to pointing to a single photograph of a red apple and saying “There. So, all apples are red.”

Secondly, you claim that the cut is consistent with either thermite or thermate (I’m not entirely sure which as you switch between the two mid-post). This claim seems to be based solely on the fact that “thermite melts steel”.

So, as you would have it, when it comes to thermite, the fact that it melts steel is a sufficient condition for it to be considered consistent with the observed cutting effect. However, when it comes to oxyacetylene cutting, the same fact – that it melts steel – is an insufficient condition for it to be considered consistent with the observed cutting effect, and further factors (such as the precise ways in which it melts steel) need to be taken into account. Thus, there is an appreciable disparity when it comes to the standards being applied in each case. In short, you are falling foul of the fallacy of special pleading.

Yea. What he said.

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually, ElMondoHummus cherrypicked Mary Schiavo from a list i posted.
She was not as critical as the others but she said the government "knew a lot", and it's failure to immediately launch a criminal investigation when there is an aviation disaster, is unprecedented.


I picked her because I know quite a bit more about her stances than I do of the others. I've been listening to Schiavo's criticisms since well before 9/11. And my point still stands: Her stance is built on governmental and airline industry negligence in security matters leading to the events on 9/11. She directly comes out and discusses the hijackings. She never casts doubt on the events of the day. Yes, she does talk about failures to properly conduct post crash investigations, but read what her criticisms are; her complaints lead towards the "Official Story", and properly including government and industry security failures, not towards doubt regarding the events of the day.

And I did deal with her complaint about not involving the NTSB in the investigation. Read the post again. She has condemned government for not properly allowing them to determine the lapses leading to the hijackings. That hardly places her in the same category as Pentagon fantasists or demolition-believers.

And last: When she says the government "knew a lot", that is also in regards to airline security matters. Read her work; T.A.M. post links several of her interviews, including one from before 9/11. She criticizes the government for "knowing a lot" about where the weaknesses are in preventing people from hijacking airliners, and for knowing a lot about the radical Islamic fringe's desire to continue hijackings. Those are the items government "knew a lot" about.

Again, she's LIHOI. She does not deserve to be lumped in with MIHOP fantasy peddlers. That's the mistake you conspiracy fantasists continue to make. Her criticisms actually have substance, and are built on facts. That is what I'm pointing out, and that is why I singled out Schiavo instead of dealing with the rest of that list. Others can handle that; I'll stick with what I'm actually informed about.

[R.Mackey]

Frankly, I thought you were being kind in singling out Schiavo. You could have, for instance, chosen Morgan Reynolds (http://nomoregames.net/) instead, who is a no-planer and a space-beamer...

Bottom line is that none of those names mean a thing. None of them have produced any faintly legitimate criticism, and at least one is demonstrably insane.

[uk_dave]

You are assuming that.



And why should we assume anything else?

Cutting of steel was carried out during the clean-up. There are pictures of cut steel.

Somehow you make a leap of logic and claim that the picture shows a 'thermite' cut. There is no reason for a 'thermite' cut other than to bolster your 'inside job' 'controlled demolition' fantasy, for which there is not one shred of evidence, but there is a reason for a thermal lance cut to remove steel from GZ after the collapse.

Which is more logical?

[tsig]

Who are you to say that someone with a degree in architecture or engineering isn't qualified to look at the evidence and make an educated judgment.

How many qualified people have studied the evidence and the NIST report, and personally gone on record saying they support the NIST conclusions?

It cannot be assumed one way or the other.

Chris I have never read NIST yet I know there were no CD's.

I am assuming nothing.

If the sign says"minefields" it is not a good place to dig for potatoes.

[CHF]

The bottom left corner has slag on the outside and it was NOT cut from the side.
That can only be Thermite Residue.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

You plan on asking any GZ workers about that?

[beachnut]

Actually, ElMondoHummus cherrypicked Mary Schiavo from a list i posted.
She was not as critical as the others but she said the government "knew a lot", and it's failure to immediately launch a criminal investigation when there is an aviation disaster, is unprecedented.
Eight Senior Republican Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 - "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False" (http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071202_seven_senior_republi.htm Your whole list is full of pure talk, no evidence to support your ideas, now failed ideas on 9/11.
Paul Craig Roberts, PhD, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan Good old hearsay Paul. He said;
Top Gun fighter pilots and career airline pilots who say that the flying attributed to the 9-11 hijackers is beyond the skills of America's best pilots, and foreign dignitaries. Yet he presents hearsay, which I can debunk. I am an instructor pilots in the USAF, and gave upgrade training to pilots in large jets. There is not one thing the terrorist did on 9/11 that a kid off the street could do in a 757/767 jet. Sorry, your entire list of 9/11 dolt idea people grows in hearsay and pure bs talk. Not one correct piece of evidence here, just hearsay. Do you understand how bad your list is?
Catherine Austin Fitts, Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George H.W. Bush No evidence from her! Why is she on the list, you like her hearsay rant?
Morgan Reynolds, PhD, former Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Labor under current President George W. Bush Insanity personified, he actually says there were no planes. NUT CASE IDEAS, NO evidence.
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret), Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan NOT one piece of evidence from this talking head! ZIP YOU LOST THIS ONE KID, NO evidence.
Mary Schiavo. Appointed under the administration of President George H. W. Bush, Ms. Schiavo served as the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Transportation from 1990 - 1996. NO evidence. Just talk.
Barbara Honegger, served as Special Assistant to the Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to President Ronald Reagan and as a White House Policy Analyst. NO evidence. Just talk. She is dumb on 9/11 stuff. Doltish ideas not backed with facts. How do you pick so many people with no evidence?
Edward Peck, Deputy Director of the White House Task Force on Terrorism under President Ronald Reagan. Former Deputy Coordinator, Covert Intelligence Programs at the U.S. State Department. Former U.S. Ambassador and Chief of Mission in Iraq NO evidence, this guy is so old, is he still alive? Just talk again.
Morton Goulder, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Warning under Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. NO evidence, this guy is so old, is he still alive (he died at 87, good job keeping a dead guy on the list of fools for 9/11 truth; seems like 80 year old guys who hate Bush will sign anything, even lies? Just talk again. Two in a row. Are you sure they did not just go to the hospital and have these guys hold a pen and they pushed the petition along their pens?

Your list is pure junk talk on 9/11. Do you have some evidence. Please present some substance these people have presented. Please leave out Morgan, or you prove you are unable to recognize pure ignorance on 9/11.
A few of the talk only activist, signed a petition with dumb stuff like this in it…
The petition stated, in part, "We want truthful answers to questions such as:
2. Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack? How can you post a list of people who get basic facts wrong about 9/11 and reality? This list of people you posted, are dumb on ideas about 9/11. Pure dumb. Please raise the level of your research to met some minimum standard of reality. What a waste of time to look up the fact these people are stupid on 9/11.

[Christopher7]

We have PICTURES of workmen making those exact same cuts during the clean upA video shows angled cuts to columns during cleanup.
This negates the argument that angle cuts would not be made during cleanup.

It does not establish when the cut to this column was made.
Acetylene cutting torches blow away the melted metal and leave slag on the back side of the cut.
This column has slag on the outside of the lower left part of this cut.
That part could NOT be cut from the back with an acetylene cutting torch.


http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

[applecorped]

Since the building collapsed from the top down how exactly is this hypothesis relevant?

[twinstead]

A video shows angled cuts to columns during cleanup.
This negates the argument that angle cuts would not be made during cleanup.

It does not establish when the cut to this column was made.
Acetylene cutting torches blow away the melted metal and leave slag on the back side of the cut.
This column has slag on the outside of the lower left part of this cut.
That part could NOT be cut from the back with an acetylene cutting torch.


http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

Sorry, but have you sought out the advice of an expert in acetylene cutting torches to clarify this? I kind of refuse to accept your opinions as fact. Can you please provide some backup for "That part could NOT be cut from the back with an acetylene cutting"?

[Christopher7]

Since the building collapsed from the top down how exactly is this hypothesis relevant?The presence of thermite is proof of controlled demolition.

[applecorped]

You've seen a lot of CD collapse from the top down have you?

[twinstead]

The presence of thermite is proof of controlled demolition.

You have no compelling evidence that thermite was present.

[A W Smith]

The presence of thermite is proof of controlled demolition.

Except there Is no presence of thermite.

Please explain to us how that slag remained on that column with 110 story's of building collapsing on top of it. Is that some sort of super slag? the fact that there is slag still on the column is proof positive that it was cut during the clean up operation.

[jberryhill]

It does not establish when the cut to this column was made.

Except we do know when it was made because the guy who took that photograph - who you are perfectly capable of contacting yourself - was there to take pictures of steelworkers during the cleanup, and the photograph is one of a sequence that he took, and which was already posted in this thread, and his comment from my correspondence with him was also posted upthread.

You are every bit as capable of finding and corresponding with Mr. Hollenshead as I was. It is significant that you choose not to do so.

[jberryhill]

Please explain to us how that slag remained on that column with 110 story's of building collapsing on top

It's not only that the slag stayed on, but notice that while everything in lower Manhattan was covered with dust, the cut surfaces of that column are not - again demonstrating that the cuts were made after the collapse.

Christoper7, however, believes that the way to cut a column is to make the final cut while standing in front of a direction that the column will fall, and does not seem to fathom the notion of how or why one would cut a box column by making a hole for an angled torch, and cutting from the inside.

Instead, he believes that thermite will selectively cause slag to predominately drip on the inside or outside of a column, as shown by the absence of slag on the left face of the column, and the presence of slag on the front face.

[Christopher7]

Sorry, but have you sought out the advice of an expert in acetylene cutting torches to clarify this? I kind of refuse to accept your opinions as fact. Can you please provide some backup for "That part could NOT be cut from the back with an acetylene cutting"?Sure, look closely at the lower left corner of the cut.
Above where the arrow is pointing, part of the column isn't cut yet there is slag running down the outside.
This part could not have been cut from the side or the back with an acetylene torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


I don't expect you to take my word for anything. I only ask that you look at the photograph and present logical argument why you think otherwise.
Good points made so far:
The video showing angle cuts
Sometimes they temporarily 'tack' a platform to the side of something to cut it.
The bottom could have been cut from the side.

How can you account for the slag where it can't be cut from the back?

[CHF]

Chris,

why not just contact some GZ iron workers and ask them if that cut looks like their work?

If they say 'no' then you might be able to blow the cover off 9/11.

So will you contact them? I don't see why you wouldn't.

[DavidJames]

Chris,

why not just contact some GZ iron workers and ask them if that cut looks like their work?

If they say 'no' then you might be able to blow the cover off 9/11.

So will you contact them? I don't see why you wouldn't.The last thing Chris wants is for his fantasy to be destroyed. To his credit, he's not like killtown or lyte trip. But there are serious mental issue at play here.

[beachnut]

Sure, look closely at the lower left corner of the cut.
Above where the arrow is pointing, part of the column isn't cut yet there is slag running down the outside.
This part could not have been cut from the side or the back with an acetylene torch.

I don't expect you to take my word for anything. I only ask that you look at the photograph and present logical argument why you think otherwise.
Good points made so far:
The video showing angle cuts
Sometimes they temporarily 'tack' a platform to the side of something to cut it.
The bottom could have been cut from the side.

