ATTN: All CTers, BRAIN TEASE FOR YOU!!

[triforcharity]

Alright all you CTists, or whatever you want to be called.


I have ONE question for you. (this may have been answered already, but I am new)

Why, if fire cannot have negative effects on steel, does the NYCBC (New York City Building Code) REQUIRE fireproofing on steel in a highrise building??


Why is that??? Seems like it would be a waste of ALOT of money! Right??

That would be like me, living in Florida, and building my roof to withstand a snowstorm, or having tire chains on my car.
Doesn't make sense does it???

[alexi_drago]

Richard Gage has already debunked this in the talks he gives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpXI3zaNSZI&feature=related

About 3 mins into that he shows a video of a test of the effects of an office fire on steel. However the test shows the effects on heavy short span steel members but it's not too difficult to imagine what the effects would be on much longer span slender steel elements.

[Oliver]

Why, if fire cannot have negative effects on steel, does the NYCBC (New York City Building Code) REQUIRE fireproofing on steel in a highrise building??


[CT'ist mode]The Building Code was part of the 9/11 Conspiracy[/CT'ist mode]

[Oliver]

it's not too difficult to imagine what the effects would be on much longer span slender steel elements.


[CT'ist mode]They would turn into dust? Oh, come on![/CT'ist mode] :p

[MRC_Hans]

ATTN: All CTers, BRAIN TEASE FOR YOU!!


Here is your problem.

Hans

[T.A.M.]

[CT'ist mode]The Building Code was part of the 9/11 Conspiracy[/CT'ist mode]

exactly. According to CT lore, the fireproofing was merely another way to allow the NWO to create wealth for the big corps (in this case the giant fire proofing industry). Imagine all the money made in NYC alone, using a product that served no purpose, but you could charge a fortune for.

Of course the NWO could have gotten away with killing people with the asbestos too, until those no good activists got in the way!!!!


Wahhhhahhhaahaahaaa!!!!

TAM;)

[Josarhus]

I have for some time now, discussed 9/11 CT on the Danish engineer’s forum, and within the last two weeks Niels Harrit himself joined the debate, which gave me an opportunity to ask him some questions. Some relating to the subject in this tread.

First I asked him if any other plane in history, has ever hit a high rise steel structure with the same speed and mass, as they did on 9/11.

His answer (All his answers are Google translated from Danish to English):

“No, for the simple reason that it is not possible to hit a building-size and similar design as WTC1 and 2 with a manually controlled aircraft of this size and speed. Especially not if the pilot is amateur.”

The reason why I asked this question was that he made the usual CT statement, that no high rise steel building in history was ever brought down by fire. I also asked him if it was “good science” to compare other high rise building fires with WTC, since non other burning building in history where hit by fast moving commercial airplanes and to that he replied:

“Yes, all the time that damage to the central pillars of the towers acc. NIST was not critical.
Yes, all the time the towers under no circumstances would coincide in the observed manner, regardless of how much the mechanical injury was. NIST does not explain the tower's collapse. Their report includes simply not itself collapsed.
Yes, all the time WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft.”

And now we get to the part relevant to this tread. I asked him, if he saw no problem in comparing building fires, with out taking into account how the buildings where build and designed and without taking into account other factors like planes hitting them first and to this he answered:

“Thin trials. Have been reported between 400 and 600 fires in steel-based towers (including a fire over 11 floors of WTC1 in 1975) and I guess that none of all these towers were constructed in the same way.
It resembles a fact that steel-based towers not collapse due to fire - regardless of their design. I do not know why they fire insolate the steel structure. It merely delays the heating of steel in one hour. There must be money in it.”

In other words, Niels Harrit does not understand why fire insulation is necessary in steel structures, since, in his mind, insulation only delays the heating of the steel by one hour.

This naturally led me to ask him about his knowledge of the specific fire insulation in WTC, which he refused to answer and instead wrote this:

Be sweet now and give a single example of a steel-based high-rise building collapsed because of fire, whether it was fire insulated or not. Construction in the Cardington experiments were not insulated.