How can you account for the slag where it can't be cut from the back?
It was cut during clean up. You are making up stuff and failing.
http://www.beachymon.com/photo/jonelie1.jpg
Clean up cut.

[Architect]

You'd think that the NWO, having carried out this dastardly deed, would be a bit more careful about leaving such "obvious" evidence for the world to see......wouldn't you?

[DGM]

I see Christopher7 is still lying about this cut.

SHOW US HOW IT"S DONE!

[funk de fino]

I cannot believe C7 listed Heiwa as one of his experts, too funny

Its like watching your dad dance at weddings.

[A W Smith]

Sure, look closely at the lower left corner of the cut.
Above where the arrow is pointing, part of the column isn't cut yet there is slag running down the outside.
This part could not have been cut from the side or the back with an acetylene torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


I don't expect you to take my word for anything. I only ask that you look at the photograph and present logical argument why you think otherwise.
Good points made so far:
The video showing angle cuts
Sometimes they temporarily 'tack' a platform to the side of something to cut it.
The bottom could have been cut from the side.

How can you account for the slag where it can't be cut from the back?


No Chris. that lower left corner shows where the three inch think steel plates are welded together to make that column shape. That is not a rolled shape. Those welds during fabrication are not root welds. They are surface fillet welds. Since those plates are not continuous around the corners your torch cuts need not intersect. The slag is from the plate nearest the camera.

[Christopher7]

No Chris. that lower left corner shows where the three inch think steel plates are welded together to make that column shape. That is not a rolled shape. Those welds during fabrication are not root welds. They are surface fillet welds. Since those plates are not continuous around the corners your torch cuts need not intersect. The slag is from the plate nearest the camera.Right, the slag is on the side nearest the camera.
It could not be cut from behind.
A cutting torch does NOT leave slag on the cutting side,
it leaves slag on the back side of the cut.
This cut was NOT made with a cutting torch.

Also:
The suggestion that the near side was cut from behind by reaching thru the sides does not make sense.
It would be safer to cut the near side [direction of fall] first, then the sides, and be standing on the opposite side from the fall while making the final cut.

[DGM]

Right, the slag is on the side nearest the camera.
It could not be cut from behind.
A cutting torch does NOT leave slag on the cutting side,
it leaves slag on the back side of the cut.
This cut was NOT made with a cutting torch.

Also:
The suggestion that the near side was cut from behind by reaching thru the sides does not make sense.
It would be safer to cut the near side [direction of fall] first, then the sides, and be standing on the opposite side from the fall while making the final cut.
I told you how this could be done. I can demonstrate it. WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO PROVE THIS CAN BE DONE YOUR WAY?

[Christopher7]

I told you how this could be done. I can demonstrate it. WHEN DO YOU PLAN TO PROVE THIS CAN BE DONE YOUR WAY?How can you demonstrate that the column in question was cut by an acetylene torch?

The proof of melted metal is in the photograph.
It is not necessary or possible for me to personally acquire the materials necessary to recreate what we can see in the photograph.

Your request is just a denier tactic.

[DGM]

How can you demonstrate that the column in question was cut by an acetylene torch?

The proof of melted metal is in the photograph.
It is not necessary or possible for me to personally acquire the materials necessary to recreate what we can see in the photograph.

Your request is just a denier tactic.
I don't need to because you can't show that it can be made with "thermite".

All you need to do is demonstrate that it possible to cut a column with "thermite" and have it look like that. I can make that cut with my torch . Including the slag on the outer lower edge.

After you figure that out maybe you can advise "truth burn" because they failed miserably.

[Alferd_Packer]

You might want to re word that. :)

ETA - better

[DGM]

Your right! Whoops:blush:

[Christopher7]

I don't need to because you can't show that it can be made with "thermite". Cheap dodge

All you need to do is demonstrate that it possible to cut a column with "thermite" and have it look like that.Request the impossible to avoid what we can see in the photograph.

I can do that (and have done it) many times. Including the slag on the outer lower edge. Sure you have.:D
Care to show a video of your work?

[DGM]

Cheap dodge

Request the impossible to avoid what we can see in the photograph.

Sure you have.:D
Care to show a video of your work?
That picture was made by a kid with a magnifying glass on a sunny day.

I have as much proof of that as you do of your "theory". By your logic that is.

[DGM]

Sure you have.:D
Care to show a video of your work?

I'll see what I can do next week.:cool:

[Minadin]

I don't need to because you can't show that it can be made with "thermite".

All you need to do is demonstrate that it possible to cut a column with "thermite" and have it look like that. I can make that cut with my torch . Including the slag on the outer lower edge.

After you figure that out maybe you can advise "truth burn" because they failed miserably.

Cheap dodge

Request the impossible to avoid what we can see in the photograph.

Sure you have.:D
Care to show a video of your work?
(emphasis mine)


Chris7-

Are you actually attempting to make your argument that it's impossible to demonstrate how to cut a column with therm(i,a)te, when your position is that the column was in fact cut by the therm(i,a)te? You might want to consider that very carefully.

Would you not agree that if a similar effect can be shown to be explained by the application of conventional tools and methods, which by definition, already exist and are in use, it's a much more likely explanation for that phenomenon than the unconventional use of unknown tools and methods, which cannot be demonstrated?

[Christopher7]

(emphasis mine)


Chris7-

[quote] Are you actually attempting to make your argument that it's impossible to demonstrate how to cut a column with therm(i,a)te, when your position is that the column was in fact cut by the therm(i,a)te? You might want to consider that very carefully.It would be impossible for me to conduct such a test and asking me to do so is just cheap rhetorical tripe.

Would you not agree that if a similar effect can be shown to be explained by the application of conventional tools and methods, which by definition, already exist and are in use, it's a much more likely explanation for that phenomenon than the unconventional use of unknown tools and methods, which cannot be demonstrated?The way to verify what melted the steel in that column is to conduct and video a test of a 4" thick box column using both methods.

Anything less than a video of someone actually making that cut in a 4" thick box beam could be faked and would would prove nothing.

[DGM]

[quote=Minadin;3550296](emphasis mine)


Chris7-

It would be impossible for me to conduct such a test and asking me to do so is just cheap rhetorical tripe.

The way to verify what melted the steel in that column is to conduct and video a test of a 4" thick box column using both methods.

Anything less than a video of someone actually making that cut in a 4" thick box beam could be faked and would would prove nothing.
Why doesn't your "Truth" movement do this to back up their claim? I never meant you specifically. It's never been done your way before.

[WildCat]

It would be impossible for me to conduct such a test and asking me to do so is just cheap rhetorical tripe.
The entire truth movement can't scrape together enough money to buy a scrap steel column and cut it with thermite?

Oh yeah, truthburn did just that and couldn't get it to work. Hmmmm... :rolleyes:

[scissorhands]

That cut column looks like it was cut first on the back face and both side faces, leaving a "hinge" (as in tree felling cuts) at lower left, to direct it where the thermal lance operator wanted it to fall.
The angle of fall would be worked out beforehand by the weight distribution of whatever was connected to the column higher up.
The fall would warp the front face sufficiently to get a thermal lance in
and the front face would have been cut from behind afterwards.
No need for thermite.:)

[Christopher7]

[quote=Christopher7;3550441]
Why doesn't your "Truth" movement do this to back up their claim? I never meant you specifically. It's never been done your way before.Really?
What makes you so sure?
You have no proof that this cut was made with an acetylene cutting torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

You have a staged photograph with slag on the outside of a column.
Your debunking site debunks that photo with pictures of the cutting and back sides of an acetylene cutting torch cut.
The slag in on the back side.
Someone cut a hole in the other side of this column in order to make this cut from the inside.
However, this does not make any sense. Cutting a hole takes more time. There is no logical reason to cut a hole in one side just to cut the other side from inside the column.

http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/8456/cut2bi7.jpg

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

[beachnut]

Really?
What makes you so sure?
You have no proof that this cut was made with an acetylene cutting torch.

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

Wrong again. Pushing lies like this pretty much expose you as a no evidence guy.

You need to work with people who do welding and cutting. Experience and knowledge are useful if you want to try to push lies so you can do a better job. At least 9/11 truth is no better than your attempted false information excursion.

If you are trying to say this was cut by thermite to bring down the WTC, you are making up stuff or just telling a lie. Which is it?

[CHF]

Oh look - he threw a "thermite residue" tag on it! That changes everything.

Chris - why not just resolve this entire debate by asking some Ground Zero workers whether that cut looks like their work?

Are you afraid of their answer?

[Christopher7]

Wrong again. Pushing lies like this pretty much expose you as a no evidence guy.Excuse me.
Where is the lie?

1) The slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

2) the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

[beachnut]

Excuse me.
Where is the lie?
The lie is 9/11 truth. Such an easy question...

[Christopher7]

The lie is 9/11 truth. Such an easy question...The lie is truth.

How terribly Orwellian.

ETA: So, you don't think

The slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom
and
the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut.

are lies?

[Minadin]

I don't think they are.

Don't you agree that an explanation for such a thing which uses tools and methods which are known to us already and may be demonstrated to be possible is a much more likely scenario than one which uses unknown tools and methods and has never been, and possibly cannot be, demonstrated to work?

If you're going to champion the less likely explanation, it's incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that your solution is possible, even if it is unlikely.

[Blender Head]

So that one column was cut by therm?te, at the bottom of the Tower either right before or during collapse, and no clean-up worker noticed?

[X]

If you're going to champion the less likely explanation, it's incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that your solution is possible, even if it is unlikely.


BINGO!!
And that's the crux of the issue right there.
Well done Minadin.

[Christopher7]

I don't think they are.
So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right

[Architect]

I know nothing at all about such torches. So a wee question. Where is the actual torch in the lowermost photo, immediately above? Is it that thin line at the very top? And is that really a solid piece of steel/cast iron/whatever or simply a box section?

[X]

I know nothing at all about such torches. So a wee question. Where is the actual torch in the lowermost photo, immediately above? Is it that thin line at the very top?

Yes, it is.


And is that really a solid piece of steel/cast iron/whatever or simply a box section?

My guess is solid, seeing as the three surfaces visible are solid.
But that seem running just beneath the top makes me wonder if it isn't capped off.
But if it were hollow, I'd expect to see some glow coming from the previously-made cut, since some of the sparks and slag flying off the cut would bounce around inside and the glow should show through the other opening.

So my vote is solid.

[Architect]

So to what extent is it proof (or otherwise) of Chris' point.

[/genuine curiosity]

[defaultdotxbe]

So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg

please attempt to replicate this cut using thermite and post your results

[Minadin]

The lie is truth.

How terribly Orwellian.

ETA: So, you don't think

The slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom
and
the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut.

are lies?


I don't think they are.

Don't you agree that an explanation for such a thing which uses tools and methods which are known to us already and may be demonstrated to be possible is a much more likely scenario than one which uses unknown tools and methods and has never been, and possibly cannot be, demonstrated to work?

If you're going to champion the less likely explanation, it's incumbent upon you to provide some evidence that your solution is possible, even if it is unlikely.



I don't think they are.
So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg (http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg)


and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg (http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg)

:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right

No, I said that I don't think that the statements "the slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom" and "the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut." are lies.

But I certainly would disagree with the labels in your top photograph and your conclusion that "they" used therm(i,a)te to cut these columns, and I will continue to do so until such a time as there is any evidence whatsoever that this scenario is even possible. I'm not even asking for plausible or likely at this point.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge this flaw in your argument, or respond to the relatively simple question I posed to you in post you quoted (you even left it out when you quoted me) is at best intellectually dishonest to us, and at worst implies that you are in fact in denial, and are being dishonest with yourself. If you're so unfalsifiably convinced that your idea is the correct one, despite both a complete lack of evidence in its favor and a deluge of evidence and logical reasoning to discredit it, you're so far off the path of skepticism and critical thinking, that I should hold little hope that you will ever recover.


"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift (http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/2862.html)

[uk_dave]

So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right

What if you're wrong, chris?
What if it is not impossible that the 'slag' shown in your pictures was created by a thermal lance?

How far are you prepared to commit yourself to a belief in the 9-11 conspiracy based upon this sort of 'evidence'?

[Christopher7]

I know nothing at all about such torches. So a wee question. Where is the actual torch in the lowermost photo, immediately above?

The slag in on the back side of the cut.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

There is no slag on the cutting side.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg

[Christopher7]

What if it is not impossible that the 'slag' shown in your pictures was created by a thermal lance?A lance is an arc welder cutting tool.
They were using acetylene torches at ground zero.

[uk_dave]

A lance is an arc welder cutting tool.
They were using acetylene torches at ground zero.

Jeez chris, ok so what if it wasn't impossible that the 'slag' shown in your pics was caused by an oxy acetylene torch? :rolleyes:

How far are you prepared to go based upon this?

[DGM]

Have you used one before Chris? (lance) This is the most ridicules argument I've ever seen. This type of cut is done every day by people like me. When is the "truth" movement going to show me it can be done with "thermite"? Personally (and professionally) I think they're full of [rule 10). Show me it can be done "truth" movement.

[Christopher7]

No, I said that I don't think that the statements "the slag is on the out side of the cut at the bottom" and "the slag is on the back side of an acetylene cut." are lies.My bad, i tried to edit but the window had closed.


Gotta go now, more later.

[X]

And is that really a solid piece of steel/cast iron/whatever or simply a box section?

Alright, in light of Cristpher7's latest photo (beolw), I will state that the steel is solid. I'll even go so far as to identify it as steel, and not the stainless stuff.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2976/acetylenecut1wk0.jpg



So to what extent is it proof (or otherwise) of Chris' point.

[/genuine curiosity]


Nothing, unless he can prove the cut can only be produced with therm?te, and can absolutely not be done with a torch. I can tell you right now a torch is capable of making those cuts. The edges look like torch cuts, and DGM has explained the slag on the outside. We have pictures showing such cuts being made.
At this stage, anything other than outright proof on Chritsopher7's part that only therm?te would have resulted in what is seen in the photo is speculation, nothing more.

[Arus808]

chris, when are you going to demonstrate to us the cutting a vertical column with thermite

you can show us pics of torch cuts all you want, you still dont prove your claims

show us a vertical cut with thermite.

if you can't do this, then hire someone to do this for you.
make sure you video tape it

[DGM]

OK this is the way it is(Chris prove me wrong). I arrive on a job site and see a 14"x14"x4" column 30+ feet tall and I want it on the ground. I can call in a crane @ $500hr to be safe or I can safely fell it myself. Now how do I do this? I think 'lumberjack'. I start my cuts on the sides at right angles to where I want it to go (with my torch no less)angling them down in the direction I want this multi ton column to fall. Next thing I do is drive a wedge into the topside of my cut so the column won't fall back on me. Now it's safe to cut the top. Now I have three sides of this column free and remaining vertical because I drove a wedge into one side. Now after I tell everyone to get out of the way I drive my wedge in until the columns own weight cause it to fall over using the bottom un-cut section as a hinge. The last thing for me to do is cut off the bottom (leaving slag on the outside of the column) and the column now is safely on the ground.

Chris:
This is how it's done safely every day of the week. Can you explain to me how it was done your way?

[SpitfireIX]

So, you don't think there is slag on the outside of the cut at the bottom.
[lower arrow]
http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


and you don't think the slag is on the back side of this acetylene torch cut

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/9259/acetylenecut2em3.jpg

:boggled::confused::o:p:D;):rolleyes: Right


Hasty generalization. Slag is a liquid initially, and will behave like a liquid until it solidifies. In the WTC picture, the cuts is very steeply angled, and the slag tends to flow "downhill," as we can see in both the lower and upper cuts on the column.

In the other pictures, however, there are two possibilities. First, if the lance operator makes a perfectly horizontal cut, the liquid would be expected to flow more-or-less equally from both sides, except for one factor: the jet of gasses being ejected from the lance, which would tend to push the slag out the opposite side of the cut. Second, as the cut approaches the floor, if the lance operator is standing, or even kneeling, the cut will most likely slope down away from the lance, causing slag to tend to flow away from the lance.

Here is a video clearly showing slag flowing out the side from the cut is being made:

UMKBOoAOR7I

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/17060474efd47d7e6b.jpg

[Minadin]

A lance is an arc welder cutting tool.
They were using acetylene torches at ground zero.

Unless I'm completely forgetting my training, an arc welder uses the ability for steel to conduct electricity to create a short-circuit, which melts the welding wire to create the bead, and heats the steel to such a temperature that it fuses.

Thermal Lances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_lance) seem to be quite different, and in fact share many similarities to an oxy-acetylene torch. I must admit, however, that while I've used both oxy-acetylene torches and arc welders on a semi-regular basis, I've not used thermal lances whatsoever, so it's possible that I'm mistaken.

[boloboffin]

Christopher, this is your picture.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/cut2bi7.jpg

As you can see, the slag is on the OUTSIDE of this beam. There is even a metal piece that is over the cut. This beam had to be cut from the inside, just like the bottom cut from the main picture in question.

Are you saying that this cut in the picture above is from a torch or from thermite?

[Christopher7]

Jeez chris, ok so what if it wasn't impossible that the 'slag' shown in your pics was caused by an oxy acetylene torch? :rolleyes:

How far are you prepared to go based upon this?The pic speaks for itself.
An oxy-acetylene cuts leaves slag on the backside of the cut, not the cutting side.
The bottom cut was not made by an oxy-acetylene torch.

Therefore, this cut was done with something other than an oxy-acetylene cutting torch.

Thermate melts steel and would leave slag on the inside and the outside of a box column.

[defaultdotxbe]

The pic speaks for itself.
An oxy-acetylene cuts leaves slag on the backside of the cut, not the cutting side.
The bottom cut was not made by an oxy-acetylene torch.
did you read DGM in post 403? seems a pretty plausible explanation

[Christopher7]

Christopher, this is your picture.

http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g171/boloboffin2/911/cut2bi7.jpg

As you can see, the slag is on the OUTSIDE of this beam. There is even a metal piece that is over the cut. This beam had to be cut from the inside, just like the bottom cut from the main picture in question.

Are you saying that this cut in the picture above is from a torch or from thermite?The exterior column section cut was made with an acetylene torch from the inside of the column.

There is no logical reason to cut out a section on one side and cut the other side from the inside, especially on a core column that is 4 inches thick.

There is no sign that this was done on the core column in question.
The cuts on the sides were at a 45° angle and above the bottom cut.

[Dave_46]

<snip>
An oxy-acetylene cuts leaves slag on the backside of the cut, not the cutting side.
<snip>

I am not sure that this assertion is correct.

The picture you have been flooding the thread with (you don't need to keep posting it, we've all seen it now) shows evidence of uneven cutting. This is most likely caused by the cutting torch being hand-held, it would be difficult in the extreme to have some sort of jig for holding the torch at the scene. When the torch is hand-held there is a tendancy for it to wander from the direct line of the cut, so that the flame plays on the surface, and consequently slag is not all forced through the cut. This would allow some of the slag to remain on the side where the cutting torch is.

Dave

[Christopher7]

OK this is the way it is(Chris prove me wrong). I arrive on a job site and see a 14"x14"x4" column 30+ feet tall and I want it on the ground. I can call in a crane @ $500hr to be safe or I can safely fell it myself.The column in question is 52x22x4 [or close]
A 30' section would weigh about 27 tons.

Now how do I do this? I think 'lumberjack'. I start my cuts on the sides at right angles to where I want it to go (with my torch no less)angling them down in the direction I want this multi ton column to fall.The 45° angle cuts on the long sides were made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch. The 'signature' is clear.
The cuts at the top and bottom do NOT have this signature.

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1258/oxyacetylenetorchcutsambz9.jpg

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/3187/cut3ol5.jpg


Next thing I do is drive a wedge into the topside of my cut so the column won't fall back on me. Now it's safe to cut the top.You should drive wedges into both sides to be safe.

Now I have three sides of this column free and remaining vertical because I drove a wedge into one side. Now after I tell everyone to get out of the way I drive my wedge in until the columns own weight cause it to fall over using the bottom un-cut section as a hinge.With a little help from Paul Bunyan.
You cannot bend a piece of steel 4" thick and 22" wide by pounding a wedge into the side of a column.
You cannot lift 27 tons by driving a wedge into the side of a column.
Furthermore
The column was nearly vertical.
You would have to get the center of gravity past the the lower side of the column before the weight of the column could be used to bend the lower side.
A wedge could not accomplish this.

This is how it's done safely every day of the week.Not on a column of this size.

Can you explain to me how it was done your way?No, i can only look at the result and see that the lower cut was not made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch.
The slag on the inside and outside of these cuts could have been caused by thermite or thermate.
There are no other explanation for the slag on the outside of the lower cut.

[defaultdotxbe]

You cannot bend a piece of steel 4" thick and 22" wide by pounding a wedge into the side of a column.
You cannot lift 27 tons by driving a wedge into the side of a column.

archimedes might have something to say about this...

[WildCat]

:words:
Christopher, when will you or anyone else in the truth movement demonstrate that thermite can make such a cut? Don't you think this would be much more effective in making your case than posting on internet forums based on speculation alone?

[Christopher7]

I am not sure that this assertion is correct.

When the torch is hand-held there is a tendancy for it to wander from the direct line of the cut, so that the flame plays on the surface, and consequently slag is not all forced through the cut. This would allow some of the slag to remain on the side where the cutting torch is.

DaveA professional cutter does not let the flame 'wander'.
The lower cut has a lot of slag on the outside.
It was NOT cut from the outside.

[Myriad]

There is no logical reason to cut out a section on one side and cut the other side from the inside, especially on a core column that is 4 inches thick.


Really?

If you were the one making that last cut, where would you rather be standing when you do it: area "A", or area "B"?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1301247e6e021f1a0f.jpg

I think not having a huge honking column fall on your head is a pretty logical reason. Do you disagree?

Respectfully,
Myriad

[boloboffin]

Wait.

You accept that a torch cut the sides of that beam?

This conversation is over.

[DGM]

The column in question is 52x22x4 [or close]
A 30' section would weigh about 27 tons.

Yes and I use that weight to my advantage.