To make a long story short, Niels Harrit knows absolutely nothing about fire insulation and why it is a requirement and it seems to be the standard of the Truth movement.

On an other note, I also asked him several other questions on other WTC maters, which lead him to state the classic CT arguments like that the bomb sniffing dogs where removed from WTC two weeks before 9/11 and that according to a Wikipedia correction allegedly made by American Airlines, flight 11 and 77 did not fly at all on 9/11.

After clearly explaining to him about the bomb sniffing dogs and the Wiki correction and since many others also join in the debate with very qualified questions, Niels Harrit clearly became more and more desperate and he seems to have withdrawn from the debate.

Last but not least, When I advised him to visit this forum, to discuss his nano paper he replied:

“I have other things to do, than to poke around the swamp on JREF forum.”

[triforcharity]

The reason that the fireproofing is raated for one hour is simple.

Last time I checked, the resonse time for most fire departments was WELL UNDER one hour. It gives the firefighters extra time to fight the fire. It makes absolute sense that other steel buildings haven't collapsed. They had FIREFIGHTERS doing their JOB of FIGHTING THE FIRES!!

There was little to no firefighting going on on 9/11. Heck, I waas there, and I don't even think that I picked up a hose the first 12 hours that I was there.

[Josarhus]

There was little to no firefighting going on on 9/11. Heck, I waas there, and I don't even think that I picked up a hose the first 12 hours that I was there.

I am quote sure that the lack of fire fighting on 9/11, also is a fact that Niels Harrit and his friends don’t take into account.

And if they do, then it’s surely, in their minds, part of the NWO plan.

[alienentity]

I am quote sure that the lack of fire fighting on 9/11, also is a fact that Niels Harrit and his friends don’t take into account.

And if they do, then it’s surely, in their minds, part of the NWO plan.

Duh. It's a fact that Larry Silverstein ordered FDNY to pull down building 7.

[T.A.M.]

Josarhus Wrote:



Niels Harrit and fire insulation

I have for some time now, discussed 9/11 CT on the Danish engineer’s forum, and within the last two weeks Niels Harrit himself joined the debate, which gave me an opportunity to ask him some questions. Some relating to the subject in this tread.

First I asked him if any other plane in history, has ever hit a high rise steel structure with the same speed and mass, as they did on 9/11.

His answer (All his answers are Google translated from Danish to English):

Originally Posted by Niels_Harrit
“No, for the simple reason that it is not possible to hit a building-size and similar design as WTC1 and 2 with a manually controlled aircraft of this size and speed. Especially not if the pilot is amateur.”

Well if it isn't possible, why bring up the whole "amateur" angle. This is his first lie. He obviously has no idea what he is talking about here, and should simply shut up.


The reason why I asked this question was that he made the usual CT statement, that no high rise steel building in history was ever brought down by fire. I also asked him if it was “good science” to compare other high rise building fires with WTC, since non other burning building in history where hit by fast moving commercial airplanes and to that he replied:

Originally Posted by Niels_Harrit
“Yes, all the time that damage to the central pillars of the towers acc. NIST was not critical.
Yes, all the time the towers under no circumstances would coincide in the observed manner, regardless of how much the mechanical injury was. NIST does not explain the tower's collapse. Their report includes simply not itself collapsed.
Yes, all the time WTC7 was not hit by an aircraft.”


1. It was not "critical" in the sense that the structural damage caused by the impacts themselves, ALONE, did not cause the collapse. They were CRITICAL, in the sense that without them, (A) no structural damage to help compromise the structure from a load bearing capacity would have occurred, and (B) the removal of fireproofing would not have occurred, and only the fires themselves would be at work, against fully in place fireproofing.

2. the rest of his tripe is just that, unsupported, ignorant, out of his area of expertise TRIPE. Tell him to prove it or shut up.