The 45° angle cuts on the long sides were made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch. The 'signature' is clear.

That's right

The cuts at the top and bottom do NOT have this signature.

So?

You should drive wedges into both sides to be safe.
Not necessary, The 'hinge' on the bottom is strong enough in that plane to stop the column from falling to the side.

With a little help from Paul Bunyan.
You cannot bend a piece of steel 4" thick and 22" wide by pounding a wedge into the side of a column.

I'm not bending it I'm simply getting the column to move out of vertical, the weight of the column does the bending. Try it sometime you do this sort of thing don't you?

You cannot lift 27 tons by driving a wedge into the side of a column.

I'm not lifting anything. I'm exerting a force with a wedge and a 10lb sledge. It's call friendly persuasion.:D



Furthermore
The column was nearly vertical.
You would have to get the center of gravity past the the lower side of the column before the weight of the column could be used to bend the lower side.
A wedge could not accomplish this.

Not on a column of this size.

And you know this how? Please explain why. (hint wedges and large sledge hammers exert huge amounts of force)

No, i can only look at the result and see that the lower cut was not made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch.
The slag on the inside and outside of these cuts could have been caused by thermite or thermate.
There are no other explanation for the slag on the outside of the lower cut.

So please get one of your "truther" heroes to put on a demonstration so this old iron worker will be convinced. Until that day comes I'll do it my way and know that your "movement" is full of [rule10]. Fair enough?

[Christopher7]

Christopher, when will you or anyone else in the truth movement demonstrate that thermite can make such a cut? Don't you think this would be much more effective in making your case than posting on internet forums based on speculation alone?Fair question.
I do not have the resources or expertise to conduct such a test.
I doubt that BYU will pay for such a test and Prof. Jones may not have the resources or access to a testing facility to conduct such a test.

You ask for a test to demonstrate that the cut in question could have been made by thermate.

The slag and the absence of a cutting torch 'signature' indicate that the lower cut was not made with a cutting torch.

Since there is no evidence to support your claim that the cut was made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, you are equally obligated to conduct a video test demonstrating your theory.

[Christopher7]

archimedes might have something to say about this...What?

[jhunter1163]

Did someone say "lumberjack"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clPYfaTvHT0

[DGM]

Fair question.
I do not have the resources or expertise to conduct such a test.
I doubt that BYU will pay for such a test and Prof. Jones may not have the resources or access to a testing facility to conduct such a test.

You ask for a test to demonstrate that the cut in question could have been made by thermate.

The slag and the absence of a cutting torch 'signature' indicate that the lower cut was not made with a cutting torch.

Since there is no evidence to support your claim that the cut was made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, you are equally obligated to conduct a video test demonstrating your theory.
All you got to do Chris is talk to the iron workers that worked the piles. Why didn't the "truth" movement do this sort of thing before making a claim that they can not support? Should we all just be little sheepies and believe them? The "truth" movement wouldn't lie to me would they?:rolleyes:

[DGM]

And Chris; Another nail in your coffin you pointed out. The "signature" marks are pointing down toward the bottom most likely cutting into it too. This would also give you slag on the front. Wouldn't it?

Give it up!

[Christopher7]

I'm not bending it I'm simply getting the column to move out of vertical, the weight of the column does the bending. Wrong

The weight of the column is bending the bottom side toward you until the center of gravity is beyond the bottom side.

[DGM]

Wrong

The weight of the column is bending the bottom side toward you until the center of gravity is beyond the bottom side.
The wedge prevents this. Remember I install the wedge before I cut the top. Give it up!

[Christopher7]

And Chris; Another nail in your coffin you pointed out. The "signature" marks are pointing down toward the bottom most likely cutting into it too. This would also give you slag on the front. Wouldn't it?
There is slag on outside at the left corner where part of the side has not been cut.

[Christopher7]

The weight of the column is bending the bottom side toward you until the center of gravity is beyond the bottom side.

The wedge prevents this. Remember I install the wedge before I cut the top.Correct
The wedge is holding up the column.
If you removed the wedge, the column would bend the bottom side toward you.

The column is near vertical.
You must therefore lift the column on the high side until the top of the high side has moved about 4' to where it is beyond the bottom side.
At this point, the weight of the column is bending the bottom away from you.

Give it up!

[A W Smith]

These are some of the "wedges (http://www.cranestodaymagazine.com/story.asp?storycode=2013498)" used to tilt, hold, and then lower the cut columns

[X]

I've worked with plasma cutters and oxy-acetylene torches, Chris.
Have you?

You claim that because the marks on the top do not match your pretty pictures, they can not have been cut by oxy-acetylene torches.

You cannot see the marks on the top in the picture to make that claim. Further, the slag pattern is consistent with torch cutting. It has rivulets just like the sides, which you aknowledge were cut by oxy-acetylene, do (it also raises a question: why cut the column sides with torches and then therm?te the upper and lower cuts? Wouldn't sombody have noticed people chopping up the columns?). The bottom exhibits similar slag, but more of it, implying the cut was made through more material. This makes sense, when you notice the cut is not straight across the wall, but rather angled down. Just like itf the column had been tilted over to where the top rested on the ground.

You have selectively ignored parts of DGM's posts in order to be able to continue this charade.

I'm not going to ask you to demonstrate that therm?te could do this (ignoring the problems of horizonatal cutting).

Instead, as your case rests upon the fact that an oxy-acetylene torch could not have made the cuts on the top and bottom sides, I'm going to ask you to prove this claim.
I'm certain you can find some place where a worker can demonstrate cutting a box-section with a torch. Preferably a long one to test your rejection of DGM's explanation of how to knock such a column over, but if necessary a shorter one will do.

Prove those cuts could not have been made by torches, Christopher7. It's vital to your claim, so I assume you have some experience in this area and will be able to demonstrate it.

I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm going to anyways because I've seen how the truth movement can dance:
In order to prove a torch cannot perform the required cut, you must attempt to prove it can make the cut by some means, and fail consistently in unbiased experiments.

The web is waiting. Take up the challenge, and be a hero.

[defaultdotxbe]

The column is near vertical.
You must therefore lift the column on the high side until the top of the high side has moved about 4' to where it is beyond the bottom side.
At this point, the weight of the column is bending the bottom away from you.

Give it up!
are we still talking about the column in the photo? how do you know if it was near vertical before being cut?

[Christopher7]

These are some of the "wedges (http://www.cranestodaymagazine.com/story.asp?storycode=2013498)" used to tilt, hold, and then lower the cut columns
This is a wedge
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6582/wedgefi3.jpg

DMG's claim that a wedge could do the job is absurd.


This is a crane.
http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/7312/craneep4.jpg

If they used one of these, it would not be necessary bend the column over.

They could use the crane to hold up the column and pull it away from the cutter making the last cut.

Safety regulations probably prohibit anything less.

[A W Smith]

Chris . you are trying to compare the oxyacetylene cuts of a half inch piece of steel
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1258/oxyacetylenetorchcutsambz9.jpg


With the cuts by a lance on a horizontal steel column with a wall section of three inches? where do you suppose all that melting steel will flow to?

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/WTC/images/wtc17.jpg

[Christopher7]

are we still talking about the column in the photo? how do you know if it was near vertical before being cut?The picture clearly shows the remaining part of the column is vertical.
The corners are vertical.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg

[WildCat]

Christopher, you can post pictures all day long and it will not help your case. Either duplicate the cuts with thermite, or go to NYC and talk to some of the workers involved in the cleanup and ask them if your pictures are their work.

Its time to defecate or get off the pot.

[Christopher7]

Chris . you are trying to compare the oxyacetylene cuts of a half inch piece of steel
http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1258/oxyacetylenetorchcutsambz9.jpg


With the cuts by a lance on a horizontal steel column with a wall section of three inches? where do you suppose all that melting steel will flow to?

http://www.osha.gov/Publications/WTC/images/wtc17.jpgThe melted steel is mostly blown away. The the slag is on the back side of the cut.

[defaultdotxbe]

The picture clearly shows the remaining part of the column is vertical.
The corners are vertical.

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/2557/cutcorecolumnqg2.jpg
and this proves it wasnt bent at some point above the cut how.....?

[X]

This is a wedge
http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6582/wedgefi3.jpg


Correct, that is an example of a wedge.



DMG's claim that a wedge could do the job is absurd.


Below is shown the effect a wedge has in tipping over something tall and heavy, In this case, a tree. Source (http://www.forestapps.com/tips/wedge/wedge.htm)

Granted, a tree is not a clumn, but this does show that your rejection of DMG's explanation is unwarranted and erroneous, and that a wedge can be used to tip over a tall, homogenous, upright item.

Since you appear to have considerable expertise in this area (as evidenced by your claims), I shall once again implore you to prove the cuts are categorically impossible to do with a cutting torch.
After all, you are positing that the cut must have been made through rather unusual means. To make such a statement, you must have some way to prove the cut could not have happened through some mundane, commonly-used technique. Since you continue making this statement, it follows logically that you must have some personal expertise upon which you base these extraordinary claims.

[Drs_Res]

So Chris believes that the FDNY and other cleanup workers are "in on it".

[beachnut]

Fair question.
I do not have the resources or expertise to conduct such a test.
I doubt that BYU will pay for such a test and Prof. Jones may not have the resources or access to a testing facility to conduct such a test.

You ask for a test to demonstrate that the cut in question could have been made by thermate.

The slag and the absence of a cutting torch 'signature' indicate that the lower cut was not made with a cutting torch.

Since there is no evidence to support your claim that the cut was made with an oxy-acetylene cutting torch, you are equally obligated to conduct a video test demonstrating your theory.
Jones was fired for being nuts on 9/11. The column you posted was cut during clean up! Failure is being wrong once; what is persistent repetitive failure called?

[Christopher7]

;3555971']Granted, a tree is not a clumnAnd therein lies the rub.

A wedge is not used to tip the balance and make the tree fall, is is used to keep the tree from binding the chainsaw when cutting past the center of gravity.

A wedge cannot lift 27 tons of steel and bend a piece of steel 22" wide and 4" thick.

[WildCat]

A wedge cannot lift 27 tons of steel and bend a piece of steel 22" wide and 4" thick.
The weight of the column above the cut is what bends the steel. The wedge and the angle of the cut merely prevents the column from falling the other way.

But Christopher, you claim this was done with thermite yet the truth movement has been unable to cut a column with thermite ever since Jones proposed this idea. And you also refuse to talk to the ground zero cleanup workers to see if they in fact made the cuts with a torch.

You're basically saying thermite did it, and a torch didn't, yet you have no evidence whatsoever that it's even possible to make such a cut with thermite, nor have you demonstrated it cannot be done with a torch. Your claims, why don't you think you're under an obligation to prove them?

[X]

And therein lies the rub.

A wedge is not used to tip the balance and make the tree fall, is is used to keep the tree from binding the chainsaw when cutting past the center of gravity.

A wedge cannot lift 27 tons of steel and bend a piece of steel 22" wide and 4" thick.


So you ignore the physics because a tree is not a steel column?

Unbelievable.

Once again: They are both homogenous vertical elements. On a small scale, they will behave differently. But on a large scale, such as the overall behaviour of a tall, fresstanding homgenous item with a wedge being driven into it, they will behave similarily.

But obviously your an expert. So prove to us unknowledgeable peons that the cut absolutely could not have been made with a torch.

(Hint: repeatedly stating that the slag is on the "wrong side" for your percieved method of torch cutting does not constitute proof.)

[Christopher7]

Jones was fired for being nuts on 9/11.Correct.

The first casualty of the "War on Terror" was the first amendment right of anyone to say "The President is a sleaze bag" or worse.

If someone can be fired for saying
"The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives"
there is no free speech.

Nationalistic fanatics say:
People should be fired for saying something so horrible as "The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives".
and
The Dixie Chicks should be banned for saying "I'm ashamed to be from the same state as Bush."
Rupert Murdock and the rest of MSM banned the Dixie Chicks.


Think about what you said.
You know the real reason why Jones was fired.
You can see thru the 'official spin'.
You know why the Dixie Chicks were banned, MSM was sending a message.


But the times, they are a'changin.
The Chicks are back.

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

It is no longer unpatriotic to say:
"Bush and Cheney let 9/11 happen so they could go to war in the Middle East"

It is no longer unpatriotic to say:
"Federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks"

[Christopher7]

;3556352']So you ignore the physics because a tree is not a steel column?You are the one ignoring the laws of physics.

Hitting a wedge with a 9 pound hammer will not lift 27 tons, much less bend a piece of steel 4" thick and 22" wide.

Give it up.

[Arus808]

give it up chris, your trolling here is not wanted.

you've been asked to prove your claims, yet you continue to post your ignorant unfounded and parroted claims of the 911 liar movement

since you wont:
1) demonstrate thermite cutting steel, in the way youve shown us in the photos
2) wont talk to the crews that cut those columns

why are you here? We do not take light of claim that implicate innocent people of murder. So,

you've been asked numerous times to provide proof

yet you can't

I suggest that anyone who replies to C7's lies, only answer with asking for proof (that he perform those cuts on a column with thermite)

other than that, he should be ignored;

[uk_dave]

If someone can be fired for saying
"The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives"
there is no free speech.



Whooooaa there.

You mean a person who is supposed to hold a position of authority based upon knowledge should be able to talk absolute crap as part of their job and not be fired?

So if a police officer says that it's really ok to have sex with a 12 year old, you don't think that police officer should be fired?

[CHF]

The first casualty of the "War on Terror" was the first amendment right of anyone to say "The President is a sleaze bag" or worse.

If someone can be fired for saying
"The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives"
there is no free speech.

Give it up, Chris.

Jones was suspended (and later resigned) because he falsely claimed that his paper was peer-reviewed when it wasn't.

He'd been questioning 9/11 for a while before that.

[Dave_46]

A professional cutter does not let the flame 'wander'.
The lower cut has a lot of slag on the outside.
It was NOT cut from the outside.

I do not agree with your assertions.

[Dave_46]

Correct

The first casualty of the "War on Terror" was the first amendment right of anyone to say "The President is a sleaze bag" or worse.

<snip>

Your right to say "The President is a sleaze bag" has not been withdrawn, as the post I have quoted demonstrates.

Dave

p.s. those colour tags make your posts awkward to quote, I had to remove them to tidy things up.

[WildCat]

Correct.

The first casualty of the "War on Terror" was the first amendment right of anyone to say "The President is a sleaze bag" or worse.
I see your knowledge of the 1st Amendment is a deep as your knowledge of thermite and cutting torches.

[Minadin]

Correct.

The first casualty of the "War on Terror" was the first amendment right of anyone to say "The President is a sleaze bag" or worse.

If someone can be fired for saying
"The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives"
there is no free speech.


BYU (http://www.byu.edu/webapp/home/index.jsp) is a private institution. They aren't the government or any agent thereof.

The First Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1) to the Constitution states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Steven Jones was "fired" (suspended, then resigned) for not producing scholarly works per the expectations of his employer. Basically, he wasn't doing his job. But, even if he was, a private employer such as BYU is within their rights, and not violating his, if they should choose to terminate his employment for publicly holding positions that they don't agree with, which are contrary to the school's philosophy and goals, or which bring bad publicity to the university.

For instance, based on their mission statement (http://unicomm.byu.edu/about/), I think you'd have a difficult time retaining a professorship at the school if you were publicly on record stating something to the effect of, "Mormonism is a load of bunk."

Would you not agree?

[Christopher7]

give it up chris, your trolling here is not wanted.

you've been asked to prove your claims, yet you continue to post your ignorant unfounded and parroted claims of the 911 liar movementNo matter how many qualified experts come forward you will call them liars.

Your personal incredulity just won't let you believe that Cheney/Rummy/Wolfowitz could kill Americans to start a war.

It is now known that Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin.

58,000 Americans and 2,000,000 Vietnamese died in that war.

Our government does not take care of the men the send off to these wars for profit, based on lies.
We lost almost 59,000 men and women during the 16 years of Viet Nam. As of 5 years after the war was officially over, we had 150,000 Viet Nam Vets that had committed suicide.
The suicide rate for Viet Nam Vets is 86% higher than the national average of peers of the same age group.
70% of all one car accidents is Viet Nam Vets (was it really an accident).
60% of all Viet Nam Vets have serious emotional problems.
Between 50 and 60% have a history of alcohol and drug abuse.
The unemployment rate for Viet Nam Vets is double the national average.
The divorce rate for Viet Nam Vets is almost 3 times as many as the national average.
About 25% of all incarcerated people are Viet Nam Vets. (Most are non-violent crimes).
56% of all homeless Americans are veterans, 44% are Viet Nam Vets.http://www.capveterans.com/caprd_004.htm



It is now known that Bush/Cheney took us to war in Iraq based on a pack of lies.

120 vets commit suicide every week.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has rubber-stamped their disinformation, continuing (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/67556/) to insist that their studies indicate that soldiers are killing themselves, not because of their combat experiences, but because they have "personal problems."

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/68713/


Yet you continue to deny all evidence, slander and dismiss anyone who says something you can't deal with.

You steadfastly defend the cold blooded, sub human monsters that have lied us into a war of conquest.

Don't claim your are not defending them.
By attacking the Truth Movement, you are defending them.

[Arus808]

No matter how many qualified experts come forward you will call them liars.

False. I want to see their PROOF. I want to see their calculations. I dont want to see them parroting the same unsubstantiated claims without so much as having their work peer reviewed by a RESPECTABLE and NOTABLE body of their peers. that's peer review.



They could be Albert Einstein for all I care; unless they produce their own research with their own calculations, that has been reviewed and tested by their peers, their CLAIMS are nothing more than bunk.



[snip crap about Vietnam that has nothing to do with this topic]

[snip even mor crap about stuff that has nothing to do with this topic]

Can't you stay on topic chris?

please provide a Peer Reviewed in a REPUTABLE scientific, engineering and fire saftey journal that the fRAUDs of AE911 have produced.

[Newtons Bit]

False. I want to see their PROOF. I want to see their calculations. I dont want to see them parroting the same unsubstantiated claims without so much as having their work peer reviewed by a RESPECTABLE and NOTABLE body of their peers. that's peer review.

Agreed. Those of us who have the same level (or more) of qualifications as the so called experts at AE911 and at JONES aren't impressed by their titles. We want to see their work.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Arus808 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3556489#post3556489)
....... the 911 liar movement

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3567180#post3567180)
No matter how many qualified experts come forward you will call them liars.
False. I want to see their PROOF.


You called Stephen Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard gage and hundreds of other professionals with degrees, LIARS.

You say their claims are BUNK. As if you were qualified to say that.


This is a fair and reasonable statement:
"I am skeptical and I won't believe these people until their findings have been peer reviewed by a RESPECTABLE and NOTABLE body of their peers."

This is denial and implicit support for Bush/Cheney's conspiracy theory:
"The 911 Truth Movement is a pack of liars and their claims are BUNK.

[WildCat]

You called Stephen Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard gage and hundreds of other professionals with degrees, LIARS.

You say their claims are BUNK. As if you were qualified to say that.
Many of the posters here are qualified to say that, Newtons Bit being one of them

None of your "experts" has published a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal - after 6 and a half years!

All Gage does is parrot David Ray Griffin.

This doesn't bother you Chris?

[Minadin]

What has Richard Gage produced that's original or in any way uses his supposed expertise? Kevin Ryan isn't qualified to comment. He tested water for UL, nothing relevant. Stephen Jones may have a physics degree, but it's in a completely different area.

Even yet, we would still evaluate their work rather than their credentials. If they had these same areas of expertise and were able to show themselves to be competent by making factual assertions backed by evidence, we would be much more kindly disposed. Instead, they want to flaunt their titles, degrees, or (former) professional affiliations. It's completely worthless.

By the way -
Do you still think that Stephen Jones or Kevin Ryan's 1st amendment rights have been violated?

[Arus808]

You called Stephen Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard gage and hundreds of other professionals with degrees, LIARS.

because they continue the parrot the same LIES after they were told THEY WERE LIES.

that makes them LIARS

Kevin Ryan, he was shown to be a HUGE liar, when he made himself out to be something he was not, and that's WHY HE GOT fired.

You say their claims are BUNK. As if you were qualified to say that.

I am qualified to say that. I have not seen ANY of those "experts" provide a PUBLISHED paper with evidence, calculations to RESPECTABLE engineering, scientific and fire saftey journals. If they have done so, they have never pointed it out, and have never made mention of it. Care to give us the name of these journals to which you can find their published and PEER Reviewed work.

I didn't take High School physics for nothing. either. I haven't used it in the nearly 18 years I've been out of high school, but I still remember alot of the crap I did learn.

[Confuseling]

Physics isn't my forte, so forgive me for butting in.

But surely you can use a wedge to lift a giant mass? The point is it's really tall, so you only have to lift it a minute amount, and all of its length will amplify that motion into sideways displacement of the top, past its tipping point.

As long as you've got a gap you can get the wedge into in the first place (which you can do, presumably, by putting it in before you've made the entire cut) and a substantial wedge with a shallow enough angle (and, lest we forget, a blooooming big hammer), this sounds entirely possible.

I don't understand how you can contest this Chris. If anything, the example of a tree, capable of deformation on a small scale, would seem harder to push over like this.

ETA: and Chris, your suggestion about how to cut it, starting at the lowest cut, then doing the diagonals, then the top, doesn't sound even vaguely safe. Surely then the top section would slide off, and could fall in more or less any direction?

[beachnut]

Correct.

The first casualty of the "War on Terror" was the first amendment right of anyone to say "The President is a sleaze bag" or worse.

If someone can be fired for saying
"The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives"
there is no free speech.

Nationalistic fanatics say:
People should be fired for saying something so horrible as "The trade towers and WTC 7 could not have fallen the way they did without explosives".
and
The Dixie Chicks should be banned for saying "I'm ashamed to be from the same state as Bush."
Rupert Murdock and the rest of MSM banned the Dixie Chicks.


Think about what you said.
You know the real reason why Jones was fired.
You can see thru the 'official spin'.
You know why the Dixie Chicks were banned, MSM was sending a message.


But the times, they are a'changin.
The Chicks are back.