And now we get to the part relevant to this tread. I asked him, if he saw no problem in comparing building fires, with out taking into account how the buildings where build and designed and without taking into account other factors like planes hitting them first and to this he answered:

Originally Posted by Niels_Harrit
“Thin trials. Have been reported between 400 and 600 fires in steel-based towers (including a fire over 11 floors of WTC1 in 1975) and I guess that none of all these towers were constructed in the same way.
It resembles a fact that steel-based towers not collapse due to fire - regardless of their design. I do not know why they fire insolate the steel structure. It merely delays the heating of steel in one hour. There must be money in it.”
In other words, Niels Harrit does not understand why fire insulation is necessary in steel structures, since, in his mind, insulation only delays the heating of the steel by one hour.

I can quote an imaginary study as well. Tell him to provide a link or a reference to this magical study so you can read it for yourself. As well, like you have said, the plane impacts...structural damage, removal of fireproofing, were unique to the WTC collapses.


This naturally led me to ask him about his knowledge of the specific fire insulation in WTC, which he refused to answer and instead wrote this:

Well of course he did. He probably has not even read the executive summaries of the NIST report.


Originally Posted by Niels_Harrit
Be sweet now and give a single example of a steel-based high-rise building collapsed because of fire, whether it was fire insulated or not. Construction in the Cardington experiments were not insulated.
To make a long story short, Niels Harrit knows absolutely nothing about fire insulation and why it is a requirement and it seems to be the standard of the Truth movement.

Bingo. See how he did the good old "Burden of Proof Shift" on you like that...very well used truther tactic.


On an other note, I also asked him several other questions on other WTC maters, which lead him to state the classic CT arguments like that the bomb sniffing dogs where removed from WTC two weeks before 9/11 and that according to a Wikipedia correction allegedly made by American Airlines, flight 11 and 77 did not fly at all on 9/11.

Yah blah blah blah. Did a Richard Gage on you....a Jim Fetzer.


After clearly explaining to him about the bomb sniffing dogs and the Wiki correction and since many others also join in the debate with very qualified questions, Niels Harrit clearly became more and more desperate and he seems to have withdrawn from the debate.

surprise surprise.


Last but not least, When I advised him to visit this forum, to discuss his nano paper he replied:

Originally Posted by Niels_Harrit
“I have other things to do, than to poke around the swamp on JREF forum.”


Haha...clearly he reads these forums, and knows where not to go if he wants to win an argument on any of it.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Duh. It's a fact that Larry Silverstein ordered FDNY to pull down building 7.

yer suppose to put in [sarcasm] brackets for the newbies...

TAM;)

[Dave_46]

Josharus

with reference to the quote you give from Niels Harrit

Be sweet now and give a single example of a steel-based high-rise building collapsed because of fire, whether it was fire insulated or not. Construction in the Cardington experiments were not insulated.

You should be aware of the following points:

1) construction of the Cardington steel framed building was very different from the WTC. It was erected in the 1990's (I joined BRE in 1991 and construction started after then) to reflect what was common practice then.

2) Although the fires were to test the effects of fire on unprotected steel there was protection applied to some members, so that the parts of interest in any particular tests could be isolated.

3) The fires were much smaller than in the WTC. The largest fire covered about half of ONE floor of the building. Even so we were not permitted to remain inside the laboratory during the test (for safety reasons).

4) The steel building had NOT been compromised by severe structural damage.

Disclaimer - I was not directly involved in the test series, but was able to witness two of the tests, including the big one.

Dave

[Josarhus]

Well if it isn't possible, why bring up the whole "amateur" angle. This is his first lie. He obviously has no idea what he is talking about here, and should simply shut up.

TAM:)

To support his claim, that it was impossible, he linked to “Patriots Question 911”, where Hosni Mubarak is quoted:


Article 10/25/01: "I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission, not someone who learned to fly for 18 months in Florida."

He also linked to a YouTube video: “Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks” with some pilots or instructors saying that it can’t be done with a commercial airliner, based on simulations.

In all Niels Harrits main point was that it can’t be done with humans flying the planes.

I of course then asked Niels Harrit, if he stills sees it as impossible, since Hosni Mubarak says that it IS possible.

Niels Harrit replied that I should watch the YouTube video once again, and then asked me how I could even know that there where pilots in the cockpits. Later on he even stated that there where no documentation supporting that pilots, Hijackers and the passengers where even on the planes.

At that point I felt I had reached my goal, displaying Niels Harrit as a complete nutcase.

[Josarhus]

Josharus

with reference to the quote you give from Niels Harrit



You should be aware of the following points:

1) construction of the Cardington steel framed building was very different from the WTC. It was erected in the 1990's (I joined BRE in 1991 and construction started after then) to reflect what was common practice then.

2) Although the fires were to test the effects of fire on unprotected steel there was protection applied to some members, so that the parts of interest in any particular tests could be isolated.

3) The fires were much smaller than in the WTC. The largest fire covered about half of ONE floor of the building. Even so we were not permitted to remain inside the laboratory during the test (for safety reasons).

4) The steel building had NOT been compromised by severe structural damage.

Disclaimer - I was not directly involved in the test series, but was able to witness two of the tests, including the big one.

Dave

Thanks Dave!

I will post your points, and see if Niels Harrit has any comments, but I doubt it!

[BigAl]

Thanks Dave!

I will post your points, and see if Niels Harrit has any comments, but I doubt it!

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when comparred to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

We also have this quote from one of the WTC design project managers.

Recently, Henry Guthard, 70, one of Yamasaki's original partners who also worked as the project manager at the [WTC] site, said, "To hit the
building, to disappear, to have pieces come out the other side, it was amazing the building stood. To defend against 5,000 (sic) gallons of
ignited fuel in a building of 1350 feet is just not possible.

http://snurl.com/j54gc (Bottom of page 188)

[alienentity]

Niels Harrit replied that I should watch the YouTube video once again, and then asked me how I could even know that there where pilots in the cockpits. Later on he even stated that there where no documentation supporting that pilots, Hijackers and the passengers where even on the planes.

At that point I felt I had reached my goal, displaying Niels Harrit as a complete nutcase.

There were planes?

[alienentity]

In Report From Ground Zero (pgs 310-311), FDNY structures expert Vincent Dunn describes how the WTC towers had effectively no fireproofing when comparred to the older steel buildings, built to standards that required 2 inches of brick and masonry on all structural steel. Dunn also says that the WTC towers were unique in the minimal fireproofing.

We also have this quote from one of the WTC design project managers.

Also see this discussion w/ARTHUR SCHEUERMAN and Mark Roberts
9AN70mK9Jdw

[Toke]

Could I get a link to that danish site?
(not that I am an engineer, but I do read danish)

[Josarhus]

Could I get a link to that danish site?
(not that I am an engineer, but I do read danish)

I can't post links yet.

But have a look at ingeniøren.dk. Under "debat", you will find several debates involving 9/11.

The one with Niels Harrit you will find under: "Rendyrket vrøvleartikel antaget ukritisk af videnskabeligt tidsskrift"

[Toke]

Mange tak, det kigger jeg på. (fin titel)

[Toke]

Interresting, Niels Harrit comes across as not very convincing.

[alienentity]

Interresting, Niels Harrit comes across as not very convincing.

Hi, would you mind looking at this video and verifying that the english subtitles are accurate?
I've annotated my comments right on the vid. It was on a truther channel and they didn't allow me to comment, so I made a clone. I've done this a few times for the same reason, starting with David Chandler's NIST video.

thx
AE

jL7xYx8M7GA

[T.A.M.]

To support his claim, that it was impossible, he linked to “Patriots Question 911”, where Hosni Mubarak is quoted:



He also linked to a YouTube video: “Pilots Discuss Difficulty of WTC Attacks” with some pilots or instructors saying that it can’t be done with a commercial airliner, based on simulations.

In all Niels Harrits main point was that it can’t be done with humans flying the planes.