More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

It is no longer unpatriotic to say:
"Bush and Cheney let 9/11 happen so they could go to war in the Middle East"

It is no longer unpatriotic to say:
"Federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks"
your paranoia knows no bounds

you have no facts or evidence, just hearsay and the need to believe in false information and made up CTs about 9/11

120 vets commit suicide every week.

Don't claim your are not defending them.
By attacking the Truth Movement, you are defending them.
6256 vets killed themselves in 2005, that is included in the 32,439 total suicides in the US. This is sad, and has not a thing to do with 9/11! Can we do better about suicide? Yes, but still it has not a thing to do with the liars in 9/11 truth which you support!

We loose more kids on the roads than in combat. We need to do better in all areas, but this all has not a thing to do with 9/11 truth movement groups making up lies and spreading false information. You lack knowledge and make false analogies on 9/11.

We did not loose anything on 9/11 unless we do it to ourselves; it seems you are not concentrating on the problems we have, you are making up junk to make problems.

Does your faulty logic have bounds?; what does this have to do with 9/11? ZIP

[Christopher7]

Many of the posters here are qualified to say that, Newtons Bit being one of themNewtons Bit doesn't know diddily squat.

First he says:
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit #2103
Christopher7, continous beam action is developed across columns that have fixed-moment connections such as the WTC. If a cantilevered beam is developed, an upwards load will actually develop in the columns furthest away from the damage.

Such is NOT the case.

Then it changes to:
#2183
the force from the column will force that beam into catenary action

First, the problem:
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_16329463f7497a3a36.jpg

five columns and the second one from the left is removed.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_16329463f74b202f77.jpg

. . . . . . X . . . . .Y
1 N1 . 14.257 . 431.843
1 N2 . . . . . .0 . . . . . . .0
1 N3 -11.516 . 513.333
1 N4 -.739 . . . .246.38
1 N5 -2.002 . . .308.444

#2191
After one column is removed, a non-adjacent columns had it's load REDUCED to 246.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2587411#post2587411

The tables show column 1 got 432 kips and
column 3 got 513 or 171% of its original load.
column 4 got 246 or 82% of its original load. [due to the cantilever effect]
column 5 got 308 or 103% of its original load. [due to catenary*(?) effect]
*catenary: curve of cable


The cantilever effect reverses at each column, first reducing the load in column 4 and then slightly increasing the load on column 5.

Beyond column 5 the effects of the severed column would be negligible.


I stated that:
The upward load will be the greatest on the adjoining column (4), and to a lesser degree, on the columns further away.

Such is the case in NB's model.


NB was blowin smoke.

[Christopher7]

What has Richard Gage produced that's original or in any way uses his supposed expertise?
Research can be just gathering and compiling information. It is not necessary for every investigator to re-invent the wheel.
AE 9/11 Truth has put together a comprehensive power point presentation.
Start withe page 1 and state exactly what you have a problem with and why.

Kevin Ryan isn't qualified to comment.He is qualified to research UL's records and say that UL did inspect the steel in the Trade Towers.

Stephen Jones may have a physics degree, but it's in a completely different area. Stephen Jones is a EXPERT on the laws of physics.
He is qualified to say "According to the laws of physics, the Trade Towers could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.
He doesn't need to know squat about explosives, only that the buildings could not have fallen the way they did without them.
He is also highly qualified to conduct experiments on WTC dust where he has found evidence of thermate.

By the way -
Do you still think that Stephen Jones or Kevin Ryan's 1st amendment rights have been violated?By making an example of the Dixie Chicks, Kevin Ryan and Stephen Jones, the powers that be send a message to anyone wishing to speak out:
There will be a price to pay for saying something bad about Bush or questioning the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory.

[R.Mackey]

Kevin Ryan's claims were found, in a court of law, to be totally unsupportable.

So much for that idea.

[AZCat]

He is qualified to research UL's records and say that UL did inspect the steel in the Trade Towers.

Excuse me? That's not what he said (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php) at all. Not only that, but he's wrong. UL certified that the assemblies met ASTM E 119, not the individual components.

[Christopher7]

because they continue the parrot the same LIES after they were told THEY WERE LIES.
that makes them LIARSSo you are calling them liars.

Some anonymous adolescent claims something they said was a lie and that makes it a lie.

Please list these so-called lies.

[X]

Stephen Jones is a EXPERT on the laws of physics.
He is qualified to say "According to the laws of physics, the Trade Towers could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.
He doesn't need to know squat about explosives, only that the buildings could not have fallen the way they did without them.
He is also highly qualified to conduct experiments on WTC dust where he has found evidence of thermate.


So you don't need to know anything about explosives in order to make a statement affirming them as the only plausible explanation for collapse?
I suppose that is true enough, but if someone knows nothing about a claim they make, they should not cling to that claim when someone who actually knows about the subject says it's wrong.

Actually, this raises an interesting question. Christopher7: if your arguments are proven wrong, will you retract them and by extension relinquish any beliefs based upon those errant arguments?



There will be a price to pay for saying something bad about Bush or questioning the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory.


Bush is a warmongering idiot, and Cheney is a fool who goes on canned hunts and has no concept of firearm safety.
Does this mean they're coming after me?
(I'm not going to comment on the conspiriacy allegation, because that requires a prior belief in a conspiracy, which I don't have.)

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Arus808 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3556489#post3556489)
....... the 911 liar movement

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3567180#post3567180)
No matter how many qualified experts come forward you will call them liars.



You called Stephen Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard gage and hundreds of other professionals with degrees, LIARS.

.

Judy Woods has a degree in engineering Chris.

Do you accept her contention that DEW were used to 'dustify' the WTC structures?

[Christopher7]

Excuse me? That's not what he said (http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php) at all. Not only that, but he's wrong. UL certified that the assemblies met ASTM E 119, not the individual components.I just read "what he said".
He stated his concerns, his reasoning and his references.
He was polite and he did not accuse anyone of anything.
So where is the problem?

[Christopher7]

Judy Woods has a degree in engineering Chris.

Do you accept her contention that DEW were used to 'dustify' the WTC structures?No
Last year ya'all were demanding statements by experts.

Now that there are lots of qualified experts speaking out,
you imply that qualifications don't mean anything.

:boggled:

[AZCat]

I just read "what he said".
He stated his concerns, his reasoning and his references.
He was polite and he did not accuse anyone of anything.
So where is the problem?

Hmmm, maybe the problem is that he's wrong. There is a big difference between testing an assembly and testing a component.

He also references softening steel for forging (at 1100 degrees Celsius, no less), which of course is a piss-poor reference for the relationship between temperature, duration of exposure, and the strength of steel. Somewhere in there he manages to confuse heat weakening of steel with "weak steel" (i.e. not up to the engineer's specifications).

In other words, he doesn't know what he is talking about.

[Christopher7]

;3569167']So you don't need to know anything about explosives in order to make a statement affirming them as the only plausible explanation for collapse?As a physicist, Jones is qualified* to say that the the laws of physics eliminate the only other possibility:
Trade Towers collapsed under their own weight in 12 to 14 seconds.

*2 PhD's, Prof. of Physics for 20 years [at a very conservative University]
It doesn't get any more qualified than that!

I suppose that is true enough, but if someone knows nothing about a claim they make, they should not cling to that claim when someone who actually knows about the subject says it's wrong.
Correct, you should not claim that Prof. Jones is wrong about the laws of physics and cling to your claim that the Trade Towers collapsed under their own weight in 12 to 14 seconds.

NIST did NOT explain how the Trade Towers collapsed under their own weight in 12 to 14 seconds.

Actually, this raises an interesting question. Christopher7: if your arguments are proven wrong, will you retract them and by extension relinquish any beliefs based upon those errant arguments?Actually, i have done that several times in the debate about WTC 7 on the "10 story hole" thread.

Bush is a warmongering idiot, and Cheney is a fool who goes on canned hunts and has no concept of firearm safety.
Does this mean they're coming after me?Hell no, you got their back. [much safer there]

[Christopher7]

Hmmm, maybe the problem is that he's wrong. There is a big difference between testing an assembly and testing a component.UL would certainly test steel components that were representative of the ones that were to be used in the building.
Who said they did not test the steel components?

He also references softening steel for forging (at 1100 degrees Celsius, no less), which of course is a piss-poor reference for the relationship between temperature, duration of exposure, and the strength of steel. Somewhere in there he manages to confuse heat weakening of steel with "weak steel" (i.e. not up to the engineer's specifications).
In other words, he doesn't know what he is talking about.Please
Who are you to say this his point is piss-poor?
Are you saying he was fired for making a piss-poor point?

[there's a country song here]

[Arus808]

no, he was fired for not doing what he was telling his students to do. to follow the scientific method, in everything they do. instead, he publishes a report about WTC buildings being Controlled demo, without DOING just that.\

he is a fraud.

[Christopher7]

no, he was fired for not doing what he was telling his students to do. to follow the scientific method, in everything they do. instead, he publishes a report about WTC buildings being Controlled demo, without DOING just that.
he is a fraud.AZCat was talking about Kevin Ryan

You are referring to Stephen Jones.

Who are you to say he did not follow the scientific method?

Please point out where you think he did not follow the scientific method.

[Confuseling]

*2 PhD's, Prof. of Physics for 20 years [at a very conservative University]
It doesn't get any more qualified than that!


I could find you two PhDs in biology who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and people were manufactured out of clay. It wouldn't prove anything.

The unhappy fact you have to explain is that there are a vast number of nations and political entities who to varying degrees have an interest in the destruction of America.

To name a few: China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, The Taliban.

Any of them could commission their engineers to describe smoking gun evidence of a demolition, such as you allude to, in exhaustive detail.

You seem to believe that every US professional is in a conspiracy of silence, frightened for their lives or their careers. Can you really say the same about Al Qaeda or the Peoples Republics? They want to believe the US government were responsible, but they simply can't do it, plainly because it doesn't make sense. If they were afraid of repercussions, there's no difficulty doing it anonymously on the internet - besides which, if you honestly believe that the US army could retaliate against China while undergoing a revolution brought about by the revelation of one of the biggest crimes in history, you're not of this Earth. The silence is deafening. There is no evidence.

[AZCat]

UL would certainly test steel components that were representative of the ones that were to be used in the building.
Who said they did not test the steel components?

No, they didn't. Learn what the [rule10]ing difference between assemblies and components before making an ass of yourself. There's still time to admit you're wrong and save some face.


On Edit: Ryan was fired because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." (Paul Baker, UL spokesman)

[jaydeehess]

No
Last year ya'all were demanding statements by experts.

Now that there are lots of qualified experts speaking out,
you imply that qualifications don't mean anything.

:boggled:

Actually Gage was around last year and only parrot's Jones and others who have all been there for quite some time. So who is new?


In matters of explosives we asked for explosives experts. You had Jowenko but he stands pretty much alone in his feild in saying that any CD was involved.

We asked for structural engineers and got Judy Woods who's hypotheses are plain ridiculous, a point you seem in agreement on. Others have put forth Reynolds as an expert. His expertise is in economics and how that applies to any of the collapses is a stretch to say the least.

Griffin? A theologian?

Ryan's expertise was in water quality and he was making pronouncements about steel.