I of course then asked Niels Harrit, if he stills sees it as impossible, since Hosni Mubarak says that it IS possible.

Niels Harrit replied that I should watch the YouTube video once again, and then asked me how I could even know that there where pilots in the cockpits. Later on he even stated that there where no documentation supporting that pilots, Hijackers and the passengers where even on the planes.

At that point I felt I had reached my goal, displaying Niels Harrit as a complete nutcase.

Bingo!!!!

Add another one to the pile. The nutcase pile is gettin' mighty big over in trutherville these days... take a look at this guy,

http://www.militaryremoteviewers.com/remote-viewing-as-a-research-tool.html

TAM:)

[Toke]

Hi, would you mind looking at this video and verifying that the english subtitles are accurate?
I've annotated my comments right on the vid. It was on a truther channel and they didn't allow me to comment, so I made a clone. I've done this a few times for the same reason, starting with David Chandler's NIST video.

thx
AE

jL7xYx8M7GA

The translation is not litterate or that accurate, but close enough.

[Josarhus]

Josharus

with reference to the quote you give from Niels Harrit



You should be aware of the following points:

1) construction of the Cardington steel framed building was very different from the WTC. It was erected in the 1990's (I joined BRE in 1991 and construction started after then) to reflect what was common practice then.

2) Although the fires were to test the effects of fire on unprotected steel there was protection applied to some members, so that the parts of interest in any particular tests could be isolated.

3) The fires were much smaller than in the WTC. The largest fire covered about half of ONE floor of the building. Even so we were not permitted to remain inside the laboratory during the test (for safety reasons).

4) The steel building had NOT been compromised by severe structural damage.

Disclaimer - I was not directly involved in the test series, but was able to witness two of the tests, including the big one.

Dave

Hey Dave,

Niels Harrit replied a few hours ago, so he is definitely still following the debate.

His answer (translated):

All the more than 400 steel constructions, that DID NOT collapse due to fire were different: Conclusion: A high rise steel based building do not collapse due to fire, no matter the design or fire insulation.

Only 7 of the 57 exterior columns in WTC7 (southwest corner) were damaged. Read the NIST rapport. The damage had no impact on the event according to NIST. According to NIST the collapse started on floors 12 to 13, northeast corner in column 79.

[Justin39640]

Hey Dave,

Niels Harrit replied a few hours ago, so he is definitely still following the debate.

His answer (translated):

did you ask him
"why then bother to fireproof it?"
its not like the steel will ignite and transfer the flames to another area

based on that statement alone i think ole niels needs to do some homework

please mention to him that steel structures HAVE collapsed due to fire just no highrises as of yet other than at the WTC (due to complex fire protection systems and response times of the PROFESSIONAL FIRE FIGHTERS to deal with it
the fact that smaller steel structures (such as the convention center in chicago i think?)
you would think its entirely possible that a high rise could collapse due to a fire (with the loads and complexity much higher)
esp a fire that wasnt fought

when he brings up the madrid fire
remind him that all of the steel structure collapsed and only the concrete core remained (above the mechanical floor at 17 if i remember correctly)
and there was no planes that hit it

i think hes suffering from delusions of grandeur and a major superiority complex
(due to the media attention and by his attitude toward interviewers)

there was another video i had wondered if the translation was accurate
it was his 1st interview
could ya? ty :)

8_tf25lx_3o

[Toke]

The translation is an approcmation getting most of the keywords and the general point.
I am not sure if I could do it much better, translations are genneraly not litterate.

I did not notice any glaring errors.

[alienentity]

The translation is an approcmation getting most of the keywords and the general point.
I am not sure if I could do it much better, translations are genneraly not litterate.

I did not notice any glaring errors.

Many thanks. btw do you mean 'literal' when you write 'litterate'?

[Toke]

Yes :o

[Dave_46]

Hey Dave,

Niels Harrit replied a few hours ago, so he is definitely still following the debate.

His answer (translated):

I don't think I can add anything beyond what Justin said.

Dave

[Josarhus]

did you ask him
"why then bother to fireproof it?"
its not like the steel will ignite and transfer the flames to another area

Well he did previously comment on that:

I actually do not understand why fire insulation is necessary. It only delays the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it.

A far as I Know, the one hour claim is false and as triforcharity pointed out, even one hour gives the fire fighters that extra time, that makes the difference.

i think hes suffering from delusions of grandeur and a major superiority complex
(due to the media attention and by his attitude toward interviewers)

I agree, and his answers in the debate on the Danish engineers forum supports that observation.

[Toke]

I like the part (5,30-6,00) where the journalist wonder why nobody (portner/security) noticed the 10-100 tons of nanothermite being brought in on pallets.

[Josarhus]

Toke,

I asked Niels Harrit a similar question, pointing out that bomb sniffing dogs would notice explosives in the WTC, and that it would be impossible to get so many tons into and placed in the WTC, without anybody noticing it.

He replied that the bomb sniffing dogs were removed two weeks prior to 9/11. He also said that 50.000 people worked in the WTC, so supplies to the buildings would be normal, and that “they” would not write “explosive for demolition of high rise buildings” on the boxes being brought in. Further more he encouraged me to have a look at the company responsible for security at the WTC, they apparently had both the presidents brother Marvin Bush and his cousin Wirt Walker involved.

He did not explain the relevance of the Bush connection to WTC security, but it seems clear what his point was. I only made comments about the bomb sniffing dogs being removed!

One thing is bringing so much “unusual office supply” into the building, another is placing it and connecting the fuses. Unfortunately the journalist did not ask that question, so we missed a potentially good laugh.

[Toke]

I guess that TV2-news had a really slow day, and decided harrit would make a good story.

And yes it would have been fun getting him to explain the bit about digging through the fire insulation to get at the colums, and then pulling wires around the floors. Particulary the part about getting wires through the seperation of floors.
Those are either fireproof cement or compressed rubber gaskets, impossible to open again after a few years.

[JoeTheJuggler]

[CT'ist mode]The Building Code was part of the 9/11 Conspiracy[/CT'ist mode]

Of course! That fire retardant coating is the perfect place to hide thermite!

It all makes sense!!!

[alienentity]

I guess that TV2-news had a really slow day, and decided harrit would make a good story.

And yes it would have been fun getting him to explain the bit about digging through the fire insulation to get at the colums, and then pulling wires around the floors. Particulary the part about getting wires through the seperation of floors.
Those are either fireproof cement or compressed rubber gaskets, impossible to open again after a few years.

I thought they were supposed to be standard, radio controlled nanothermite charges. No wiring was needed, right?

I've also heard Steven Jones scoffing about sniffer dogs, because they aren't trained to sniff out thermite. Elsewhere (to Dr. Frank Greening) he's claimed the nanothermite might have been just a fuse for conventional explosives - in which case the dogs would be a problem.
Maybe he hopes nobody will notice the contradictions...

[Josarhus]

Since I also saw Steven Jones say that the nano thermite might just have been a fuse for regular explosives, I asked Niels Harrit how in his mind the nano thermite were used, as fuse or primary explosive?

He replied that “we” don’t know, both are possible and he added as an example that thermite is used as “electrical matches”

His answer should be compared to his interviews a few months back, when nano thermite was the primary and only explosive, that brought down the 3 WTC buildings.

They clearly have a problem, because they also know (I guess!) that nano thermite alone will not do the job and regular explosives would be impossible to get past the dogs. So the nano theory gets stranded without giving them the attention they seek. The lack of attention probably bothers them more than not exposing “the inside job”.

[Josarhus]

I guess that TV2-news had a really slow day, and decided harrit would make a good story.

They are journalist, what do you expect?!

So often journalist miss asking the obvious questions because they know nothing on the subject involved in the interview. And other times questions are simply avoided because it turns the story in a direction that they don't intend to go.

[alienentity]

Since I also saw Steven Jones say that the nano thermite might just have been a fuse for regular explosives, I asked Niels Harrit how in his mind the nano thermite were used, as fuse or primary explosive?