The pilots at P4T cannot do simple physics. Some even require basic math corrections(I once had to point out that someone had calculated a desent rate and it was 60 times to high. Care to guess why?)

Fire experts who have studied the towers are for the greatest part, in agreement that the steel was weakened by heat enough to cause the collapse.

Yes qualifications mean something, we all know that. The qualifications should be in relevent areas which can certainly mean,for example, that despite having a degree in structural engineering it does not make you an expert in steel building construction if your course of work is in dental amalgams. It certainly does not make you an expert on secret directed energy weapons.

As a physicist, Jones is qualified* to say that the the laws of physics eliminate the only other possibility:
Trade Towers collapsed under their own weight in 12 to 14 seconds.

*2 PhD's, Prof. of Physics for 20 years [at a very conservative University]
It doesn't get any more qualified than that!

It makes him an expert in physics. He can then state that the building took approx 10-20% longer to collapse than a chunk of steel falling from the top would take. That's about it. Once he delves into how long it 'should' have taken he is in a feild of expertise for which he has not had any training.


Bazant however does have that training and Bazant claims that the towers would collapse once initial failure had taken place. Others with relevent expertise have shown that fire would suffice, after aircraft impacts, to have caused that initial failure.
When Jones delves into the chemistry of thermite in a forensic situation, he is in another feild other than physics.


Ryan wrote his letter in such a way as to make it appear that it was from UL and not a personal opinion of someone who just happened to work at UL in unrelated division.

If I wrote a letter to the CRTC (Canadian equivalent to the FCC) on my station's letterhead and complained that they had made an error, I'd be out looking for a job in an unrelated feild within 20 minutes of head office finding out. That fact is Ryan tried to pass himself off as greater than he was and must not have thought that through. Basically he lied. If Bush can be said to have lied about Iraq seeking 'yellow cake', then Ryan lied about his position in UL.

[Christopher7]

I could find you two PhDs in biology who believe that the Earth is 6000 years old and people were manufactured out of clay. It wouldn't prove anything.S0 what?
If you are trying to sat Jones isn't qualified, it doesn't wash.

The unhappy fact you have to explain is that there are a vast number of nations and political entities who to varying degrees have an interest in the destruction of America.
To name a few: China, Iran, Syria, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Al Qaeda, Hizbollah, The Taliban.
Any of them could commission their engineers to describe smoking gun evidence of a demolition, such as you allude to, in exhaustive detail.Get serious.

You seem to believe that every US professional is in a conspiracy of silence, frightened for their lives or their careers.I have had professionals tell me just that. Many are not aware of the facts.
We have no way of telling what most professionals think.

[defaultdotxbe]

S0 what?
If you are trying to sat Jones isn't qualified, it doesn't wash.
hes not trying to say it, he IS saying it

on the subject of muon catalyzed cold fusion ill take jones's word over anyones, but when it comes to building collapses hes a little out of his area of expertise, understand?

[Confuseling]

Get serious.


Please explain what is wrong with my point.

[uk_dave]

I have had professionals tell me just that.
I don't believe you.

Many are not aware of the facts.
You mean, your 'facts'?
If you mean that you've actually spoken to structural engineers and that they are unaware of the NIST report I suggest you advise their governing body and, if you're feeling really devious, find out who provides their PI Insurance and let them know also.


We have no way of telling what most professionals think.

Yes we do. Professionals impacted by the implication of the wtc towers collapse are going to have something to say if they don't agree with the findings of NIST. They are not going to bother to say anything if they have no issue with the NIST findings.

Therefore, most professionals think the NIST report is fine.

Get over it.

[Christopher7]

Originally Posted by Christopher7 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=3569375#post3569375)
UL would certainly test steel components that were representative of the ones that were to be used in the building.
No, they didn't.[childish insult deleted].Source?


Who said they did not test the steel components?

On Edit: Ryan was fired because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL." (Paul Baker, UL spokesman)He did NOT say or indicate that his opinions were UL's opinions.

"Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.
As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements."

He is stating facts he had learned by reading reports and expressing his concerns.

[uk_dave]

Chris, you've really bought the lies of the 'truth' movement.

Try investigating it yourself. You know, no CT sites. Maybe contact UL and ask them.

Don't forget to mention the law suit brought by Ryan. That'll give them a giggle.

[Confuseling]

Please explain why the Chinese government isn't all over the clear proof that the US government was in on the attacks Christopher7.

I find this confusing. They would be the preeminent global superpower if they could incite a revolution in the US.

If I were them, that's what I'd do.

[Christopher7]

Actually Gage was around last year and only parrot's Jones and others who have all been there for quite some time. So who is new?He has gathered facts and evidence from many sources. Based on that evidence and his 20 years of experience, he believes the 3 buildings could not have fallen the way the did without explosives.
You are desperately trying to find a reason to deny his credibility.
It just doesn't wash.

In matters of explosives we asked for explosives experts. You had Jowenko but he stands pretty much alone in his feild in saying that any CD was involved.Thorin Wolf is an expert in explosives but you no doubt have a lame excuse to dismiss him too.
Let's face it, no matter how many experts like Jones, Gage and 300 architects and engineers, Jowenko, Jeff King etc. say something you can't deal with, you will find a reason to dismiss them out of hand.

We asked for structural engineers and got Judy Woods who's hypotheses are plain ridiculous,Can you spell 'strawman'?

Griffin? A theologian?Yes a theologian. He is an intelligent, educated person. He does not claim to be an expert, just a concerned citizen who sees the obvious flaws in the official story.

Ryan's expertise was in water quality and he was making pronouncements about steel. He did not claim to be an expert in steel.
He did some research, noted his sources and expressed his concerns.

The pilots at P4T cannot do simple physics. Some even require basic math corrections(I once had to point out that someone had calculated a desent rate and it was 60 times to high. Someone? who? when?
Please point out where P4T is wrong.

Fire experts who have studied the towers are for the greatest part, in agreement that the steel was weakened by heat enough to cause the collapse.Source?
NIST was NOT able to confirm steel framework temperatures in excess of 250° C.

Yes qualifications mean something, we all know that. The qualifications should be in relevent areas which can certainly mean,for example, that despite having a degree in structural engineering it does not make you an expert in steel building construction if your course of work is in dental amalgams.
There are experts in ALL relevant areas who say the official story is a crock. [or words to that effect]


It makes him an expert in physics. He can then state that the building took approx 10-20% longer to collapse than a chunk of steel falling from the top would take. That's about it. Once he delves into how long it 'should' have taken he is in a feild of expertise for which he has not had any training.He is qualified to say that the 3 buildings could not have fallen as fast as they did without explosives.
You are NOT qualified to say he is wrong.
You are again trying to deny what you can't deal with.

Bazant however does have that training and Bazant claims that the towers would collapse once initial failure had taken place. Source?
Others with relevent expertise have shown that fire would suffice, after aircraft impacts, to have caused that initial failure.Source?

When Jones delves into the chemistry of thermite in a forensic situation, he is in another feild other than physics.He is qualified to conduct tests for thermate and analyize results.
You seem to think that people know nothing outside their area of expertise.
Such is not the case.

Ryan wrote his letter in such a way as to make it appear that it was from UL and not a personal opinion of someone who just happened to work at UL in unrelated division.Wrong!
He made it clear that his concerns were his own.

If I wrote a letter to the CRTC (Canadian equivalent to the FCC) on my station's letterhead and complained that they had made an error, He did not say NIST was in error, he pointed out a discrepancy and expressed his concerns.

"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel. "

That fact is Ryan tried to pass himself off as greater than he was False.
Please point out where you think he misrepresented himself.

[Minadin]

Chris, you've really bought the lies of the 'truth' movement.

Try investigating it yourself. You know, no CT sites. Maybe contact UL and ask them.

Don't forget to mention the law suit brought by Ryan. That'll give them a giggle.

Indeed. But since Chris7 is unlikely to wish to recall all (or any) of that mess, I'll provide links and highlights here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90210&highlight=Kevin+Ryan
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation

Ryan admits that he sent the letter from UL, using UL email address, using his UL title, but says that he was stating his own opinion, not UL's


UL was entitled to fire him for his sending the letter to NIST
containing many false or unsubstantiated assertions" and "baseless
assertions" and "incredible and unsupported claims" because he
misrepresented his opinions as that of the company


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72610


Here's his original letter to Frank Gayle of the NIST -

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

And some excerpts:


As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.

Kevin Ryan actually uses his place of employment in his opening remark, presumably to gain the attention of Mr. Gayle.


We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.
Kevin Ryan flaunts his complete lack of knowledge about structural steel and its performance in fires at certain temperatures. Also, his ignorance as to how the UL tests steel. Which makes some sense considering that's certainly not his department.
This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.Now, he's implying that he is in fact representing the interests of UL in writing this letter.

But besides all this, Ryan is simply lying when he says that the UL certifies structural steel. He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle. How does he know, you might ask? Well, he was told as much by the manager of the building and fire safety department at UL, nearly a year before he drafted the above letter:

UL does not certify structural steel.

......The floor assembly in the World Trade Center was not was not a UL tested assembly.
http://resipsa2006.googlepages.com/55-5ExhibitCExcerptsfromemailcorresp.pdf

Of course, I can easily verify this, because I have sitting on my shelf in the back room at my office, a 3-volume copy of UL's Fire Resistance Directory - 2003. In its roughly 4,000 pages of listings of various types of assemblies, you will in no place find what is the innate fire resistance rating of a 22k7 steel bar joist. However, you will rather easily be able to discover what the rating will be after the application of various materials and methods to insulate it.

The UL doesn't test the steel. They don't certify the steel. They test assemblies. They give performance ratings and assembly numbers based on the results of the test, so that designers know what to expect when certain products are put together in a particular way. And, for anyone who might be curious, it should be noted that the UL certainly does not test any steel assemblies that are themselves used in any buildings later on. The tests tend to have a rather destructive effect on the steel, which renders it useless for the purposes it was designed.

[Dave Rogers]

Stephen Jones is a EXPERT on the laws of physics.
He is qualified to say "According to the laws of physics, the Trade Towers could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.
He doesn't need to know squat about explosives, only that the buildings could not have fallen the way they did without them.

Sadly, he then goes on to explain which of the laws of physics the collapse violates, and in what way, and gets it wrong [1]. In making his appeal to his own authority, he invalidates the very authority he's appealing to.

Dave

[1] Speaking as an expert on the laws of physics.

[uk_dave]

Thorin Wolf is an expert in explosives but you no doubt have a lame excuse to dismiss him too.


NO, he's not. Don't be a sheeple to the 'truth' movement chris.

WAKE UP!

Think for yourself.

You know people lie, right? Well the 'truth' movement is full of liars. You have to stop listening just because they tell you what you want to hear.

Think.
Question.

[defaultdotxbe]

Stephen Jones is a EXPERT on the laws of physics.
He is qualified to say "According to the laws of physics, the Trade Towers could not have collapsed the way they did without explosives.
He doesn't need to know squat about explosives, only that the buildings could not have fallen the way they did without them.
being an expert on the laws of physics doesnt qualify him to state what forces the materials and construction of the towers should and shouldnt have been able to withstand

He is also highly qualified to conduct experiments on WTC dust where he has found evidence of thermate.
being an expert on the laws of phsyics doesnt make him an expert in chemistry either

[DGM]

When did Jones confirm his evidence of "thermate" Chris?

Last I saw it was down to one of a dozen or so things. (all natural and expected no less)

[AZCat]

<wonderfully explicit response to C7 snipped for brevity>

Excellent work, Minadin. I'd just like to add that if anyone wants to read the 2008 version of ASTM E 119, it is available for $49(U.S.) from ASTM (http://www.astm.org/cgi-bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/REDLINE_PAGES/E119.htm?E+mystore). Previous (and superceded) versions are available for $58 from the same web site. For our friends across the water (and up north), it is important to note that the units in the standard are inch-pounds. Free unit converters are available on the internet for those who are unfamiliar with the IP system.

[boloboffin]

Anyway, back to the actual OP of this thread for an announcement:

Richard Gage has changed the slideshow available at his website AGAIN.

This is the third version, if you're keeping count. Several mistakes he had corrected in the second version, he has jumped back on board with in the third (most notably the "small fires in WTC 7"). I'm trying to make my way through the slideshow quickly, but the videos are being stored in a remarkably buggy way. Any video slide forces you to watch the entire video before proceeding.

Luckily, I was put out of typing action for a while due to a nasty dog bite. I didn't get very far with the debunking of the second slideshow (now no longer available on their website).

So due to life and the various shenanigans at AE911Truth, a complete slide-by-slide debunking may prove to be impossible. I will move forward as I can. The slides I've done so far will still apply to the new slideshow. But when I get this thing finished is anybody's guess. I imagine we'll get three more slideshows before the end of the year at this rate.

[jaydeehess]

He has gathered facts and evidence from many sources. Based on that evidence and his 20 years of experience, he believes the 3 buildings could not have fallen the way the did without explosives.
You are desperately trying to find a reason to deny his credibility.
It just doesn't wash.

Ryan steps out of his area of expertise quite frequently. In fact in the speech I saw he spent more time on such things as public opinion polls as on anything remotely connected to architecture.

His 20 years of expertise contain no evidence that he has worked on the construction of anything that one would regard as a large office building let alone any work on failure modes in such structures.

Thorin Wolf is an expert in explosives but you no doubt have a lame excuse to dismiss him too.

I did not say Jowenko was alone, I said pretty much alone. You know full well the other demolitions experts that counter Jowenko's and Wolf's contentions.

Let's face it, no matter how many experts like Jones, Gage and 300 architects and engineers, Jowenko, Jeff King etc. say something you can't deal with, you will find a reason to dismiss them out of hand.

I have not seen any compelling arguements from any of them. Nor have I seen any that look better than Bazant's or NIST's for example.

Can you spell 'strawman'?

She was the first 'structural engineer' that the TM put forth. That is hardly my fault Chris.

Yes a theologian. He is an intelligent, educated person. He does not claim to be an expert, just a concerned citizen who sees the obvious flaws in the official story.

So is Reynolds, you choose not to believe him.

He did not claim to be an expert in steel.
He did some research, noted his sources and expressed his concerns.


He sent the letter on UL letterhead. Nevertheless he fought his firing and the courts upheld UL's position. Ryan had every opportunity to explain his actions, he lost.


Someone? who? when?

Calls himself "Bill"
Says he is a Cessna pilot.
Sometime before I was banned at P4T for trying to get JDX et al to write a technical paper and submit it to "Aviation Week and Space Technology" or "Scientific American" or "Discover" or "Technology Review" in order to get their message out that the FDR data did not match the accepted flight path of Flight 77.

Please point out where P4T is wrong.

To start with, and most recently, in their contention that a flight path over the VDOT tower by Flt 77 would have required 11 g's on the airframe which would tear it apart. Their math was shown to be wrong, laughably wrong. They claim that they knew it was wrong before being shown by people here that it was indeed wrong. They claim they are working on correcting the math but have not taken the page down.

Source?
NIST was NOT able to confirm steel framework temperatures in excess of 250° C.

Eagar, "Fire Engineering" magazine come to mind

There are experts in ALL relevant areas who say the official story is a crock. [or words to that effect]

as well as experts in ALL relevent areas that say the various and diverse stories of the TM are a crock.[or words to that effect]


He is qualified to say that the 3 buildings could not have fallen as fast as they did without explosives.
You are NOT qualified to say he is wrong.
You are again trying to deny what you can't deal with.

No, he has no specofic training in explosives or explosive demolitions.

Source?

You want a source for Bazant's expertise? Look him up!
Source?
For others who have done research on fire behaviour in the towers? Try the signatories of the NIST report.


He is qualified to conduct tests for thermate and analyize results.
You seem to think that people know nothing outside their area of expertise.
Such is not the case.

Someone who is working outside their major area of expertise can indeed educate themselves to work in other areas. Why though would Jones state that the presence of sulphur IS the marker of thermite when in fact even the gypsum board of the towers contained sulphur? He has no experience in forensics.

[R.Mackey]

"Thorin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorin)" Wolf?

We got dwarves petitioning for a new investigation now..?

[jaydeehess]

From Torin Wolf - all round expert
Several slides are then presented that show the hard physics and observed time of WTC 2 falling. Worst-case scenario would require 0.5 seconds per floor for collapse. “The absolute minimum amount of time for a progressive collapse would be 43 seconds.” How long did it take for the building to fall in reality? About 8.6 Seconds
“For the towers to fall at so close to free fall speed, over 110,000 separate and independent structural support points had to fail simultaneously. 'Pancake theory' does NOT explain the failure of the cores.” Torin explains passionately, obviously upset with the lies being told to the American people. "Nothing is holding the building up - No resistance. 110,000 structural failures at the same time."


Note the bolds

First of all what he describes would require each floor collapse to come to a complete halt at the next level, if each floor took the same amount of time to collapse. There is absolutly no reason to require such a thing.(not to mention I don't know what math he used. 110 X 0.5 = 55 seconds) Is he only counting collapse from the 86th floor?

Next, 8.6 seconds? Really? Try 10-16 seconds depending on just how you are measuring the collapse after it is hidden by the dust cloud.

Lastly, if 110,000 structural failures occured all at the same time then the building would have collapsed all at the same time. That is to say that the 2nd floor would have started moving at the same time as the 90th. Given that such simply did not occur one has to wonder why he says it did.
Because he is correct in one thing. In order for a building to fall at "free fall speed" he would be correct to say that all floors would have to start moving at the same time. But since that observation does not apply here neither does his contention.

ETA: one needs only high school physics to show that Wolf is in error

[Christopher7]

Sadly, he then goes on to explain which of the laws of physics the collapse violates, and in what way, and gets it wrong [1]. In making his appeal to his own authority, he invalidates the very authority he's appealing to.
Dave
[1] Speaking as an expert on the laws of physics.An anonymous poster claims to be an expert and says the Professor of 20 years with 2 PhD's is wrong about everything.

There's a bit of a credibility gap here.

[WildCat]

There's a bit of a credibility gap here.
There sure is! Your "experts" had to create their own "journal" to publish their "scientific papers" in. What does that tell you Chris?

[R.Mackey]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Dr. Steven Jones only has one Ph.D., and since his many writings in the (possibly eponymous) "Journal" of Nine-Eleven Studies" have been exposed here over and over again, there is no credibility gap whatsoever. Dr. Jones's beliefs were also disputed en masse by the structural engineering department at his own university.

The man's writings are false. His credentials are therefore irrelevant, except in that he surely should have known better.

[AZCat]

Unless I'm greatly mistaken, Dr. Steven Jones only has one Ph.D., and since his many writings in the (possibly eponymous) "Journal" of Nine-Eleven Studies" have been exposed here over and over again, there is no credibility gap whatsoever. Dr. Jones's beliefs were also disputed en masse by the structural engineering department at his own university.

The man's writings are false. His credentials are therefore irrelevant, except in that he surely should have known better.

You are correct. For some reason Jones' c.v. (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm) is still posted on the BYU website. He lists only one PhD (and I hope Steven Jones is an acceptable source for C7 regarding the degrees obtained by Steven Jones).

The original statement posted on the BYU College of Engineering and Technology (http://www.et.byu.edu/) has been taken down, but this article from the BYU NewsNet (http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724) says the following regarding the statement (the article was written while it was still up)
Not long after this spate of interviews, BYU’s College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences posted a statement on its Web site stressing Jones’ right to publish what he wished while distancing itself from Jones’ current research. That statement has since been removed, but a similar one is still online at the College of Engineering and Technology’s Web site.
“The University is aware that Professor Steven Jones’s hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU’s own faculty members,” it reads in part.
“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”
Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written.
(emphasis mine)

[Christopher7]

Indeed. But since Chris7 is unlikely to wish to recall all (or any) of that mess, I'll provide links and highlights here:Quite the contrary, thank you and LashL for the URL's

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=90210&highlight=Kevin+Ryan
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81508&highlight=Ryan+litigation

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=72610

Here's his original letter to Frank Gayle of the NIST -
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php


He's an ignorant, lying, liar. And what makes him a liar is that he knows that he's lying when he makes these ridiculous statements to Dr. Gayle. Thomas Chapin PhD General Manager, Fire and Construction SBU - UL Inc. to Kevin Ryan – 12-1-03
UL does not certify structural steel. Structural steel meeting the appropriate ASTM designations are* used as * component in assemblies tested by UL. The assemblies consist of a structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.
i.e. an ‘assembly’ is a [singular] structural component protected with some type of fire resistant material.

Ryan used the word ‘components’ rather than the word ‘assemblies’ in his first sentence.
You ignored the qualifying statement later in the paragraph and called him a liar.

*incorrect word/phrase, should be: “Structural steel ……. is used as a component in assemblies”


For those of you with reading impairments;

“the samples we certified” modifies and clarifies the statement;

“the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.”

************************************************** *

Kevin Ryan to Dr. Gayle, 11-11-04
Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements.

Loring Knoblauch, CEO of UL, to Ryan 11-15-04
“We tested the steel with all the required fireproofing on and it did fine.”


It’s perfectly clear that Ryan and Knoblauch were referring to the steel samples/assemblies that UL tested.

[Christopher7]

You are correct. For some reason Jones' c.v. (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/atomic/physics1/atomic/jones_cv.htm) is still posted on the BYU website. He lists only one PhD (and I hope Steven Jones is an acceptable source for C7 regarding the degrees obtained by Steven Jones).I read somewhere that he had 2 PhD's. If he only has 1, it does not lessen his experience, expertise or credibility.
No one here is qualified to refute Prof. Jones or his findings.
but
Personal incredulity won't let you accept what any 'twoofer' expert says.
i.e. No matter how qualified or how many experts question the official story, I will NOT believe that Bush & Cheney are lying about 9/11 and the War on Terror.

The original statement posted on the BYU College of Engineering and Technology (http://www.et.byu.edu/) has been taken down, but this article from the BYU NewsNet (http://www.newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724) says the following regarding the statement (the article was written while it was still up)
(emphasis mine)So
Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both say:

“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.”

It appears that the someone [the administration?] did not approve of the post because they took it down.
How many of the structural engineering faculty and administrators besides Steve and Rick signed on to this post?