He replied that “we” don’t know, both are possible and he added as an example that thermite is used as “electrical matches”

His answer should be compared to his interviews a few months back, when nano thermite was the primary and only explosive, that brought down the 3 WTC buildings.

They clearly have a problem, because they also know (I guess!) that nano thermite alone will not do the job and regular explosives would be impossible to get past the dogs. So the nano theory gets stranded without giving them the attention they seek. The lack of attention probably bothers them more than not exposing “the inside job”.

Cool. makes you wonder why thermite was needed at all, in that case, huh? Seems an awful lot of bother when you can just use conventional blasting caps. I guess the NWO likes to do things the hard way...:confused:

[alienentity]

They are journalist, what do you expect?!

So often journalist miss asking the obvious questions because they know nothing on the subject involved in the interview. And other times questions are simply avoided because it turns the story in a direction that they don't intend to go.

The folks at NWO headquarters must be asleep at the switch, letting Danish TV uncover the 'truth' like this.

[triforcharity]

I thought they were supposed to be standard, radio controlled nanothermite charges. No wiring was needed, right?

I've also heard Steven Jones scoffing about sniffer dogs, because they aren't trained to sniff out thermite. Elsewhere (to Dr. Frank Greening) he's claimed the nanothermite might have been just a fuse for conventional explosives - in which case the dogs would be a problem.
Maybe he hopes nobody will notice the contradictions...

Isn't it amazing that pretty much every group of CT believe something different??

BTW, FDNY had problems with communication in the towers prior to 9/11. The radios wouldn't work above the 15-20th floor IIRC. They had a repeater installed, but it had to be manually turned on. Problem was, the circuitry that it ran off was having issues that day due to a plane crashing into the building. Some radio traffic would go through, but some would get lost. I remember a few months BEFORE 9/11 having a medical emergency on like the 33rd floor. I tried to caall down to let the box (Ambulance) know that we would need certain equipment. Lo and behold, they never got the message, and didn't bring the stuff because my FREAKING RADIO WOULDN'T WORK!! So, how could radio-controlled Hush-A-Boom™ work if our 1.8 Ghz radios NOT work???? Hummmmm................

[Oliver]

Of course! That fire retardant coating is the perfect place to hide thermite!

It all makes sense!!!


[CT'ist mode]Well, actually the coating itself is made of nano-remotecontrolled thermite so the government can blow up every building at any point in time. That's what the whole New York City Building Code was all about when it came into law.[/CT'ist mode]

[Josarhus]

[CT'ist mode]Well, actually the coating itself is made of nano-remotecontrolled thermite so the government can blow up every building at any point in time. That's what the whole New York City Building Code was all about when it came into law.[/CT'ist mode]

That explains why Niels Harrits sees fire proofing as unnecessary! The conspiracy gets even bigger :jaw-dropp

[Juniversal]

[CT'ist mode]Well, actually the coating itself is made of nano-remotecontrolled thermite so the government can blow up every building at any point in time. That's what the whole New York City Building Code was all about when it came into law.[/CT'ist mode]That was always a humorous spin to me. To apply the "nano-Thermite" to a beam it would likely have to mix it with another substance (a primer or the like) that would likely dillute its effect and make it that much harder or impossible to ignite. Not to mention the rediculous number of layers that would be required to do any adverse structural damage to the thick steel is laughable.

[Rogue1stclass]

Originally Posted by Hosni Mubarak
Article 10/25/01: "I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air, the size of a pencil. Only a professional pilot could carry out this mission, not someone who learned to fly for 18 months in Florida."

Do we have particularly bad flight schools in Florida or something? Should I be worried that there is an airport right near my house?

[triforcharity]

No, flight schools are very tightly scrutinized by the FAA. They look at everything a pilot learns. Its very well documented as faar as skills testing goes.

BTW, Florida has some of the best flight schools in the country here. Thanks!!

(I am biased, I live in Florida)